<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_09_0341208</id>
	<title>Politicians Worldwide Asking Questions About ACTA</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263042660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Legislators around the world are <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4671/125/">demanding more information</a> on the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. US Senator Ron Wyden demanded answers in a <a href="http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Wyden\_Letter\_to\_USTR\_on\_ACTA\_Jan\_2010.pdf">letter to the USTR</a> (PDF) this week, ACTA <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100107/text/100107w0020.htm#10010771000001">arose in the UK House of Commons yesterday</a>,
and French Deputy Nicolas Dupont-Aignan <a href="http://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q13/13-67546QE.htm">raised ACTA questions</a> in the National Assembly late last year. All of this comes on top of earlier efforts from <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+QT+H-2009-0089+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN">Swedish Member of the European Parliament Jens Holm</a>, as well as New Zealand MP Clare Curran, who has repeatedly <a href="http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/12/16/acta-secrecy-copyright-and-delays/?utm\_source=wordtwit&amp;utm\_medium=social&amp;utm\_campaign=wordtwit">raised</a> <a href="http://labour.org.nz/news/what\%E2\%80\%99s-going-acta">concerns</a> about ACTA, and NDP MP Charlie Angus, who <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSzpHI5ZRO0">posed questions</a> about ACTA in the Canadian House of Commons late last year."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Legislators around the world are demanding more information on the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement .
US Senator Ron Wyden demanded answers in a letter to the USTR ( PDF ) this week , ACTA arose in the UK House of Commons yesterday , and French Deputy Nicolas Dupont-Aignan raised ACTA questions in the National Assembly late last year .
All of this comes on top of earlier efforts from Swedish Member of the European Parliament Jens Holm , as well as New Zealand MP Clare Curran , who has repeatedly raised concerns about ACTA , and NDP MP Charlie Angus , who posed questions about ACTA in the Canadian House of Commons late last year .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Legislators around the world are demanding more information on the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.
US Senator Ron Wyden demanded answers in a letter to the USTR (PDF) this week, ACTA arose in the UK House of Commons yesterday,
and French Deputy Nicolas Dupont-Aignan raised ACTA questions in the National Assembly late last year.
All of this comes on top of earlier efforts from Swedish Member of the European Parliament Jens Holm, as well as New Zealand MP Clare Curran, who has repeatedly raised concerns about ACTA, and NDP MP Charlie Angus, who posed questions about ACTA in the Canadian House of Commons late last year.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30713012</id>
	<title>Re:The Senate is Taking Refuge in Audacity</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263065880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Speak for yourself. Here in the US we still have our firearms<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div><p>You can wake us up when you have actually successfully used them for the purpose you claim they're intended to be used. So far all we see is Americans boasting of having guns so that they can revolt, but no actual revolt taking place no matter how deep they're ass-raped.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speak for yourself .
Here in the US we still have our firearms ; ) You can wake us up when you have actually successfully used them for the purpose you claim they 're intended to be used .
So far all we see is Americans boasting of having guns so that they can revolt , but no actual revolt taking place no matter how deep they 're ass-raped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speak for yourself.
Here in the US we still have our firearms ;)You can wake us up when you have actually successfully used them for the purpose you claim they're intended to be used.
So far all we see is Americans boasting of having guns so that they can revolt, but no actual revolt taking place no matter how deep they're ass-raped.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30711128</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to have the spotlight shone on ACTA..</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1263045000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I found the UK parliament minutes interesting.</p><p>David Lammy, the UK's IP minister stated in the minutes that ACTA would have to be implemented under existing legislation rather than be something for which new legislation would need to be passed. If that's the case, ACTA doesn't really have teeth, because the government already pushes existing legislation to it's limits anyway (i.e. using anti-terror legislation to seize the assets of icelandic banks when they began to fail etc.).</p><p>Of course, whether that actually ends up being the case is questionable too though, but if it does, then colour me not concerned about ACTA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I found the UK parliament minutes interesting.David Lammy , the UK 's IP minister stated in the minutes that ACTA would have to be implemented under existing legislation rather than be something for which new legislation would need to be passed .
If that 's the case , ACTA does n't really have teeth , because the government already pushes existing legislation to it 's limits anyway ( i.e .
using anti-terror legislation to seize the assets of icelandic banks when they began to fail etc .
) .Of course , whether that actually ends up being the case is questionable too though , but if it does , then colour me not concerned about ACTA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I found the UK parliament minutes interesting.David Lammy, the UK's IP minister stated in the minutes that ACTA would have to be implemented under existing legislation rather than be something for which new legislation would need to be passed.
If that's the case, ACTA doesn't really have teeth, because the government already pushes existing legislation to it's limits anyway (i.e.
using anti-terror legislation to seize the assets of icelandic banks when they began to fail etc.
).Of course, whether that actually ends up being the case is questionable too though, but if it does, then colour me not concerned about ACTA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707190</id>
	<title>French Deputy Nicolas Dupont-Aignan</title>
	<author>adlucem</author>
	<datestamp>1263051900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>has no weight on the political chessboard and 90\% of French citizens have never heard of him: he is a helpless maverick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>has no weight on the political chessboard and 90 \ % of French citizens have never heard of him : he is a helpless maverick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has no weight on the political chessboard and 90\% of French citizens have never heard of him: he is a helpless maverick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706932</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to have the spotlight shone on ACTA..</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1263048840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty, and all is needed is legislation in each member state?</p></div><p>In a few of the member states, all thatt would be needed to pass said legislation would be the approval of the politicians that had just been stonewalled. Lets hope there's still some working democracies out there.</p><p>I'll correct this post when my cynicism wakes up</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty , and all is needed is legislation in each member state ? In a few of the member states , all thatt would be needed to pass said legislation would be the approval of the politicians that had just been stonewalled .
Lets hope there 's still some working democracies out there.I 'll correct this post when my cynicism wakes up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty, and all is needed is legislation in each member state?In a few of the member states, all thatt would be needed to pass said legislation would be the approval of the politicians that had just been stonewalled.
Lets hope there's still some working democracies out there.I'll correct this post when my cynicism wakes up
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710148</id>
	<title>US Clones...</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1263036720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm finding this all in the vein of the US "forcing" everyone to do everything the way they do it, and that's that. Our way or the highway. A means by which to control content, media, privacy and the likes, and a means by which to invade someone's privacy based on copyright and patent laws. The final chokehold on creative collective thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm finding this all in the vein of the US " forcing " everyone to do everything the way they do it , and that 's that .
Our way or the highway .
A means by which to control content , media , privacy and the likes , and a means by which to invade someone 's privacy based on copyright and patent laws .
The final chokehold on creative collective thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm finding this all in the vein of the US "forcing" everyone to do everything the way they do it, and that's that.
Our way or the highway.
A means by which to control content, media, privacy and the likes, and a means by which to invade someone's privacy based on copyright and patent laws.
The final chokehold on creative collective thinking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707306</id>
	<title>Re:It's almost like a democracy at work</title>
	<author>Ostracus</author>
	<datestamp>1263053100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...regardless of the power and money of lobbyists trying to influence the outcome for commercial reasons."</p><p>As opposed to any of the other lobbyists out there? Would we feel ok with the process if we were seniors and it was the AARP, gun lovers and the NRA? How about woman's rights and NOW?</p><p>"I know it's craziness to think this way, but bear with me for a moment: we might be seeing genuine democracy in action!"</p><p>Except not everyone's a democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...regardless of the power and money of lobbyists trying to influence the outcome for commercial reasons .
" As opposed to any of the other lobbyists out there ?
Would we feel ok with the process if we were seniors and it was the AARP , gun lovers and the NRA ?
How about woman 's rights and NOW ?
" I know it 's craziness to think this way , but bear with me for a moment : we might be seeing genuine democracy in action !
" Except not everyone 's a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...regardless of the power and money of lobbyists trying to influence the outcome for commercial reasons.
"As opposed to any of the other lobbyists out there?
Would we feel ok with the process if we were seniors and it was the AARP, gun lovers and the NRA?
How about woman's rights and NOW?
"I know it's craziness to think this way, but bear with me for a moment: we might be seeing genuine democracy in action!
"Except not everyone's a democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708734</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to have the spotlight shone on apathy</title>
	<author>theheadlessrabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1263066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And which public would that be? The one's that take their civic responsibility seriously, or the public that yells at their politician through the TV? Your complaints about "fraudulent governance" or "public mandate" would actually mean something if people were actually participating and the entire failure was they were simply being overpowered. But it's rather hard to be sympathetic over someone who simply lies there and takes it. Get back with me on "fraudulent governance" and "public mandate" once the global public grows a backbone and actually starts understanding that mandates don't come from silence, but faulty governance does.</p></div><p>Canada recently had an open consultations about the direction of copyright in the future for Canada, where the public was invited to town hall meetings and to participate in web forums, and to contact their MPs.<br>The response was huge, and the overwhelming majority wanted copyright to be limited, no anti-circumvention laws, no penalties for non-commercial infringement, abolition of crown copyright, a promise that copyright duration would never be extended beyond life+50,  and for fair dealing (what we call fair use) to be expanded greatly.</p><p>The Canadian pubic participated, and made their voices heard.</p><p>The whole time, ACTA was being negotiated in Seoul, and another trade agreement equally as ridiculous was being negotiated in Europe (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4627/125/)<br>The entire public consultation was a sham.  The whole thing was just a big distraction so the government can do whatever the hell it wants, directly go against the will of the people, and still say "you had your chance to speak up, you spoke we listened"</p><p>We might as well stay home and yell at the TV.<br>Going out and talking to our elected representatives is equally ineffective, so why waste the gas to go out?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And which public would that be ?
The one 's that take their civic responsibility seriously , or the public that yells at their politician through the TV ?
Your complaints about " fraudulent governance " or " public mandate " would actually mean something if people were actually participating and the entire failure was they were simply being overpowered .
But it 's rather hard to be sympathetic over someone who simply lies there and takes it .
Get back with me on " fraudulent governance " and " public mandate " once the global public grows a backbone and actually starts understanding that mandates do n't come from silence , but faulty governance does.Canada recently had an open consultations about the direction of copyright in the future for Canada , where the public was invited to town hall meetings and to participate in web forums , and to contact their MPs.The response was huge , and the overwhelming majority wanted copyright to be limited , no anti-circumvention laws , no penalties for non-commercial infringement , abolition of crown copyright , a promise that copyright duration would never be extended beyond life + 50 , and for fair dealing ( what we call fair use ) to be expanded greatly.The Canadian pubic participated , and made their voices heard.The whole time , ACTA was being negotiated in Seoul , and another trade agreement equally as ridiculous was being negotiated in Europe ( http : //www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4627/125/ ) The entire public consultation was a sham .
The whole thing was just a big distraction so the government can do whatever the hell it wants , directly go against the will of the people , and still say " you had your chance to speak up , you spoke we listened " We might as well stay home and yell at the TV.Going out and talking to our elected representatives is equally ineffective , so why waste the gas to go out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And which public would that be?
The one's that take their civic responsibility seriously, or the public that yells at their politician through the TV?
Your complaints about "fraudulent governance" or "public mandate" would actually mean something if people were actually participating and the entire failure was they were simply being overpowered.
But it's rather hard to be sympathetic over someone who simply lies there and takes it.
Get back with me on "fraudulent governance" and "public mandate" once the global public grows a backbone and actually starts understanding that mandates don't come from silence, but faulty governance does.Canada recently had an open consultations about the direction of copyright in the future for Canada, where the public was invited to town hall meetings and to participate in web forums, and to contact their MPs.The response was huge, and the overwhelming majority wanted copyright to be limited, no anti-circumvention laws, no penalties for non-commercial infringement, abolition of crown copyright, a promise that copyright duration would never be extended beyond life+50,  and for fair dealing (what we call fair use) to be expanded greatly.The Canadian pubic participated, and made their voices heard.The whole time, ACTA was being negotiated in Seoul, and another trade agreement equally as ridiculous was being negotiated in Europe (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4627/125/)The entire public consultation was a sham.
The whole thing was just a big distraction so the government can do whatever the hell it wants, directly go against the will of the people, and still say "you had your chance to speak up, you spoke we listened"We might as well stay home and yell at the TV.Going out and talking to our elected representatives is equally ineffective, so why waste the gas to go out?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707724</id>
	<title>I'm actually not so interested in asking questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263057540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I would be in burying the whole damn thing.</p><p>But I am still hoping that the latter will be a natural consequence of the former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I would be in burying the whole damn thing.But I am still hoping that the latter will be a natural consequence of the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I would be in burying the whole damn thing.But I am still hoping that the latter will be a natural consequence of the former.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707378</id>
	<title>Re:Checks and Balances . . . ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263053760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive\_order\_(United\_States)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">executive order</a> [wikipedia.org] is what I assume the gp means</p><p>tl;dr;</p><ul><li>An executive order in the United States is an order issued by the President</li><li>Executive orders do have the full force of law</li><li>Executive orders can be overturned by a supermajority vote in Congress, or if the Supreme Court deems it unconstitutional</li></ul><p>IANAL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>executive order [ wikipedia.org ] is what I assume the gp meanstl ; dr ; An executive order in the United States is an order issued by the PresidentExecutive orders do have the full force of lawExecutive orders can be overturned by a supermajority vote in Congress , or if the Supreme Court deems it unconstitutionalIANAL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>executive order [wikipedia.org] is what I assume the gp meanstl;dr;An executive order in the United States is an order issued by the PresidentExecutive orders do have the full force of lawExecutive orders can be overturned by a supermajority vote in Congress, or if the Supreme Court deems it unconstitutionalIANAL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707502</id>
	<title>Re:Checks and Balances . . . ?</title>
	<author>Cidolfas</author>
	<datestamp>1263054960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Executive has a discretionary authority to make agreements with other nations on issues of importance.  This is supposed to extend only to policy relating to controversial intergovernmental affairs, like "In our country you can't read somebody else's mail, but since in your country it's ok then international post will be treated like *blah*" where *blah* is a compromise that Congress would get roasted for agreeing with.  It's also things like Monroe's agreement to limit arms present on the Great Lakes in 1817, or Roosevelt recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933.<br> <br>What is known about them in a constitutional respect is that the agreements supersede conflicting state laws (though with ACTA potentially violating state privacy laws that might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems), and that they have been upheld by the Supreme Court.  What is not known is what happens when in conflict with a federal law, and it is my general understanding that they can be repealed by Congressional action.  They also cannot violate the bill of rights, and presumably any other any other part of the constitution.  There was a proposed amendment in 1954 called the Bricker Amendment that would have limited the ability of the executive to make these agreements, but it failed by a single senate vote.<br> <br>The major arguments against this type of action is that it does bypass the checks and balances, but so long as it is used in a discretionary manner it is a wonderful tool of foreign policy.  If you recall, the League of Nations was rejected by America because Congress couldn't act fast enough and then the isolationists started to make noise.  A small check was enacted to try and keep these agreements from being totally secret called the Case Act in 1972, which requires all international agreements be reported from the Secretary of State to Congress, but it has a flaw in language that exempts anything called an accord or arrangement instead of an agreement.<br> <br>So yes, in theory the executive could keep ACTA a total secret from everybody if he called it an arrangement, even while it's policies were being enacted.  But that's never going to happen because Congress would just denote in the budget that no money can go to the enforcement of ACTA protocols, and it would be dead.  More likely, the text is revealed after the agreement is signed and then the fight is for Congress to repeal it - a much more difficult process than fighting to keep it from being ratified - and it would have the force of law until then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Executive has a discretionary authority to make agreements with other nations on issues of importance .
This is supposed to extend only to policy relating to controversial intergovernmental affairs , like " In our country you ca n't read somebody else 's mail , but since in your country it 's ok then international post will be treated like * blah * " where * blah * is a compromise that Congress would get roasted for agreeing with .
It 's also things like Monroe 's agreement to limit arms present on the Great Lakes in 1817 , or Roosevelt recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933 .
What is known about them in a constitutional respect is that the agreements supersede conflicting state laws ( though with ACTA potentially violating state privacy laws that might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems ) , and that they have been upheld by the Supreme Court .
What is not known is what happens when in conflict with a federal law , and it is my general understanding that they can be repealed by Congressional action .
They also can not violate the bill of rights , and presumably any other any other part of the constitution .
There was a proposed amendment in 1954 called the Bricker Amendment that would have limited the ability of the executive to make these agreements , but it failed by a single senate vote .
The major arguments against this type of action is that it does bypass the checks and balances , but so long as it is used in a discretionary manner it is a wonderful tool of foreign policy .
If you recall , the League of Nations was rejected by America because Congress could n't act fast enough and then the isolationists started to make noise .
A small check was enacted to try and keep these agreements from being totally secret called the Case Act in 1972 , which requires all international agreements be reported from the Secretary of State to Congress , but it has a flaw in language that exempts anything called an accord or arrangement instead of an agreement .
So yes , in theory the executive could keep ACTA a total secret from everybody if he called it an arrangement , even while it 's policies were being enacted .
But that 's never going to happen because Congress would just denote in the budget that no money can go to the enforcement of ACTA protocols , and it would be dead .
More likely , the text is revealed after the agreement is signed and then the fight is for Congress to repeal it - a much more difficult process than fighting to keep it from being ratified - and it would have the force of law until then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Executive has a discretionary authority to make agreements with other nations on issues of importance.
This is supposed to extend only to policy relating to controversial intergovernmental affairs, like "In our country you can't read somebody else's mail, but since in your country it's ok then international post will be treated like *blah*" where *blah* is a compromise that Congress would get roasted for agreeing with.
It's also things like Monroe's agreement to limit arms present on the Great Lakes in 1817, or Roosevelt recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933.
What is known about them in a constitutional respect is that the agreements supersede conflicting state laws (though with ACTA potentially violating state privacy laws that might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems), and that they have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
What is not known is what happens when in conflict with a federal law, and it is my general understanding that they can be repealed by Congressional action.
They also cannot violate the bill of rights, and presumably any other any other part of the constitution.
There was a proposed amendment in 1954 called the Bricker Amendment that would have limited the ability of the executive to make these agreements, but it failed by a single senate vote.
The major arguments against this type of action is that it does bypass the checks and balances, but so long as it is used in a discretionary manner it is a wonderful tool of foreign policy.
If you recall, the League of Nations was rejected by America because Congress couldn't act fast enough and then the isolationists started to make noise.
A small check was enacted to try and keep these agreements from being totally secret called the Case Act in 1972, which requires all international agreements be reported from the Secretary of State to Congress, but it has a flaw in language that exempts anything called an accord or arrangement instead of an agreement.
So yes, in theory the executive could keep ACTA a total secret from everybody if he called it an arrangement, even while it's policies were being enacted.
But that's never going to happen because Congress would just denote in the budget that no money can go to the enforcement of ACTA protocols, and it would be dead.
More likely, the text is revealed after the agreement is signed and then the fight is for Congress to repeal it - a much more difficult process than fighting to keep it from being ratified - and it would have the force of law until then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706944</id>
	<title>Multilateral treaties are hard to pass</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263048960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've seen, multilateral treaties are difficult to pass.  That's not to say that they're impossible to pass, but the fact that you have N number of countries with N number of political calculations to make (even if they're not democracies) makes it difficult to come to a solid agreement.  That's why the FTAA seems to have failed.  There was just too much disagreement.</p><p>Exceptions are whatever copyright treaty got passed, WTO, etc)</p><p>(BTW, slightly off topic, I saw a Blu-Ray movie with the FBI copyright warning in French, which I had never seen before on any DVD.   That was a little creepy and funny at the same time.)</p><p>The U.S. has been much more successful by pushing its agenda through bilateral (U.S.-Canada free trade agreement) or trilateral agreements (NAFTA).</p><p>My guess is that instead of the ACTA passing, there will instead be a series of bilateral and trilateral agreements with various countries, such as how the U.S. pushed Singapore to adopt DMCA-like laws in a "free trade agreement".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen , multilateral treaties are difficult to pass .
That 's not to say that they 're impossible to pass , but the fact that you have N number of countries with N number of political calculations to make ( even if they 're not democracies ) makes it difficult to come to a solid agreement .
That 's why the FTAA seems to have failed .
There was just too much disagreement.Exceptions are whatever copyright treaty got passed , WTO , etc ) ( BTW , slightly off topic , I saw a Blu-Ray movie with the FBI copyright warning in French , which I had never seen before on any DVD .
That was a little creepy and funny at the same time .
) The U.S. has been much more successful by pushing its agenda through bilateral ( U.S.-Canada free trade agreement ) or trilateral agreements ( NAFTA ) .My guess is that instead of the ACTA passing , there will instead be a series of bilateral and trilateral agreements with various countries , such as how the U.S. pushed Singapore to adopt DMCA-like laws in a " free trade agreement " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen, multilateral treaties are difficult to pass.
That's not to say that they're impossible to pass, but the fact that you have N number of countries with N number of political calculations to make (even if they're not democracies) makes it difficult to come to a solid agreement.
That's why the FTAA seems to have failed.
There was just too much disagreement.Exceptions are whatever copyright treaty got passed, WTO, etc)(BTW, slightly off topic, I saw a Blu-Ray movie with the FBI copyright warning in French, which I had never seen before on any DVD.
That was a little creepy and funny at the same time.
)The U.S. has been much more successful by pushing its agenda through bilateral (U.S.-Canada free trade agreement) or trilateral agreements (NAFTA).My guess is that instead of the ACTA passing, there will instead be a series of bilateral and trilateral agreements with various countries, such as how the U.S. pushed Singapore to adopt DMCA-like laws in a "free trade agreement".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072</id>
	<title>Checks and Balances . . . ?</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1263050640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Franken's staffers seemed particularly bothered by the fact that since ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, they neither see negotiating texts (which are being done in secret) nor have any chance to review the agreement before it has the force of law. </p></div><p>I thought that the US Government had a system of Checks and Balances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks\_and\_balances#Checks\_and\_balances), where each branch of the Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) was supposed to keep an eye on the other ones.  The above sentence seems to imply that the executive branch can make laws without the approval of the other branches.
</p><p>Can someone explain this to me?  What exactly is an "executive agreement?"  Could this be challenged by the Supreme Court?  It seems like Congress has no say at all in the matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Franken 's staffers seemed particularly bothered by the fact that since ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement , they neither see negotiating texts ( which are being done in secret ) nor have any chance to review the agreement before it has the force of law .
I thought that the US Government had a system of Checks and Balances ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks \ _and \ _balances # Checks \ _and \ _balances ) , where each branch of the Government ( Legislative , Executive , Judicial ) was supposed to keep an eye on the other ones .
The above sentence seems to imply that the executive branch can make laws without the approval of the other branches .
Can someone explain this to me ?
What exactly is an " executive agreement ?
" Could this be challenged by the Supreme Court ?
It seems like Congress has no say at all in the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Franken's staffers seemed particularly bothered by the fact that since ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, they neither see negotiating texts (which are being done in secret) nor have any chance to review the agreement before it has the force of law.
I thought that the US Government had a system of Checks and Balances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks\_and\_balances#Checks\_and\_balances), where each branch of the Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) was supposed to keep an eye on the other ones.
The above sentence seems to imply that the executive branch can make laws without the approval of the other branches.
Can someone explain this to me?
What exactly is an "executive agreement?
"  Could this be challenged by the Supreme Court?
It seems like Congress has no say at all in the matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707538</id>
	<title>Partly right, partly wrong</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1263055380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, multilateral treaties <i>are</i> hard to negotiate. That's exactly why the U.S. et al. are not pursuing ACTA's provisions in the proper forum - WIPO. They know there is too much opposition from developing countries at WIPO, and such proposals would go nowhere.</p><p>Their solution has been what is referred to as "forum shifting" - all the like-minded governments (US, EU, Japan, plus some other who want to play ball - Mexico, South Korea) are taking their marbles and finding somewhere else to play. For the most part, these states agree on basic IP policy. Sure, there is disagreement on specific details - sui generis database rights in the EU, for example. But on the whole, the parties negotiating ACTA are much less diverse when it comes to IP policy than we might think.</p><p>By they way, the U.S. has also been pushing its IP policy through practically every bilateral free-trade agreement at the same time. The EU is doing the same thing. Both have decide that IP is important enough to warrant its own agreement. Initially ACTA will be between these like-minded countries, but after it is passed, we can expect it to become a necessity for future bilateral agreements. New FTA between US and country X? Sure, but on the condition that you join ACTA, which means reforming your IP laws to TRIPS-plus, "first-world" standards. Want to become a member of the OECD? Sure, but you also need to join ACTA to show us you're ready.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , multilateral treaties are hard to negotiate .
That 's exactly why the U.S. et al .
are not pursuing ACTA 's provisions in the proper forum - WIPO .
They know there is too much opposition from developing countries at WIPO , and such proposals would go nowhere.Their solution has been what is referred to as " forum shifting " - all the like-minded governments ( US , EU , Japan , plus some other who want to play ball - Mexico , South Korea ) are taking their marbles and finding somewhere else to play .
For the most part , these states agree on basic IP policy .
Sure , there is disagreement on specific details - sui generis database rights in the EU , for example .
But on the whole , the parties negotiating ACTA are much less diverse when it comes to IP policy than we might think.By they way , the U.S. has also been pushing its IP policy through practically every bilateral free-trade agreement at the same time .
The EU is doing the same thing .
Both have decide that IP is important enough to warrant its own agreement .
Initially ACTA will be between these like-minded countries , but after it is passed , we can expect it to become a necessity for future bilateral agreements .
New FTA between US and country X ?
Sure , but on the condition that you join ACTA , which means reforming your IP laws to TRIPS-plus , " first-world " standards .
Want to become a member of the OECD ?
Sure , but you also need to join ACTA to show us you 're ready .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, multilateral treaties are hard to negotiate.
That's exactly why the U.S. et al.
are not pursuing ACTA's provisions in the proper forum - WIPO.
They know there is too much opposition from developing countries at WIPO, and such proposals would go nowhere.Their solution has been what is referred to as "forum shifting" - all the like-minded governments (US, EU, Japan, plus some other who want to play ball - Mexico, South Korea) are taking their marbles and finding somewhere else to play.
For the most part, these states agree on basic IP policy.
Sure, there is disagreement on specific details - sui generis database rights in the EU, for example.
But on the whole, the parties negotiating ACTA are much less diverse when it comes to IP policy than we might think.By they way, the U.S. has also been pushing its IP policy through practically every bilateral free-trade agreement at the same time.
The EU is doing the same thing.
Both have decide that IP is important enough to warrant its own agreement.
Initially ACTA will be between these like-minded countries, but after it is passed, we can expect it to become a necessity for future bilateral agreements.
New FTA between US and country X?
Sure, but on the condition that you join ACTA, which means reforming your IP laws to TRIPS-plus, "first-world" standards.
Want to become a member of the OECD?
Sure, but you also need to join ACTA to show us you're ready.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709140</id>
	<title>Re:Not just Wyden - call your Senators</title>
	<author>Smallpond</author>
	<datestamp>1263069840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you say that ACTA is secret?  I encourage everyone to review the agenda of the recently completed 6th round of talks which is <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/webfm\_send/1478" title="ustr.gov">available on the USTR site.</a> [ustr.gov]  It's nearly 80 words long for heaven's sake, and only two thirds of it is about the dates, the rooms and what meals are being served.  How much more open can we get?</p><p>And please note that on Friday morning we discussed your desire for transparency.  We gave it the consideration that we believe it deserved; you can see the results for yourselves.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>Your US Trade Representative (name withheld)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you say that ACTA is secret ?
I encourage everyone to review the agenda of the recently completed 6th round of talks which is available on the USTR site .
[ ustr.gov ] It 's nearly 80 words long for heaven 's sake , and only two thirds of it is about the dates , the rooms and what meals are being served .
How much more open can we get ? And please note that on Friday morning we discussed your desire for transparency .
We gave it the consideration that we believe it deserved ; you can see the results for yourselves.Sincerely,Your US Trade Representative ( name withheld )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you say that ACTA is secret?
I encourage everyone to review the agenda of the recently completed 6th round of talks which is available on the USTR site.
[ustr.gov]  It's nearly 80 words long for heaven's sake, and only two thirds of it is about the dates, the rooms and what meals are being served.
How much more open can we get?And please note that on Friday morning we discussed your desire for transparency.
We gave it the consideration that we believe it deserved; you can see the results for yourselves.Sincerely,Your US Trade Representative (name withheld)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709500</id>
	<title>Re:Checks and Balances . . . ?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1263029760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Obama administration is insisting that ACTA "colors within the lines" of current U.S. law - but of course, there is no way to know that until after it is signed and becomes public. In the meantime, the few public interest folks who have signed NDAs and seen draft texts have said that in their opinion, it goes beyond current U.S. law.
<br> <br>
Of course if the agreement simply abides by current U.S. law, why the need to be so secretive about it?
<br> <br>
There are a number of other issues - like the fact, IIRC, so-called "graduated response" (three-strikes) style laws are permitted under U.S. law, but not implemented by the DMCA, etc. So, it may be that ACTA contains provisions for three-strikes ISP disconnection despite this not being current law in the U.S. There is also the fact that ACTA will almost certainly not include U.S.-style protections for users/consumers.</p> </div><p>To use a slippery slope: Capital punishment is permitted under U.S. law too.  There needs to be a limit to what sovereignty the U.S. can give away through the actions of one person.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Obama administration is insisting that ACTA " colors within the lines " of current U.S. law - but of course , there is no way to know that until after it is signed and becomes public .
In the meantime , the few public interest folks who have signed NDAs and seen draft texts have said that in their opinion , it goes beyond current U.S. law . Of course if the agreement simply abides by current U.S. law , why the need to be so secretive about it ?
There are a number of other issues - like the fact , IIRC , so-called " graduated response " ( three-strikes ) style laws are permitted under U.S. law , but not implemented by the DMCA , etc .
So , it may be that ACTA contains provisions for three-strikes ISP disconnection despite this not being current law in the U.S. There is also the fact that ACTA will almost certainly not include U.S.-style protections for users/consumers .
To use a slippery slope : Capital punishment is permitted under U.S. law too .
There needs to be a limit to what sovereignty the U.S. can give away through the actions of one person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Obama administration is insisting that ACTA "colors within the lines" of current U.S. law - but of course, there is no way to know that until after it is signed and becomes public.
In the meantime, the few public interest folks who have signed NDAs and seen draft texts have said that in their opinion, it goes beyond current U.S. law.
 
Of course if the agreement simply abides by current U.S. law, why the need to be so secretive about it?
There are a number of other issues - like the fact, IIRC, so-called "graduated response" (three-strikes) style laws are permitted under U.S. law, but not implemented by the DMCA, etc.
So, it may be that ACTA contains provisions for three-strikes ISP disconnection despite this not being current law in the U.S. There is also the fact that ACTA will almost certainly not include U.S.-style protections for users/consumers.
To use a slippery slope: Capital punishment is permitted under U.S. law too.
There needs to be a limit to what sovereignty the U.S. can give away through the actions of one person.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708906</id>
	<title>Torches and pitchforks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263068160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At some point, we have democracy by proxy.  It seems that day has come.  Secret back room deals are not democratic.  We won't put up with them.  Ratification and 'done deals' can and will be undone, and pushy companies will find they have nothing to sell.  China isn't all that interested in kowtowing to American IP interests.  There was a time when China would put up with American demands.  There is $700 Billion (or is it trillion) worth of  Chinese pressure that the Americans have to blink at.  ACTA?  Not if the Chinese say no.  The word Ratified has a similar sounding first letter as the words Repealed and Recall.  The back room politicians wanting this (paid shill) should think twice.  Getting paid is one thing.  Losing your job, and your pension, and no prospects of a cushy job later should be something they think about too.  These are the post-bailout days.  Corporations wanting freebies are no longer welcome.  If a business is dying, then it should die already.  Noone has to sweep the streets after the horses anymore, there are hardly any buggywhip manufacturers anymore, and noone fixes typewriters anymore.  Commercial music sales on CD is flat?  Really?  I remember when disks were $22.  Last I saw, a new CD was $9.  I know a lot of places where its $2.  Some places are even less than that.  People are only so willing to put up with crap.  At some point, ACTA and other back room crap will die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point , we have democracy by proxy .
It seems that day has come .
Secret back room deals are not democratic .
We wo n't put up with them .
Ratification and 'done deals ' can and will be undone , and pushy companies will find they have nothing to sell .
China is n't all that interested in kowtowing to American IP interests .
There was a time when China would put up with American demands .
There is $ 700 Billion ( or is it trillion ) worth of Chinese pressure that the Americans have to blink at .
ACTA ? Not if the Chinese say no .
The word Ratified has a similar sounding first letter as the words Repealed and Recall .
The back room politicians wanting this ( paid shill ) should think twice .
Getting paid is one thing .
Losing your job , and your pension , and no prospects of a cushy job later should be something they think about too .
These are the post-bailout days .
Corporations wanting freebies are no longer welcome .
If a business is dying , then it should die already .
Noone has to sweep the streets after the horses anymore , there are hardly any buggywhip manufacturers anymore , and noone fixes typewriters anymore .
Commercial music sales on CD is flat ?
Really ? I remember when disks were $ 22 .
Last I saw , a new CD was $ 9 .
I know a lot of places where its $ 2 .
Some places are even less than that .
People are only so willing to put up with crap .
At some point , ACTA and other back room crap will die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some point, we have democracy by proxy.
It seems that day has come.
Secret back room deals are not democratic.
We won't put up with them.
Ratification and 'done deals' can and will be undone, and pushy companies will find they have nothing to sell.
China isn't all that interested in kowtowing to American IP interests.
There was a time when China would put up with American demands.
There is $700 Billion (or is it trillion) worth of  Chinese pressure that the Americans have to blink at.
ACTA?  Not if the Chinese say no.
The word Ratified has a similar sounding first letter as the words Repealed and Recall.
The back room politicians wanting this (paid shill) should think twice.
Getting paid is one thing.
Losing your job, and your pension, and no prospects of a cushy job later should be something they think about too.
These are the post-bailout days.
Corporations wanting freebies are no longer welcome.
If a business is dying, then it should die already.
Noone has to sweep the streets after the horses anymore, there are hardly any buggywhip manufacturers anymore, and noone fixes typewriters anymore.
Commercial music sales on CD is flat?
Really?  I remember when disks were $22.
Last I saw, a new CD was $9.
I know a lot of places where its $2.
Some places are even less than that.
People are only so willing to put up with crap.
At some point, ACTA and other back room crap will die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707386</id>
	<title>Re:Checks and Balances . . . ?</title>
	<author>jgirata</author>
	<datestamp>1263053820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An executive agreement is an agreement with another country that specifies how the Executive Department will handle certain laws/situations/etc.  The key is that the executive agreement is limited to what is allowed under current laws.

It's sort of along the same lines as Bush banning stem cell research with federal funds, then Obama allowing it.  The federal law simply said "you have x dollars to spend on medical research."  It is up to the President and the Executive Department to determine how that money will be spent.

I don't know very much at all about this law, so I'm not sure what exactly they may be discussing, but it could be how tough the enforcement will be, specifics of international cooperation, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An executive agreement is an agreement with another country that specifies how the Executive Department will handle certain laws/situations/etc .
The key is that the executive agreement is limited to what is allowed under current laws .
It 's sort of along the same lines as Bush banning stem cell research with federal funds , then Obama allowing it .
The federal law simply said " you have x dollars to spend on medical research .
" It is up to the President and the Executive Department to determine how that money will be spent .
I do n't know very much at all about this law , so I 'm not sure what exactly they may be discussing , but it could be how tough the enforcement will be , specifics of international cooperation , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An executive agreement is an agreement with another country that specifies how the Executive Department will handle certain laws/situations/etc.
The key is that the executive agreement is limited to what is allowed under current laws.
It's sort of along the same lines as Bush banning stem cell research with federal funds, then Obama allowing it.
The federal law simply said "you have x dollars to spend on medical research.
"  It is up to the President and the Executive Department to determine how that money will be spent.
I don't know very much at all about this law, so I'm not sure what exactly they may be discussing, but it could be how tough the enforcement will be, specifics of international cooperation, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30736666</id>
	<title>Response post on Techdirt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263310020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2302157699.shtml" title="techdirt.com" rel="nofollow">http://techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2302157699.shtml</a> [techdirt.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2302157699.shtml [ techdirt.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2302157699.shtml [techdirt.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30712224</id>
	<title>Re:Checks and Balances . . . ?</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1263054300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that within your accurate explanation of an executive agreement verses a treaty, that you have forgotten that things like TRIPS and Berne are actual treaties that have been ratified by congress.</p><p>The distinction here is that while it's true that if they want to change the copyright process, they will be limited to berne (and WIPO: WTC WPPT, and a few other treaties) unless they can change it or withdraw from it, but under the ACTA, the president could only point to it and say please don't change this because we have this unofficial agreement. The agreement would not be binding on the US or any other branch of government outside of the executive branch's constitutional implementation of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that within your accurate explanation of an executive agreement verses a treaty , that you have forgotten that things like TRIPS and Berne are actual treaties that have been ratified by congress.The distinction here is that while it 's true that if they want to change the copyright process , they will be limited to berne ( and WIPO : WTC WPPT , and a few other treaties ) unless they can change it or withdraw from it , but under the ACTA , the president could only point to it and say please do n't change this because we have this unofficial agreement .
The agreement would not be binding on the US or any other branch of government outside of the executive branch 's constitutional implementation of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that within your accurate explanation of an executive agreement verses a treaty, that you have forgotten that things like TRIPS and Berne are actual treaties that have been ratified by congress.The distinction here is that while it's true that if they want to change the copyright process, they will be limited to berne (and WIPO: WTC WPPT, and a few other treaties) unless they can change it or withdraw from it, but under the ACTA, the president could only point to it and say please don't change this because we have this unofficial agreement.
The agreement would not be binding on the US or any other branch of government outside of the executive branch's constitutional implementation of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706820</id>
	<title>It's almost like a democracy at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263047340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's almost as if representatives of people around the world are demanding information about legislation before it is passed / agreed upon by their respective countries -- i.e. during negotiations.  It's like some people care about legislation that will affect them, and our representatives in government are doing their jobs by being answerable to the people's wishes for more information, regardless of the power and money of lobbyists trying to influence the outcome for commercial reasons.</p><p>I know it's craziness to think this way, but bear with me for a moment: we might be seeing genuine democracy in action!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's almost as if representatives of people around the world are demanding information about legislation before it is passed / agreed upon by their respective countries -- i.e .
during negotiations .
It 's like some people care about legislation that will affect them , and our representatives in government are doing their jobs by being answerable to the people 's wishes for more information , regardless of the power and money of lobbyists trying to influence the outcome for commercial reasons.I know it 's craziness to think this way , but bear with me for a moment : we might be seeing genuine democracy in action !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's almost as if representatives of people around the world are demanding information about legislation before it is passed / agreed upon by their respective countries -- i.e.
during negotiations.
It's like some people care about legislation that will affect them, and our representatives in government are doing their jobs by being answerable to the people's wishes for more information, regardless of the power and money of lobbyists trying to influence the outcome for commercial reasons.I know it's craziness to think this way, but bear with me for a moment: we might be seeing genuine democracy in action!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707292</id>
	<title>French revolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263052800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politicians around the world have been so relaxed that the public accepted that they can get away with anything, like the French royalties and nobilities used to be.<br>Eventually somewhere, somehow the threshold will be crossed and heads will roll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians around the world have been so relaxed that the public accepted that they can get away with anything , like the French royalties and nobilities used to be.Eventually somewhere , somehow the threshold will be crossed and heads will roll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians around the world have been so relaxed that the public accepted that they can get away with anything, like the French royalties and nobilities used to be.Eventually somewhere, somehow the threshold will be crossed and heads will roll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706988</id>
	<title>The Senate is Taking Refuge in Audacity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263049620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is well known that the US is at the spearhead of about half this garbage. This the same thing that member states of the EU are doing: introduce a policy you want in the EU, then complain about how terrible it is locally so that the public doesn't realize it was your idea.<br>
<br>
World fascism is about three years away, and there's nothing we can do but watch. Have fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is well known that the US is at the spearhead of about half this garbage .
This the same thing that member states of the EU are doing : introduce a policy you want in the EU , then complain about how terrible it is locally so that the public does n't realize it was your idea .
World fascism is about three years away , and there 's nothing we can do but watch .
Have fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is well known that the US is at the spearhead of about half this garbage.
This the same thing that member states of the EU are doing: introduce a policy you want in the EU, then complain about how terrible it is locally so that the public doesn't realize it was your idea.
World fascism is about three years away, and there's nothing we can do but watch.
Have fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30829358</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to have the spotlight shone on ACTA..</title>
	<author>jack4888</author>
	<datestamp>1263979200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even though the spotlight's being shone on the dodgy practices behind ACTA, what's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty, and all is needed is legislation in each member state?</p><p>ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance, and not from the public's mandate.</p></div><p>Why can't Congress get an answer about this treaty? Doesn't Congress have to ratify this treaty too??? Contact your 2 Senators and raise holy hell.

We can't be forced into another NAFTA again. Not a peep from the people to their Senators about NAFTA and everything is gone to the other side of the border. NOTHING is  made in U.S.A. any more. We have become a nation of spineless stupid people. We don't deserve anything better than what we are willing to fight for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though the spotlight 's being shone on the dodgy practices behind ACTA , what 's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty , and all is needed is legislation in each member state ? ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance , and not from the public 's mandate.Why ca n't Congress get an answer about this treaty ?
Does n't Congress have to ratify this treaty too ? ? ?
Contact your 2 Senators and raise holy hell .
We ca n't be forced into another NAFTA again .
Not a peep from the people to their Senators about NAFTA and everything is gone to the other side of the border .
NOTHING is made in U.S.A. any more .
We have become a nation of spineless stupid people .
We do n't deserve anything better than what we are willing to fight for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though the spotlight's being shone on the dodgy practices behind ACTA, what's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty, and all is needed is legislation in each member state?ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance, and not from the public's mandate.Why can't Congress get an answer about this treaty?
Doesn't Congress have to ratify this treaty too???
Contact your 2 Senators and raise holy hell.
We can't be forced into another NAFTA again.
Not a peep from the people to their Senators about NAFTA and everything is gone to the other side of the border.
NOTHING is  made in U.S.A. any more.
We have become a nation of spineless stupid people.
We don't deserve anything better than what we are willing to fight for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172</id>
	<title>the copyright bubble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263061740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've posted most of this before on slashdot; This is just a cleanup of previous posts -- it has details of why the ACTA is secret.</p><p>A Private War</p><p>I used to read stuff like this and get upset. But then I realized that my entire generation knows it's baloney. They can't explain it intellectually. They have no real understanding of the subtleties of the law, or arguments about artists' rights or any of that. All they really understand is there is are large corporations charging private citizens tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, for downloading a few songs here and there. And it's intuitively obvious that it can't possibly be worth that.</p><p>An entire generation has disregarded copyright law. It doesn't matter whether copyright is useful or not anymore. They could release attack dogs and black helicopters and it wouldn't really change people's attitudes. It won't matter how many websites they shut down or how many lives they ruin, they've already lost the culture war because they pushed too hard and alienated people wholesale. The only thing these corporations can do now is shift the costs to the government and other corporations under color of law in a desperate bid for relevance. And that's exactly what they're doing.</p><p>What does this mean for the average person? It means that we google and float around to an ever-changing landscape of sites. We communicate by word of mouth via e-mail, instant messaging, and social networking sites where the latest fix of free movies, music, and games are. If you don't make enough money to participate in the artificial marketplace of entertainment goods -- you don't exclude yourself from it, you go to the grey market instead. All the technological, legal, and philosophical barriers in the world amount to nothing. There is a small core of people that understand the implications of what these interests are doing and continually search for ways to liberate their goods and services for "sale" on the grey market. It is (economically and politically) identical to the Prohibition except that instead of smuggling liquor we are smuggling digital files.</p><p>Billions have been spent combating a singularily simple idea that was spawned thirty years ago by a bunch of socially-inept disaffected teenagers working out of their garages: Information wants to be free. Except information has no wants -- it's the people who want to be free. And while we can change attitudes about smoking with aggressive media campaigns, or convince them to cast their votes for a certain candidate, selling people on goods and services they don't really need, what we cannot change is the foundations upon which a generation has built a new society out of.</p><p>Culture Connection</p><p>Just as we have physical connections to each other, we now have digital connections to one another. These connections actively resist attempts at control because it impedes the development and nature of the relationships we have with one another. People naturally seek the methods which give them the greatest freedom to express themselves to each other. That is a force of nature (ours, specifically) that has evolved out of our interconnectedness. Copyright law has been twisted to serve as a bulwark against the logical result of increasing social interconnectedness between people and computers: Access an ever-increasing amount of humanity's history, knowledge, and culture. Ultimately, this is a battle they cannot win -- they can only delay, building dams and locks to stem the tide, but they will fail. It's how, when, and where it fails that will decide the fate of economies worldwide.</p><p>Every law advantages one group while disadvantaging another. And every engine, be it physical or social, functions because an energy imbalance exists and by moving energy from one potential to another, we can skim some off to do useful work. Laws work the same way -- by creating artificial differences between groups of people, society produces goods and services. This is why we will always have new Prohibitions. It's not a comfor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've posted most of this before on slashdot ; This is just a cleanup of previous posts -- it has details of why the ACTA is secret.A Private WarI used to read stuff like this and get upset .
But then I realized that my entire generation knows it 's baloney .
They ca n't explain it intellectually .
They have no real understanding of the subtleties of the law , or arguments about artists ' rights or any of that .
All they really understand is there is are large corporations charging private citizens tens , if not hundreds of thousands of dollars , for downloading a few songs here and there .
And it 's intuitively obvious that it ca n't possibly be worth that.An entire generation has disregarded copyright law .
It does n't matter whether copyright is useful or not anymore .
They could release attack dogs and black helicopters and it would n't really change people 's attitudes .
It wo n't matter how many websites they shut down or how many lives they ruin , they 've already lost the culture war because they pushed too hard and alienated people wholesale .
The only thing these corporations can do now is shift the costs to the government and other corporations under color of law in a desperate bid for relevance .
And that 's exactly what they 're doing.What does this mean for the average person ?
It means that we google and float around to an ever-changing landscape of sites .
We communicate by word of mouth via e-mail , instant messaging , and social networking sites where the latest fix of free movies , music , and games are .
If you do n't make enough money to participate in the artificial marketplace of entertainment goods -- you do n't exclude yourself from it , you go to the grey market instead .
All the technological , legal , and philosophical barriers in the world amount to nothing .
There is a small core of people that understand the implications of what these interests are doing and continually search for ways to liberate their goods and services for " sale " on the grey market .
It is ( economically and politically ) identical to the Prohibition except that instead of smuggling liquor we are smuggling digital files.Billions have been spent combating a singularily simple idea that was spawned thirty years ago by a bunch of socially-inept disaffected teenagers working out of their garages : Information wants to be free .
Except information has no wants -- it 's the people who want to be free .
And while we can change attitudes about smoking with aggressive media campaigns , or convince them to cast their votes for a certain candidate , selling people on goods and services they do n't really need , what we can not change is the foundations upon which a generation has built a new society out of.Culture ConnectionJust as we have physical connections to each other , we now have digital connections to one another .
These connections actively resist attempts at control because it impedes the development and nature of the relationships we have with one another .
People naturally seek the methods which give them the greatest freedom to express themselves to each other .
That is a force of nature ( ours , specifically ) that has evolved out of our interconnectedness .
Copyright law has been twisted to serve as a bulwark against the logical result of increasing social interconnectedness between people and computers : Access an ever-increasing amount of humanity 's history , knowledge , and culture .
Ultimately , this is a battle they can not win -- they can only delay , building dams and locks to stem the tide , but they will fail .
It 's how , when , and where it fails that will decide the fate of economies worldwide.Every law advantages one group while disadvantaging another .
And every engine , be it physical or social , functions because an energy imbalance exists and by moving energy from one potential to another , we can skim some off to do useful work .
Laws work the same way -- by creating artificial differences between groups of people , society produces goods and services .
This is why we will always have new Prohibitions .
It 's not a comfor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've posted most of this before on slashdot; This is just a cleanup of previous posts -- it has details of why the ACTA is secret.A Private WarI used to read stuff like this and get upset.
But then I realized that my entire generation knows it's baloney.
They can't explain it intellectually.
They have no real understanding of the subtleties of the law, or arguments about artists' rights or any of that.
All they really understand is there is are large corporations charging private citizens tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, for downloading a few songs here and there.
And it's intuitively obvious that it can't possibly be worth that.An entire generation has disregarded copyright law.
It doesn't matter whether copyright is useful or not anymore.
They could release attack dogs and black helicopters and it wouldn't really change people's attitudes.
It won't matter how many websites they shut down or how many lives they ruin, they've already lost the culture war because they pushed too hard and alienated people wholesale.
The only thing these corporations can do now is shift the costs to the government and other corporations under color of law in a desperate bid for relevance.
And that's exactly what they're doing.What does this mean for the average person?
It means that we google and float around to an ever-changing landscape of sites.
We communicate by word of mouth via e-mail, instant messaging, and social networking sites where the latest fix of free movies, music, and games are.
If you don't make enough money to participate in the artificial marketplace of entertainment goods -- you don't exclude yourself from it, you go to the grey market instead.
All the technological, legal, and philosophical barriers in the world amount to nothing.
There is a small core of people that understand the implications of what these interests are doing and continually search for ways to liberate their goods and services for "sale" on the grey market.
It is (economically and politically) identical to the Prohibition except that instead of smuggling liquor we are smuggling digital files.Billions have been spent combating a singularily simple idea that was spawned thirty years ago by a bunch of socially-inept disaffected teenagers working out of their garages: Information wants to be free.
Except information has no wants -- it's the people who want to be free.
And while we can change attitudes about smoking with aggressive media campaigns, or convince them to cast their votes for a certain candidate, selling people on goods and services they don't really need, what we cannot change is the foundations upon which a generation has built a new society out of.Culture ConnectionJust as we have physical connections to each other, we now have digital connections to one another.
These connections actively resist attempts at control because it impedes the development and nature of the relationships we have with one another.
People naturally seek the methods which give them the greatest freedom to express themselves to each other.
That is a force of nature (ours, specifically) that has evolved out of our interconnectedness.
Copyright law has been twisted to serve as a bulwark against the logical result of increasing social interconnectedness between people and computers: Access an ever-increasing amount of humanity's history, knowledge, and culture.
Ultimately, this is a battle they cannot win -- they can only delay, building dams and locks to stem the tide, but they will fail.
It's how, when, and where it fails that will decide the fate of economies worldwide.Every law advantages one group while disadvantaging another.
And every engine, be it physical or social, functions because an energy imbalance exists and by moving energy from one potential to another, we can skim some off to do useful work.
Laws work the same way -- by creating artificial differences between groups of people, society produces goods and services.
This is why we will always have new Prohibitions.
It's not a comfor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707196</id>
	<title>It's good to have the spotlight shone on apathy.</title>
	<author>Ostracus</author>
	<datestamp>1263051960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance, and not from the public's mandate."</p><p>And which public would that be? The one's that take their civic responsibility seriously, or the public that yells at their politician through the TV? Your complaints about "fraudulent governance" or "public mandate" would actually mean something if people were actually participating and the entire failure was they were simply being overpowered. But it's rather hard to be sympathetic over someone who simply lies there and takes it. Get back with me on "fraudulent governance" and "public mandate" once the global public grows a backbone and actually starts understanding that mandates don't come from silence, but faulty governance does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance , and not from the public 's mandate .
" And which public would that be ?
The one 's that take their civic responsibility seriously , or the public that yells at their politician through the TV ?
Your complaints about " fraudulent governance " or " public mandate " would actually mean something if people were actually participating and the entire failure was they were simply being overpowered .
But it 's rather hard to be sympathetic over someone who simply lies there and takes it .
Get back with me on " fraudulent governance " and " public mandate " once the global public grows a backbone and actually starts understanding that mandates do n't come from silence , but faulty governance does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance, and not from the public's mandate.
"And which public would that be?
The one's that take their civic responsibility seriously, or the public that yells at their politician through the TV?
Your complaints about "fraudulent governance" or "public mandate" would actually mean something if people were actually participating and the entire failure was they were simply being overpowered.
But it's rather hard to be sympathetic over someone who simply lies there and takes it.
Get back with me on "fraudulent governance" and "public mandate" once the global public grows a backbone and actually starts understanding that mandates don't come from silence, but faulty governance does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784</id>
	<title>Not just Wyden - call your Senators</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263046860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thankfully, it's not just Ron Wyden (OR), either. Yesterday, I was present at a meeting between two of Al Franken's (MN) staffers and a number of DC-area IP experts. A Wyden staffer was also in attendance. This means that in the current session, at least Bernie Sanders (VT), Sherrod Brown (OH), Wyden, and Franken have expressed concern about ACTA. Franken's staffers seemed particularly bothered by the fact that since ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, they neither see negotiating texts (which are being done in secret) nor have any chance to review the agreement before it has the force of law. The U.S. Trade Representative's office keeps telling them that such secrecy is par for the course, and one of the questions they were asking us was whether this is true (it's not).</p><p>I've also heard mention that Ben Cardin (MD) may have some concerns, though apparently he is more 'conservative' on IP issues than the above senators. In any case, I would urge Slashdotters to learn about ACTA, call their senators (especially if you're in one of the above states, and if you're not, tell your senator that these other senators are looking into it, and they should too), and ask them to grill the Obama administration on it's complete and total lack of transparency on this issue. Ask them why the few public-interest groups who have been permitted to see negotiating texts have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, why not a single academic or law professor has had an opportunity to see any of the drafts, and why Ron Kirk has said he believes the agreement will fall apart if it becomes public - while at the same time claiming that it does not go beyond the bounds of current U.S. law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully , it 's not just Ron Wyden ( OR ) , either .
Yesterday , I was present at a meeting between two of Al Franken 's ( MN ) staffers and a number of DC-area IP experts .
A Wyden staffer was also in attendance .
This means that in the current session , at least Bernie Sanders ( VT ) , Sherrod Brown ( OH ) , Wyden , and Franken have expressed concern about ACTA .
Franken 's staffers seemed particularly bothered by the fact that since ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement , they neither see negotiating texts ( which are being done in secret ) nor have any chance to review the agreement before it has the force of law .
The U.S. Trade Representative 's office keeps telling them that such secrecy is par for the course , and one of the questions they were asking us was whether this is true ( it 's not ) .I 've also heard mention that Ben Cardin ( MD ) may have some concerns , though apparently he is more 'conservative ' on IP issues than the above senators .
In any case , I would urge Slashdotters to learn about ACTA , call their senators ( especially if you 're in one of the above states , and if you 're not , tell your senator that these other senators are looking into it , and they should too ) , and ask them to grill the Obama administration on it 's complete and total lack of transparency on this issue .
Ask them why the few public-interest groups who have been permitted to see negotiating texts have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements , why not a single academic or law professor has had an opportunity to see any of the drafts , and why Ron Kirk has said he believes the agreement will fall apart if it becomes public - while at the same time claiming that it does not go beyond the bounds of current U.S. law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully, it's not just Ron Wyden (OR), either.
Yesterday, I was present at a meeting between two of Al Franken's (MN) staffers and a number of DC-area IP experts.
A Wyden staffer was also in attendance.
This means that in the current session, at least Bernie Sanders (VT), Sherrod Brown (OH), Wyden, and Franken have expressed concern about ACTA.
Franken's staffers seemed particularly bothered by the fact that since ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, they neither see negotiating texts (which are being done in secret) nor have any chance to review the agreement before it has the force of law.
The U.S. Trade Representative's office keeps telling them that such secrecy is par for the course, and one of the questions they were asking us was whether this is true (it's not).I've also heard mention that Ben Cardin (MD) may have some concerns, though apparently he is more 'conservative' on IP issues than the above senators.
In any case, I would urge Slashdotters to learn about ACTA, call their senators (especially if you're in one of the above states, and if you're not, tell your senator that these other senators are looking into it, and they should too), and ask them to grill the Obama administration on it's complete and total lack of transparency on this issue.
Ask them why the few public-interest groups who have been permitted to see negotiating texts have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, why not a single academic or law professor has had an opportunity to see any of the drafts, and why Ron Kirk has said he believes the agreement will fall apart if it becomes public - while at the same time claiming that it does not go beyond the bounds of current U.S. law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710582</id>
	<title>Later European Parliament question</title>
	<author>Husgaard</author>
	<datestamp>1263040740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The summary says: "All of this comes on top of earlier efforts from Swedish Member of the European Parliament Jens Holm, [...]"
</p><p>
Well, Jens Holm has not been a member of the European Parliament for half a year, and his question is almost a year old.
</p><p>
It would be a lot more relevant to link to <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2009-6094+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&amp;language=EN" title="europa.eu">the ACTA question</a> [europa.eu] from November of Swedish Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party, Christian Engstr&#246;m.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary says : " All of this comes on top of earlier efforts from Swedish Member of the European Parliament Jens Holm , [ ... ] " Well , Jens Holm has not been a member of the European Parliament for half a year , and his question is almost a year old .
It would be a lot more relevant to link to the ACTA question [ europa.eu ] from November of Swedish Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party , Christian Engstr   m .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The summary says: "All of this comes on top of earlier efforts from Swedish Member of the European Parliament Jens Holm, [...]"

Well, Jens Holm has not been a member of the European Parliament for half a year, and his question is almost a year old.
It would be a lot more relevant to link to the ACTA question [europa.eu] from November of Swedish Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party, Christian Engström.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30712528</id>
	<title>Re:The Senate is Taking Refuge in Audacity</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263058200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Speak for yourself. Here in the US we still have our firearms<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div></blockquote><p>

Because that did a lot of good with preventing the warrantless wiretapping laws or removing Carte Blanc from the TSA or preventing the establishment of "rights free" zones.<br> <br>

Waco cult members had a lot of guns, look where they are now. If it comes down to fighting the government, if you don't have the Army on your side you'll lose no matter how many guns you have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speak for yourself .
Here in the US we still have our firearms ; ) Because that did a lot of good with preventing the warrantless wiretapping laws or removing Carte Blanc from the TSA or preventing the establishment of " rights free " zones .
Waco cult members had a lot of guns , look where they are now .
If it comes down to fighting the government , if you do n't have the Army on your side you 'll lose no matter how many guns you have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speak for yourself.
Here in the US we still have our firearms ;)

Because that did a lot of good with preventing the warrantless wiretapping laws or removing Carte Blanc from the TSA or preventing the establishment of "rights free" zones.
Waco cult members had a lot of guns, look where they are now.
If it comes down to fighting the government, if you don't have the Army on your side you'll lose no matter how many guns you have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709520</id>
	<title>Re:the copyright bubble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263030060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the generation argument. So simple, yet so true. With their braindead enforcement attempts, these content sharks have sown the seeds of their own destruction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the generation argument .
So simple , yet so true .
With their braindead enforcement attempts , these content sharks have sown the seeds of their own destruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the generation argument.
So simple, yet so true.
With their braindead enforcement attempts, these content sharks have sown the seeds of their own destruction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710966</id>
	<title>the addict bubble.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An interesting bit of prose...except for one problem. People are buying and consuming, even if illegal, what the big media generates. We can talk all we want about revolutions and seed sowing, but the reality is that the public at large is still addicted to mass media content. It's kind of hard, historically or otherwise to call that a failure. Regardless of what laws they get passed, they will only be considered failures when the public at large stops consuming in whatever form their content takes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An interesting bit of prose...except for one problem .
People are buying and consuming , even if illegal , what the big media generates .
We can talk all we want about revolutions and seed sowing , but the reality is that the public at large is still addicted to mass media content .
It 's kind of hard , historically or otherwise to call that a failure .
Regardless of what laws they get passed , they will only be considered failures when the public at large stops consuming in whatever form their content takes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An interesting bit of prose...except for one problem.
People are buying and consuming, even if illegal, what the big media generates.
We can talk all we want about revolutions and seed sowing, but the reality is that the public at large is still addicted to mass media content.
It's kind of hard, historically or otherwise to call that a failure.
Regardless of what laws they get passed, they will only be considered failures when the public at large stops consuming in whatever form their content takes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766</id>
	<title>It's good to have the spotlight shone on ACTA..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263046560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though the spotlight's being shone on the dodgy practices behind ACTA, what's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty, and all is needed is legislation in each member state?</p><p>ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance, and not from the public's mandate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though the spotlight 's being shone on the dodgy practices behind ACTA , what 's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty , and all is needed is legislation in each member state ? ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance , and not from the public 's mandate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though the spotlight's being shone on the dodgy practices behind ACTA, what's the bet that this will still result in just plain old stonewalling until the final agreements have been ratified by treaty, and all is needed is legislation in each member state?ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance, and not from the public's mandate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707224</id>
	<title>Re:Not just Wyden - call your Senators</title>
	<author>Ostracus</author>
	<datestamp>1263052200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Franken's staffers seemed particularly bothered by the fact that since ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, they neither see negotiating texts (which are being done in secret) nor have any chance to review the agreement before it has the force of law."</p><p>Like the Kyoto Agreements?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Franken 's staffers seemed particularly bothered by the fact that since ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement , they neither see negotiating texts ( which are being done in secret ) nor have any chance to review the agreement before it has the force of law .
" Like the Kyoto Agreements ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Franken's staffers seemed particularly bothered by the fact that since ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, they neither see negotiating texts (which are being done in secret) nor have any chance to review the agreement before it has the force of law.
"Like the Kyoto Agreements?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30715688</id>
	<title>Re:The Senate is Taking Refuge in Audacity</title>
	<author>Yfrwlf</author>
	<datestamp>1263150960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed with the other posters, that's not going to be helping much.  What needs to happen is public protest.  Nothing can stop public protest if it's the entire country vs. you no matter how many guns each side has.  While clinging to "guns" as being some kind of nice comforting threshold, the military/govt has much bigger guns and will always be superior.  Again, it's mass protest and Democracy that need to overhaul the government, not some guns.  Not to mention the former is the preferred method.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed with the other posters , that 's not going to be helping much .
What needs to happen is public protest .
Nothing can stop public protest if it 's the entire country vs. you no matter how many guns each side has .
While clinging to " guns " as being some kind of nice comforting threshold , the military/govt has much bigger guns and will always be superior .
Again , it 's mass protest and Democracy that need to overhaul the government , not some guns .
Not to mention the former is the preferred method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed with the other posters, that's not going to be helping much.
What needs to happen is public protest.
Nothing can stop public protest if it's the entire country vs. you no matter how many guns each side has.
While clinging to "guns" as being some kind of nice comforting threshold, the military/govt has much bigger guns and will always be superior.
Again, it's mass protest and Democracy that need to overhaul the government, not some guns.
Not to mention the former is the preferred method.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706782</id>
	<title>Universal constructor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263046860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I get my universal constructor, i'll finally be able to download those cars i've always wanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I get my universal constructor , i 'll finally be able to download those cars i 've always wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I get my universal constructor, i'll finally be able to download those cars i've always wanted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707372</id>
	<title>Re:Checks and Balances . . . ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263053700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of Executive Agreements like a treaty, except only the Executive is involved. Executive Agreement does indeed have the force of law behind it. Congress has no direct recourse against a particular EA unless it specifically passes legislation against that particular EA. Yes, EAs can be challenged in court like any other law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of Executive Agreements like a treaty , except only the Executive is involved .
Executive Agreement does indeed have the force of law behind it .
Congress has no direct recourse against a particular EA unless it specifically passes legislation against that particular EA .
Yes , EAs can be challenged in court like any other law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of Executive Agreements like a treaty, except only the Executive is involved.
Executive Agreement does indeed have the force of law behind it.
Congress has no direct recourse against a particular EA unless it specifically passes legislation against that particular EA.
Yes, EAs can be challenged in court like any other law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710676</id>
	<title>Re:The Senate is Taking Refuge in Audacity</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1263041460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lol, for all the good that would actually do you.</p><p>Your pistols and rifles won't protect you one bit from our hostile government. It might make invasion from an outside occupier very difficult though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lol , for all the good that would actually do you.Your pistols and rifles wo n't protect you one bit from our hostile government .
It might make invasion from an outside occupier very difficult though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lol, for all the good that would actually do you.Your pistols and rifles won't protect you one bit from our hostile government.
It might make invasion from an outside occupier very difficult though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30715620</id>
	<title>Re:Multilateral treaties are hard to pass</title>
	<author>Yfrwlf</author>
	<datestamp>1263150420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>Once you've had Mac [apple.com], you can't go back! <br> <br>

I've had both a BigMac and used OS X, and you're right, I didn't go back to where I had those experiences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you 've had Mac [ apple.com ] , you ca n't go back !
I 've had both a BigMac and used OS X , and you 're right , I did n't go back to where I had those experiences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you've had Mac [apple.com], you can't go back!
I've had both a BigMac and used OS X, and you're right, I didn't go back to where I had those experiences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30716816</id>
	<title>Re:the copyright bubble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your clarity and critical thinking are to be applauded. Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your clarity and critical thinking are to be applauded .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your clarity and critical thinking are to be applauded.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30736790</id>
	<title>Re:the copyright bubble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263310560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's face it -- less developed countries are not going to pay licensing costs and fork over the money circulating in their economy back to us: They're going to pour it back into modernization of their own economies.</p></div><p>That's something of a premature conclusion.  Some will and some won't.  I think whether or not a developing country will submit to copyright constrictions will vary with that country's aggregate level of education and desire to 'be just like the west'.</p><p>I know from experience that you can buy a pair of Nike shoes for 60 USD in the USA and sell them in Africa for well over 100 equivalent USD.  Why?  Because it came from the USA.  Yet, at the same time, nobody wants goods from China because those goods are perceived as being of very cheap quality.  I've told by friends there that those 'high quality' goods from the USA are actually <i>made</i> in China, which doesn't seem to make much of an impression.</p><p>At least in Africa, people are more than willing to break their personal bank to get something if they think it came from the USA.  I don't know if its that way throughout the developing world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's face it -- less developed countries are not going to pay licensing costs and fork over the money circulating in their economy back to us : They 're going to pour it back into modernization of their own economies.That 's something of a premature conclusion .
Some will and some wo n't .
I think whether or not a developing country will submit to copyright constrictions will vary with that country 's aggregate level of education and desire to 'be just like the west'.I know from experience that you can buy a pair of Nike shoes for 60 USD in the USA and sell them in Africa for well over 100 equivalent USD .
Why ? Because it came from the USA .
Yet , at the same time , nobody wants goods from China because those goods are perceived as being of very cheap quality .
I 've told by friends there that those 'high quality ' goods from the USA are actually made in China , which does n't seem to make much of an impression.At least in Africa , people are more than willing to break their personal bank to get something if they think it came from the USA .
I do n't know if its that way throughout the developing world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's face it -- less developed countries are not going to pay licensing costs and fork over the money circulating in their economy back to us: They're going to pour it back into modernization of their own economies.That's something of a premature conclusion.
Some will and some won't.
I think whether or not a developing country will submit to copyright constrictions will vary with that country's aggregate level of education and desire to 'be just like the west'.I know from experience that you can buy a pair of Nike shoes for 60 USD in the USA and sell them in Africa for well over 100 equivalent USD.
Why?  Because it came from the USA.
Yet, at the same time, nobody wants goods from China because those goods are perceived as being of very cheap quality.
I've told by friends there that those 'high quality' goods from the USA are actually made in China, which doesn't seem to make much of an impression.At least in Africa, people are more than willing to break their personal bank to get something if they think it came from the USA.
I don't know if its that way throughout the developing world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30733312</id>
	<title>Great post!!!</title>
	<author>triceice</author>
	<datestamp>1263230700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Love the thoughtfulness of your comment!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Love the thoughtfulness of your comment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Love the thoughtfulness of your comment!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120</id>
	<title>Re:The Senate is Taking Refuge in Audacity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263069720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>World fascism is about three years away, and there's nothing we can do but watch</p></div><p>Speak for yourself.  Here in the US we still have our firearms<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>World fascism is about three years away , and there 's nothing we can do but watchSpeak for yourself .
Here in the US we still have our firearms ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World fascism is about three years away, and there's nothing we can do but watchSpeak for yourself.
Here in the US we still have our firearms ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708398</id>
	<title>Same problem as software auditing</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1263063660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/09/012207" title="slashdot.org">recent story on the problems with software auditing</a> [slashdot.org] which shows how this could lead to consumers being unfairly squeezed due to unclear licensing terms.  ACTA could be abused by entities such as RIAA/MPAA (Sony/Warner/Universal/EMI/Disney/whoever/etc) to unfairly sue even more people in a much broader area.  It's harmonizing their mercenary efforts while placing the onus on legitimate law enforcement, therefore corrupting that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a recent story on the problems with software auditing [ slashdot.org ] which shows how this could lead to consumers being unfairly squeezed due to unclear licensing terms .
ACTA could be abused by entities such as RIAA/MPAA ( Sony/Warner/Universal/EMI/Disney/whoever/etc ) to unfairly sue even more people in a much broader area .
It 's harmonizing their mercenary efforts while placing the onus on legitimate law enforcement , therefore corrupting that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a recent story on the problems with software auditing [slashdot.org] which shows how this could lead to consumers being unfairly squeezed due to unclear licensing terms.
ACTA could be abused by entities such as RIAA/MPAA (Sony/Warner/Universal/EMI/Disney/whoever/etc) to unfairly sue even more people in a much broader area.
It's harmonizing their mercenary efforts while placing the onus on legitimate law enforcement, therefore corrupting that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30733302</id>
	<title>Re:the addict bubble.</title>
	<author>triceice</author>
	<datestamp>1263230640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are because in reality most people do the right thing even if they think that it is wrong. Companies could do worse having a good psych phd on staff to help them understand what they need to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are because in reality most people do the right thing even if they think that it is wrong .
Companies could do worse having a good psych phd on staff to help them understand what they need to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are because in reality most people do the right thing even if they think that it is wrong.
Companies could do worse having a good psych phd on staff to help them understand what they need to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707498</id>
	<title>Re:Checks and Balances . . . ?</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1263054900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OP here. The replies already posted get it mostly right. An executive agreement is supposed to comply with existing U.S. law, and for that reason does not have to be reviewed by Congress.</p><p>The Obama administration is insisting that ACTA "colors within the lines" of current U.S. law - but of course, there is no way to know that until after it is signed and becomes public. In the meantime, the few public interest folks who have signed NDAs and seen draft texts have said that in their opinion, it goes beyond current U.S. law.</p><p>Of course if the agreement simply abides by current U.S. law, why the need to be so secretive about it?</p><p>There are a number of other issues - like the fact, IIRC, so-called "graduated response" (three-strikes) style laws are <i>permitted</i> under U.S. law, but not implemented by the DMCA, etc. So, it may be that ACTA contains provisions for three-strikes ISP disconnection despite this not being current law in the U.S. There is also the fact that ACTA will almost certainly not include U.S.-style protections for users/consumers. </p><p>Finally, and this is why Congress should be concerned, even if ACTA is totally within the bounds of current U.S. law, once this agreement is settled, if Congress then wants to change the law, the administration will point to this agreement and say "but we can't change our policy because we would be breaking ACTA." This is exactly what has happened with the Berne Convention, TRIPS, and any number of other international agreements. They constrain our future policy options.</p><p>Some people would like to see formalities for copyright registration brought back, but as long as we are a Berne signatory, that is not possible. Likewise, say that Congress eventually wants to ban three-strikes style laws (we can dream, right?). If ACTA explicitly requires that such laws are permissible, Congress would not be able to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OP here .
The replies already posted get it mostly right .
An executive agreement is supposed to comply with existing U.S. law , and for that reason does not have to be reviewed by Congress.The Obama administration is insisting that ACTA " colors within the lines " of current U.S. law - but of course , there is no way to know that until after it is signed and becomes public .
In the meantime , the few public interest folks who have signed NDAs and seen draft texts have said that in their opinion , it goes beyond current U.S. law.Of course if the agreement simply abides by current U.S. law , why the need to be so secretive about it ? There are a number of other issues - like the fact , IIRC , so-called " graduated response " ( three-strikes ) style laws are permitted under U.S. law , but not implemented by the DMCA , etc .
So , it may be that ACTA contains provisions for three-strikes ISP disconnection despite this not being current law in the U.S. There is also the fact that ACTA will almost certainly not include U.S.-style protections for users/consumers .
Finally , and this is why Congress should be concerned , even if ACTA is totally within the bounds of current U.S. law , once this agreement is settled , if Congress then wants to change the law , the administration will point to this agreement and say " but we ca n't change our policy because we would be breaking ACTA .
" This is exactly what has happened with the Berne Convention , TRIPS , and any number of other international agreements .
They constrain our future policy options.Some people would like to see formalities for copyright registration brought back , but as long as we are a Berne signatory , that is not possible .
Likewise , say that Congress eventually wants to ban three-strikes style laws ( we can dream , right ? ) .
If ACTA explicitly requires that such laws are permissible , Congress would not be able to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OP here.
The replies already posted get it mostly right.
An executive agreement is supposed to comply with existing U.S. law, and for that reason does not have to be reviewed by Congress.The Obama administration is insisting that ACTA "colors within the lines" of current U.S. law - but of course, there is no way to know that until after it is signed and becomes public.
In the meantime, the few public interest folks who have signed NDAs and seen draft texts have said that in their opinion, it goes beyond current U.S. law.Of course if the agreement simply abides by current U.S. law, why the need to be so secretive about it?There are a number of other issues - like the fact, IIRC, so-called "graduated response" (three-strikes) style laws are permitted under U.S. law, but not implemented by the DMCA, etc.
So, it may be that ACTA contains provisions for three-strikes ISP disconnection despite this not being current law in the U.S. There is also the fact that ACTA will almost certainly not include U.S.-style protections for users/consumers.
Finally, and this is why Congress should be concerned, even if ACTA is totally within the bounds of current U.S. law, once this agreement is settled, if Congress then wants to change the law, the administration will point to this agreement and say "but we can't change our policy because we would be breaking ACTA.
" This is exactly what has happened with the Berne Convention, TRIPS, and any number of other international agreements.
They constrain our future policy options.Some people would like to see formalities for copyright registration brought back, but as long as we are a Berne signatory, that is not possible.
Likewise, say that Congress eventually wants to ban three-strikes style laws (we can dream, right?).
If ACTA explicitly requires that such laws are permissible, Congress would not be able to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706852</id>
	<title>Election year here in the US</title>
	<author>ddxexex</author>
	<datestamp>1263047940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to be paranoid and wonder what's going to happen to senators &amp; reps like Wyden (He's there until 2012) during the election this year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to be paranoid and wonder what 's going to happen to senators &amp; reps like Wyden ( He 's there until 2012 ) during the election this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to be paranoid and wonder what's going to happen to senators &amp; reps like Wyden (He's there until 2012) during the election this year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710260</id>
	<title>Re:The Senate is Taking Refuge in Audacity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263037680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If American gun owners were going to do anything more than just talk, they'd have done it by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If American gun owners were going to do anything more than just talk , they 'd have done it by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If American gun owners were going to do anything more than just talk, they'd have done it by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707028</id>
	<title>Re:It's good to have the spotlight shone on ACTA..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263050220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance, and not from the public's mandate.</p></div><p>So it's just like the current US health care reform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance , and not from the public 's mandate.So it 's just like the current US health care reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ACTA comes from utterly fraudulent governance, and not from the public's mandate.So it's just like the current US health care reform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30716816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30712224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30736790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30715620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30711128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30715688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30733302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30713012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30829358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30736666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_0341208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30712528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0341208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30829358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30711128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0341208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30712528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30713012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30715688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0341208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0341208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707498
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30712224
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0341208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30715620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0341208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30708172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30736666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30709520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30736790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30710966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30733302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30716816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0341208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30706820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_0341208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_0341208.30707292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
