<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_16_160257</id>
	<title>RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality So ISPs Can Police File Sharing</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263661680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:marshall@prestovivace.biz" rel="nofollow">Presto Vivace</a> writes <i>"Reporting for Computer World, Grant Gross writes that the RIAA is asking the FCC not to make the net neutrality rules so strict that they 'would <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9145198/RIAA\_tells\_FCC\_ISPs\_need\_to\_be\_copyright\_cops">limit broadband providers' [flexibility] to "address" illegal online file sharing</a>.' It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/">Fourth Amendment</a>. 'The FCC should not only avoid rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking illegal file trading, but it should actively encourage ISPs to do so, the RIAA said. ... Other groups called on the FCC to <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/eff-weighs-proposed-fcc-net-neutrality-rules">stay out of the copyright enforcement business</a>. If ISPs are required to check for copyright infringement, they could interfere with legal online activities, said six digital rights and business groups, including Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Association and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presto Vivace writes " Reporting for Computer World , Grant Gross writes that the RIAA is asking the FCC not to make the net neutrality rules so strict that they 'would limit broadband providers ' [ flexibility ] to " address " illegal online file sharing .
' It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment .
'The FCC should not only avoid rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking illegal file trading , but it should actively encourage ISPs to do so , the RIAA said .
... Other groups called on the FCC to stay out of the copyright enforcement business .
If ISPs are required to check for copyright infringement , they could interfere with legal online activities , said six digital rights and business groups , including Public Knowledge , the Consumer Electronics Association and the Electronic Frontier Foundation .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presto Vivace writes "Reporting for Computer World, Grant Gross writes that the RIAA is asking the FCC not to make the net neutrality rules so strict that they 'would limit broadband providers' [flexibility] to "address" illegal online file sharing.
' It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment.
'The FCC should not only avoid rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking illegal file trading, but it should actively encourage ISPs to do so, the RIAA said.
... Other groups called on the FCC to stay out of the copyright enforcement business.
If ISPs are required to check for copyright infringement, they could interfere with legal online activities, said six digital rights and business groups, including Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Association and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791940</id>
	<title>national cyber security coordinator threat to net</title>
	<author>emaname</author>
	<datestamp>1263670020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From a recent PBS Newshour analysis AIR DATE: Dec. 22, 2009<br>
Subject: How Dangerous is the Cyber Crime Threat?<br> <br>

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, in fact, President Obama had talked about doing this as early as May. And then there were reports that it was taking a while to fill the position or to figure out who that person would report to.<br> <br>

JAMES LEWIS: There's a dispute in the White House and in the administration. And I think that slowed things down. Some people think it's best to leave the Internet alone, let it be the Wild West, let it continue to have a limited role for government, and the Internet community will find its way out of this problem. I don't happen to agree. I'm not sure where Howard comes out on this, but...<br> <br>

JEFFREY BROWN: Don't you agree why?<br> <br>

JAMES LEWIS: I don't, because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this. We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons. It hasn't worked. It's just like the Wild West. Time to move in the marshals.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec09/cyber\_12-22.html" title="pbs.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec09/cyber\_12-22.html</a> [pbs.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a recent PBS Newshour analysis AIR DATE : Dec. 22 , 2009 Subject : How Dangerous is the Cyber Crime Threat ?
JEFFREY BROWN : Well , in fact , President Obama had talked about doing this as early as May .
And then there were reports that it was taking a while to fill the position or to figure out who that person would report to .
JAMES LEWIS : There 's a dispute in the White House and in the administration .
And I think that slowed things down .
Some people think it 's best to leave the Internet alone , let it be the Wild West , let it continue to have a limited role for government , and the Internet community will find its way out of this problem .
I do n't happen to agree .
I 'm not sure where Howard comes out on this , but.. . JEFFREY BROWN : Do n't you agree why ?
JAMES LEWIS : I do n't , because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this .
We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons .
It has n't worked .
It 's just like the Wild West .
Time to move in the marshals .
http : //www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec09/cyber \ _12-22.html [ pbs.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a recent PBS Newshour analysis AIR DATE: Dec. 22, 2009
Subject: How Dangerous is the Cyber Crime Threat?
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, in fact, President Obama had talked about doing this as early as May.
And then there were reports that it was taking a while to fill the position or to figure out who that person would report to.
JAMES LEWIS: There's a dispute in the White House and in the administration.
And I think that slowed things down.
Some people think it's best to leave the Internet alone, let it be the Wild West, let it continue to have a limited role for government, and the Internet community will find its way out of this problem.
I don't happen to agree.
I'm not sure where Howard comes out on this, but... 

JEFFREY BROWN: Don't you agree why?
JAMES LEWIS: I don't, because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this.
We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons.
It hasn't worked.
It's just like the Wild West.
Time to move in the marshals.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec09/cyber\_12-22.html [pbs.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791796</id>
	<title>Corrupt FCC has no jurisdiction over TCPIP</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1263669060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC wasn't created to do TCPIP.</p><p>IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY!</p><p>They have no business on the web, and the only thing that will happen is they will fuck it up. just like they have with their own original mission statement.</p><p>You only hear about the FCC and the web, each time this propaganda tries to give the FCC the power to regulate more shit, in this case TCPIP.</p><p>They will gain control of the WEB if the public allows the fascist corporations to control the engineers.  THINK DAMN IT!  It's only been the last couple years the FCC has been associated with the web.</p><p>KEEP THE GOD DAMNED FCC OUT OF THE FUCKIN WEB!</p><p>Do not give them the authority to regulate the fucking web!</p><p>Unless you desire NO PUBLIC outlet for information at all.  Is that what you want?</p><p>Keep getting side-tracked with stupid ass stories and don't protest.</p><p>This is predictable as clockwork!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC was n't created to do TCPIP.IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY ! They have no business on the web , and the only thing that will happen is they will fuck it up .
just like they have with their own original mission statement.You only hear about the FCC and the web , each time this propaganda tries to give the FCC the power to regulate more shit , in this case TCPIP.They will gain control of the WEB if the public allows the fascist corporations to control the engineers .
THINK DAMN IT !
It 's only been the last couple years the FCC has been associated with the web.KEEP THE GOD DAMNED FCC OUT OF THE FUCKIN WEB ! Do not give them the authority to regulate the fucking web ! Unless you desire NO PUBLIC outlet for information at all .
Is that what you want ? Keep getting side-tracked with stupid ass stories and do n't protest.This is predictable as clockwork !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC wasn't created to do TCPIP.IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY!They have no business on the web, and the only thing that will happen is they will fuck it up.
just like they have with their own original mission statement.You only hear about the FCC and the web, each time this propaganda tries to give the FCC the power to regulate more shit, in this case TCPIP.They will gain control of the WEB if the public allows the fascist corporations to control the engineers.
THINK DAMN IT!
It's only been the last couple years the FCC has been associated with the web.KEEP THE GOD DAMNED FCC OUT OF THE FUCKIN WEB!Do not give them the authority to regulate the fucking web!Unless you desire NO PUBLIC outlet for information at all.
Is that what you want?Keep getting side-tracked with stupid ass stories and don't protest.This is predictable as clockwork!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795534</id>
	<title>I know this has been said a million times...</title>
	<author>Spectre55</author>
	<datestamp>1263656880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the RIAA needs to die. Copyright laws will only get more Draconian while they are around, at least in their current form.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the RIAA needs to die .
Copyright laws will only get more Draconian while they are around , at least in their current form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the RIAA needs to die.
Copyright laws will only get more Draconian while they are around, at least in their current form.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791586</id>
	<title>I support filtering copyrighted material</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1263667680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support filtering copyrighted material... as soon as copyright law is so clearly defined that no copyrights need never be decided in a courthouse again and even computerized systems could determine what is and is not copyright infringement with absolute 100\% certainty.<br>Anything else will undeniably limit freedom of speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support filtering copyrighted material... as soon as copyright law is so clearly defined that no copyrights need never be decided in a courthouse again and even computerized systems could determine what is and is not copyright infringement with absolute 100 \ % certainty.Anything else will undeniably limit freedom of speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support filtering copyrighted material... as soon as copyright law is so clearly defined that no copyrights need never be decided in a courthouse again and even computerized systems could determine what is and is not copyright infringement with absolute 100\% certainty.Anything else will undeniably limit freedom of speech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791576</id>
	<title>Re:analogy with mail</title>
	<author>Iceykitsune</author>
	<datestamp>1263667620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all for ISP inspection of packets, as long as the ISP becomes criminaly liable for EVERYTHING that goes over their network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for ISP inspection of packets , as long as the ISP becomes criminaly liable for EVERYTHING that goes over their network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for ISP inspection of packets, as long as the ISP becomes criminaly liable for EVERYTHING that goes over their network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794918</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263649920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.</p></div><p>And last time I checked, the FCC is a Federal agency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities .
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.And last time I checked , the FCC is a Federal agency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.And last time I checked, the FCC is a Federal agency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791648</id>
	<title>Re:Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content</title>
	<author>Kijori</author>
	<datestamp>1263668040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).</p></div><p>Absolutely - there's a similar bill over here in Britain that has been <a href="http://www.digitalwrong.org/?p=24" title="digitalwrong.org">estimated to cost &pound;500m</a> [digitalwrong.org] ($800m), or approximately &pound;25 ($40) per user, a cost that the ISP would pass straight on to the customer. I would assume that the cost per subscriber would be about the same in the US - I wonder if the RIAA is offering to pay...</p><p>The British provisions are being debated over here at the moment - the ideas sound pretty similar; among other provisions, they would force ISPs to disconnect people accused of copyright infringement, which over here has lead to the brilliant question in the House of Lords: <a href="http://www.digitalwrong.org/?p=59" title="digitalwrong.org">If someone's child downloads a film while waiting around in Parliament, does Parliament get its internet access shut off?</a> [digitalwrong.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police , though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy , potentially infringing traffic ( anything P2P , for instance , or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content ) .
Otherwise , it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid ( but which the RIAA would love to impose ) .Absolutely - there 's a similar bill over here in Britain that has been estimated to cost   500m [ digitalwrong.org ] ( $ 800m ) , or approximately   25 ( $ 40 ) per user , a cost that the ISP would pass straight on to the customer .
I would assume that the cost per subscriber would be about the same in the US - I wonder if the RIAA is offering to pay...The British provisions are being debated over here at the moment - the ideas sound pretty similar ; among other provisions , they would force ISPs to disconnect people accused of copyright infringement , which over here has lead to the brilliant question in the House of Lords : If someone 's child downloads a film while waiting around in Parliament , does Parliament get its internet access shut off ?
[ digitalwrong.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content).
Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).Absolutely - there's a similar bill over here in Britain that has been estimated to cost £500m [digitalwrong.org] ($800m), or approximately £25 ($40) per user, a cost that the ISP would pass straight on to the customer.
I would assume that the cost per subscriber would be about the same in the US - I wonder if the RIAA is offering to pay...The British provisions are being debated over here at the moment - the ideas sound pretty similar; among other provisions, they would force ISPs to disconnect people accused of copyright infringement, which over here has lead to the brilliant question in the House of Lords: If someone's child downloads a film while waiting around in Parliament, does Parliament get its internet access shut off?
[digitalwrong.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791610</id>
	<title>Why is it...</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1263667800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That vigilanteism is fine online?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That vigilanteism is fine online ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That vigilanteism is fine online?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795194</id>
	<title>Well I guess what the RIAA wants the RIAA gets</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1263652980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since they control politicians with their antiquated business model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they control politicians with their antiquated business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they control politicians with their antiquated business model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791692</id>
	<title>Re:Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263668340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ISPs have far easier tools to cut down P2P traffic if they so choose, without that damocletian sword called liability dangling over their heads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs have far easier tools to cut down P2P traffic if they so choose , without that damocletian sword called liability dangling over their heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs have far easier tools to cut down P2P traffic if they so choose, without that damocletian sword called liability dangling over their heads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792554</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263674940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with your reasoning has been noted, but it deserves repeating, because this is a common problem.  When somebody points out a fact, that does not ipso facto indicate support for that fact.  I've seen versions of the following exchange on many occasions:</p><p>Person A: Stalin ate babies.<br>Person B: Actually, there's no evidence that Stalin was a cannibal.<br>Person A: So you're a fan of Stalin?</p><p>I can never tell if Person A is being intentionally obtuse or simply can't understand that he is being so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with your reasoning has been noted , but it deserves repeating , because this is a common problem .
When somebody points out a fact , that does not ipso facto indicate support for that fact .
I 've seen versions of the following exchange on many occasions : Person A : Stalin ate babies.Person B : Actually , there 's no evidence that Stalin was a cannibal.Person A : So you 're a fan of Stalin ? I can never tell if Person A is being intentionally obtuse or simply ca n't understand that he is being so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with your reasoning has been noted, but it deserves repeating, because this is a common problem.
When somebody points out a fact, that does not ipso facto indicate support for that fact.
I've seen versions of the following exchange on many occasions:Person A: Stalin ate babies.Person B: Actually, there's no evidence that Stalin was a cannibal.Person A: So you're a fan of Stalin?I can never tell if Person A is being intentionally obtuse or simply can't understand that he is being so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791502</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1263667080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law.  I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.  They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.  There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.</p></div><p>So you're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP that they think you infringed on a copyright and that you should be booted off of the internet? The rights of others end where mine begin, and judging from the track record of the RIAA with their lawsuits against people who don't even own a computer I doubt that this will be used appropriately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a lawyer , but I did study constitutional law .
I do n't mean to be critical , but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities .
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government .
There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g .
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.So you 're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP that they think you infringed on a copyright and that you should be booted off of the internet ?
The rights of others end where mine begin , and judging from the track record of the RIAA with their lawsuits against people who do n't even own a computer I doubt that this will be used appropriately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law.
I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.
There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g.
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.So you're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP that they think you infringed on a copyright and that you should be booted off of the internet?
The rights of others end where mine begin, and judging from the track record of the RIAA with their lawsuits against people who don't even own a computer I doubt that this will be used appropriately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791548</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Skarecrow77</author>
	<datestamp>1263667440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP...</p></div><p>No, I don't believe he said that at all. What he said was that the 4th amendment doesn't apply in this circumstance, not that he's happy with or supportive of the actions of the RIAA. I doubt that there's any RIAA fans among the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd at all, not counting the random loony here or there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP...No , I do n't believe he said that at all .
What he said was that the 4th amendment does n't apply in this circumstance , not that he 's happy with or supportive of the actions of the RIAA .
I doubt that there 's any RIAA fans among the / .
crowd at all , not counting the random loony here or there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP...No, I don't believe he said that at all.
What he said was that the 4th amendment doesn't apply in this circumstance, not that he's happy with or supportive of the actions of the RIAA.
I doubt that there's any RIAA fans among the /.
crowd at all, not counting the random loony here or there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793506</id>
	<title>This makes a lot of sense...</title>
	<author>jafo</author>
	<datestamp>1263639720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should the RIAA have to spend it's time and money pursuing Jack and Jane Internet users when they can instead sue the consolidation point of them: the ISPs they subscribe to...<br><br>Once it is allowed for ISPs to do this, the RIAA can start going after the companies that aren't, or (and this is important) aren't doing a good enough job, in addition to end users.  They already have all the information to do this, it's just that the current attitude is that the ISPs don't do packet policing.<br><br>So, if the RIAA and MPAA can get this changed, it's a whole new revenue stream for them.  It makes a lot of sense.<br><br>On the other hand, I would think this would make the ISPs more compelled for net neutrality.  If it stays neutral, they don't pick up the liability related to policing the packets.<br><br>Sean</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the RIAA have to spend it 's time and money pursuing Jack and Jane Internet users when they can instead sue the consolidation point of them : the ISPs they subscribe to...Once it is allowed for ISPs to do this , the RIAA can start going after the companies that are n't , or ( and this is important ) are n't doing a good enough job , in addition to end users .
They already have all the information to do this , it 's just that the current attitude is that the ISPs do n't do packet policing.So , if the RIAA and MPAA can get this changed , it 's a whole new revenue stream for them .
It makes a lot of sense.On the other hand , I would think this would make the ISPs more compelled for net neutrality .
If it stays neutral , they do n't pick up the liability related to policing the packets.Sean</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the RIAA have to spend it's time and money pursuing Jack and Jane Internet users when they can instead sue the consolidation point of them: the ISPs they subscribe to...Once it is allowed for ISPs to do this, the RIAA can start going after the companies that aren't, or (and this is important) aren't doing a good enough job, in addition to end users.
They already have all the information to do this, it's just that the current attitude is that the ISPs don't do packet policing.So, if the RIAA and MPAA can get this changed, it's a whole new revenue stream for them.
It makes a lot of sense.On the other hand, I would think this would make the ISPs more compelled for net neutrality.
If it stays neutral, they don't pick up the liability related to policing the packets.Sean</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791462</id>
	<title>"Could do" absolutely, "should"...I think not!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263666840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA is correct that the ISPs are in a unique position in that they easily (relatively speaking, of course) could implement safeguards to stop the trafficking of any files they want.  There are some hiccups in a potential implementation, and it wouldn't come cheap, but the RIAA is at least correct that the easiest--nay, only--way to stop file trading is to cut it off at the source.</p><p>What they don't get, however, is that the ISPs have no obligation to them to do this.  It doesn't sound like the RIAA is willing to pony up the cost for this (at least, they aren't volunteering), or otherwise contribute to making it work.  It sounds more like they've decided that the FCC and the ISPs should help them, since they've proven to the world at large that they're not capable of helping themselves.  I don't see what makes them feel they've earned the right to be "saved."  It's ludicrous.</p><p>How about newspapers?  Those are fundamentally far more important to society than entertainment music.  Yet, advertisers have increased their dollars spent online, leaving less to be spent in papers; further, the wider reach of the internet is more attractive than a page in a newspaper that reaches, in major markets, a few million (and that's only a handful of places).  Further, of those million, only a fraction will actually see the ad, since few people read every section of the paper.  So, newpapers are going under all over the country, yet no one seems to be crying to save them.  How about we help them out first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA is correct that the ISPs are in a unique position in that they easily ( relatively speaking , of course ) could implement safeguards to stop the trafficking of any files they want .
There are some hiccups in a potential implementation , and it would n't come cheap , but the RIAA is at least correct that the easiest--nay , only--way to stop file trading is to cut it off at the source.What they do n't get , however , is that the ISPs have no obligation to them to do this .
It does n't sound like the RIAA is willing to pony up the cost for this ( at least , they are n't volunteering ) , or otherwise contribute to making it work .
It sounds more like they 've decided that the FCC and the ISPs should help them , since they 've proven to the world at large that they 're not capable of helping themselves .
I do n't see what makes them feel they 've earned the right to be " saved .
" It 's ludicrous.How about newspapers ?
Those are fundamentally far more important to society than entertainment music .
Yet , advertisers have increased their dollars spent online , leaving less to be spent in papers ; further , the wider reach of the internet is more attractive than a page in a newspaper that reaches , in major markets , a few million ( and that 's only a handful of places ) .
Further , of those million , only a fraction will actually see the ad , since few people read every section of the paper .
So , newpapers are going under all over the country , yet no one seems to be crying to save them .
How about we help them out first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA is correct that the ISPs are in a unique position in that they easily (relatively speaking, of course) could implement safeguards to stop the trafficking of any files they want.
There are some hiccups in a potential implementation, and it wouldn't come cheap, but the RIAA is at least correct that the easiest--nay, only--way to stop file trading is to cut it off at the source.What they don't get, however, is that the ISPs have no obligation to them to do this.
It doesn't sound like the RIAA is willing to pony up the cost for this (at least, they aren't volunteering), or otherwise contribute to making it work.
It sounds more like they've decided that the FCC and the ISPs should help them, since they've proven to the world at large that they're not capable of helping themselves.
I don't see what makes them feel they've earned the right to be "saved.
"  It's ludicrous.How about newspapers?
Those are fundamentally far more important to society than entertainment music.
Yet, advertisers have increased their dollars spent online, leaving less to be spent in papers; further, the wider reach of the internet is more attractive than a page in a newspaper that reaches, in major markets, a few million (and that's only a handful of places).
Further, of those million, only a fraction will actually see the ad, since few people read every section of the paper.
So, newpapers are going under all over the country, yet no one seems to be crying to save them.
How about we help them out first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791516</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1263667140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.</p></div></blockquote><p> The 14th amendment says otherwise.  Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments, so are the states.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g .
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C. The 14th amendment says otherwise .
Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments , so are the states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g.
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C. The 14th amendment says otherwise.
Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments, so are the states.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794612</id>
	<title>Re:So basically</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1263646920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this."</p><p>How about a little fix?</p><p>"We're all for net neutrality, so long as it can be modified to fit into the perfect police state."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're all for net neutrality , except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this .
" How about a little fix ?
" We 're all for net neutrality , so long as it can be modified to fit into the perfect police state .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.
"How about a little fix?
"We're all for net neutrality, so long as it can be modified to fit into the perfect police state.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791632</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263667920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that was written before people envisioned companies outright owning entire governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that was written before people envisioned companies outright owning entire governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that was written before people envisioned companies outright owning entire governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793682</id>
	<title>Re:I support filtering copyrighted material</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263640800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose you're probably being ironic in that you know such filtering would never be possible, but it's not just because copyright isn't well defined enough or because computers can't detect copyrighted material with 100\% certainty, but because human judgement is also necessary.  Even in cases where the law *is* clear, life is not clear.  The law is meant to approximate justice, but we have lawyers and judges and juries so that there's a "man in the loop" to address the times when the law strays too far from justice.  Justice is the goal; lawfulness is not.
</p><p>Besides, one of the things that the RIAA doesn't mention is that *a lot* of stuff on the Internet is under copyright, is copied by users, and yet is not violating anything.  Take this post, for example.  According to this site's terms, I own the copyright to this post.  The fact that you're reading this means that you've downloaded this comment.  You've copied it.  You've copied something that I own the copyright to, but you haven't infringed.  Further, you might quote this comment in your own post.  In that case, you're not only copying but effectively distributing that copy.  You and this website are distributing my copyrighted materials, but there is no copyright infringement.
</p><p>If ISPs were to filter out *all* copyrighted material, then virtually no material would be left on the Internet.  Even open source projects are still copyrighted; they're just distributed according to various open source licenses.  Therefore, in order for the ISPs to begin to protect all copyright concerns, they would need to devise a system where every download of even the smallest size, once identified, would be referenced back to some kind of licensing server which could determine the terms of the license under which the content is being distributed.  Even that would be extremely difficult since any piece of content may be distributed under different licenses, each license with different terms.
</p><p>So in order for an ISP to prevent all copyright infringement, they would need to identify the user of a computer, the computer owner, the source for the download, and the owner of the copyright for every piece of material on the Internet.  They would have to know the business relationships and deals between all 4 parties involved, and any other possible parties which may have a stake or may have licensed the material, thereby knowing whether a license was granted to anyone involved in the generation of a copy, thereby knowing whether the act of copying was legal.  Having a large registry of data which identifies the copyright status of all material on the Internet and the licensing information of every party involved might give them enough information to filter, but then they'd still have to go through the process of running a query and filtering for <i>every single transfer</i> if they were truly interested in stopping copyright infringement.  If they're only going to do it for movies and TV, then they should at least admit that they're asking the ISPs to become a copyright enforcement arm of those industries, and they are not asking the ISPs to protect copyright equitably.
</p><p>And then of course, none of this addresses issues like "fair use".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose you 're probably being ironic in that you know such filtering would never be possible , but it 's not just because copyright is n't well defined enough or because computers ca n't detect copyrighted material with 100 \ % certainty , but because human judgement is also necessary .
Even in cases where the law * is * clear , life is not clear .
The law is meant to approximate justice , but we have lawyers and judges and juries so that there 's a " man in the loop " to address the times when the law strays too far from justice .
Justice is the goal ; lawfulness is not .
Besides , one of the things that the RIAA does n't mention is that * a lot * of stuff on the Internet is under copyright , is copied by users , and yet is not violating anything .
Take this post , for example .
According to this site 's terms , I own the copyright to this post .
The fact that you 're reading this means that you 've downloaded this comment .
You 've copied it .
You 've copied something that I own the copyright to , but you have n't infringed .
Further , you might quote this comment in your own post .
In that case , you 're not only copying but effectively distributing that copy .
You and this website are distributing my copyrighted materials , but there is no copyright infringement .
If ISPs were to filter out * all * copyrighted material , then virtually no material would be left on the Internet .
Even open source projects are still copyrighted ; they 're just distributed according to various open source licenses .
Therefore , in order for the ISPs to begin to protect all copyright concerns , they would need to devise a system where every download of even the smallest size , once identified , would be referenced back to some kind of licensing server which could determine the terms of the license under which the content is being distributed .
Even that would be extremely difficult since any piece of content may be distributed under different licenses , each license with different terms .
So in order for an ISP to prevent all copyright infringement , they would need to identify the user of a computer , the computer owner , the source for the download , and the owner of the copyright for every piece of material on the Internet .
They would have to know the business relationships and deals between all 4 parties involved , and any other possible parties which may have a stake or may have licensed the material , thereby knowing whether a license was granted to anyone involved in the generation of a copy , thereby knowing whether the act of copying was legal .
Having a large registry of data which identifies the copyright status of all material on the Internet and the licensing information of every party involved might give them enough information to filter , but then they 'd still have to go through the process of running a query and filtering for every single transfer if they were truly interested in stopping copyright infringement .
If they 're only going to do it for movies and TV , then they should at least admit that they 're asking the ISPs to become a copyright enforcement arm of those industries , and they are not asking the ISPs to protect copyright equitably .
And then of course , none of this addresses issues like " fair use " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose you're probably being ironic in that you know such filtering would never be possible, but it's not just because copyright isn't well defined enough or because computers can't detect copyrighted material with 100\% certainty, but because human judgement is also necessary.
Even in cases where the law *is* clear, life is not clear.
The law is meant to approximate justice, but we have lawyers and judges and juries so that there's a "man in the loop" to address the times when the law strays too far from justice.
Justice is the goal; lawfulness is not.
Besides, one of the things that the RIAA doesn't mention is that *a lot* of stuff on the Internet is under copyright, is copied by users, and yet is not violating anything.
Take this post, for example.
According to this site's terms, I own the copyright to this post.
The fact that you're reading this means that you've downloaded this comment.
You've copied it.
You've copied something that I own the copyright to, but you haven't infringed.
Further, you might quote this comment in your own post.
In that case, you're not only copying but effectively distributing that copy.
You and this website are distributing my copyrighted materials, but there is no copyright infringement.
If ISPs were to filter out *all* copyrighted material, then virtually no material would be left on the Internet.
Even open source projects are still copyrighted; they're just distributed according to various open source licenses.
Therefore, in order for the ISPs to begin to protect all copyright concerns, they would need to devise a system where every download of even the smallest size, once identified, would be referenced back to some kind of licensing server which could determine the terms of the license under which the content is being distributed.
Even that would be extremely difficult since any piece of content may be distributed under different licenses, each license with different terms.
So in order for an ISP to prevent all copyright infringement, they would need to identify the user of a computer, the computer owner, the source for the download, and the owner of the copyright for every piece of material on the Internet.
They would have to know the business relationships and deals between all 4 parties involved, and any other possible parties which may have a stake or may have licensed the material, thereby knowing whether a license was granted to anyone involved in the generation of a copy, thereby knowing whether the act of copying was legal.
Having a large registry of data which identifies the copyright status of all material on the Internet and the licensing information of every party involved might give them enough information to filter, but then they'd still have to go through the process of running a query and filtering for every single transfer if they were truly interested in stopping copyright infringement.
If they're only going to do it for movies and TV, then they should at least admit that they're asking the ISPs to become a copyright enforcement arm of those industries, and they are not asking the ISPs to protect copyright equitably.
And then of course, none of this addresses issues like "fair use".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793808</id>
	<title>GP was also complaining about lib/con labels...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263641580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that the labels get tossed around a lot, but I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that that it's ridiculous for the FCC to be called "liberal" in a pejorative way for opposing what is effectively a bailout, because it makes no sense, and that's what GP post was against.</p><p>It's weird how you're ranting against the GP who is also complaining about weird use of those labels.  Or maybe you're just trying to defend the RIAA?  Good luck with that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that the labels get tossed around a lot , but I do n't think it 's unreasonable to claim that that it 's ridiculous for the FCC to be called " liberal " in a pejorative way for opposing what is effectively a bailout , because it makes no sense , and that 's what GP post was against.It 's weird how you 're ranting against the GP who is also complaining about weird use of those labels .
Or maybe you 're just trying to defend the RIAA ?
Good luck with that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that the labels get tossed around a lot, but I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that that it's ridiculous for the FCC to be called "liberal" in a pejorative way for opposing what is effectively a bailout, because it makes no sense, and that's what GP post was against.It's weird how you're ranting against the GP who is also complaining about weird use of those labels.
Or maybe you're just trying to defend the RIAA?
Good luck with that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793358</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1263638640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A private entity has no power to create policy.  Here, a private entity is advising a FEDERAL Government entity (the FCC) - which IS fully bound by the Bill of Rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A private entity has no power to create policy .
Here , a private entity is advising a FEDERAL Government entity ( the FCC ) - which IS fully bound by the Bill of Rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A private entity has no power to create policy.
Here, a private entity is advising a FEDERAL Government entity (the FCC) - which IS fully bound by the Bill of Rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30800186</id>
	<title>Re:Huhhnn?</title>
	<author>mrrudge</author>
	<datestamp>1263758820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You really do need to learn what 'you're' and 'your' mean before you start making such retarded statements about 'you are version of politics' and a rooting belonging to someone ? ( Root is Australian slang for sex, so maybe you've got Debbie Does Dallas on repeat in the background ? )
<br> <br>
Please get a fucking clue and stop being such <b>an</b> uneducated, ignorant moron.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You really do need to learn what 'you 're ' and 'your ' mean before you start making such retarded statements about 'you are version of politics ' and a rooting belonging to someone ?
( Root is Australian slang for sex , so maybe you 've got Debbie Does Dallas on repeat in the background ?
) Please get a fucking clue and stop being such an uneducated , ignorant moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really do need to learn what 'you're' and 'your' mean before you start making such retarded statements about 'you are version of politics' and a rooting belonging to someone ?
( Root is Australian slang for sex, so maybe you've got Debbie Does Dallas on repeat in the background ?
)
 
Please get a fucking clue and stop being such an uneducated, ignorant moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791480</id>
	<title>Re:analogy with mail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263666960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem, is that "opened mail" is difficult to conceal without failing to deliver it.</p><p>"Inspected Packets" on the other hand, look just the same upon delivery; they just take inordinately longer to be delivered.</p><p>As a result, the "Out of sight, out of mind" principle kicks in with Joe Sixpack; and he really isn't concerned.  (however, Most slashdot readers are already aware of the average level of intellect attributed to Joe Sixpack.)</p><p>I realize that "obviously opened mail" vs "Not obviously inspected packets" is a purely cosmetic one, and that the total disregard and avoidance of the privacy issue is sick and twisted, but it would seem to be the current state of affairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem , is that " opened mail " is difficult to conceal without failing to deliver it .
" Inspected Packets " on the other hand , look just the same upon delivery ; they just take inordinately longer to be delivered.As a result , the " Out of sight , out of mind " principle kicks in with Joe Sixpack ; and he really is n't concerned .
( however , Most slashdot readers are already aware of the average level of intellect attributed to Joe Sixpack .
) I realize that " obviously opened mail " vs " Not obviously inspected packets " is a purely cosmetic one , and that the total disregard and avoidance of the privacy issue is sick and twisted , but it would seem to be the current state of affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem, is that "opened mail" is difficult to conceal without failing to deliver it.
"Inspected Packets" on the other hand, look just the same upon delivery; they just take inordinately longer to be delivered.As a result, the "Out of sight, out of mind" principle kicks in with Joe Sixpack; and he really isn't concerned.
(however, Most slashdot readers are already aware of the average level of intellect attributed to Joe Sixpack.
)I realize that "obviously opened mail" vs "Not obviously inspected packets" is a purely cosmetic one, and that the total disregard and avoidance of the privacy issue is sick and twisted, but it would seem to be the current state of affairs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791970</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263670200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you should be booted off of the internet?</p></div><p>The ISP is in the business of serving subscribers who pay monthly fees. As long as your billing identity affords you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible\_deniability" title="wikipedia.org">plausible deniability</a> [wikipedia.org], particularly for mobile broadband accounts, the ISP would be happy to continue selling you service under a new alias. It is an unfortunate truth that ordinary citizens, due to corrupt bargains between special interests and the government, are increasingly compelled by necessity to master the techniques of intelligence operatives simply to maintain privacy and duck silly restrictions, but that is the world that we live in today. For those who are interested, I recommend the following <a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Invisible-Essential-Protecting/dp/0312319061" title="amazon.com">book</a> [amazon.com]. After all, the lobbyists, corporations and politicians don't play be the rules; so why should we?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you should be booted off of the internet ? The ISP is in the business of serving subscribers who pay monthly fees .
As long as your billing identity affords you plausible deniability [ wikipedia.org ] , particularly for mobile broadband accounts , the ISP would be happy to continue selling you service under a new alias .
It is an unfortunate truth that ordinary citizens , due to corrupt bargains between special interests and the government , are increasingly compelled by necessity to master the techniques of intelligence operatives simply to maintain privacy and duck silly restrictions , but that is the world that we live in today .
For those who are interested , I recommend the following book [ amazon.com ] .
After all , the lobbyists , corporations and politicians do n't play be the rules ; so why should we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you should be booted off of the internet?The ISP is in the business of serving subscribers who pay monthly fees.
As long as your billing identity affords you plausible deniability [wikipedia.org], particularly for mobile broadband accounts, the ISP would be happy to continue selling you service under a new alias.
It is an unfortunate truth that ordinary citizens, due to corrupt bargains between special interests and the government, are increasingly compelled by necessity to master the techniques of intelligence operatives simply to maintain privacy and duck silly restrictions, but that is the world that we live in today.
For those who are interested, I recommend the following book [amazon.com].
After all, the lobbyists, corporations and politicians don't play be the rules; so why should we?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791266</id>
	<title>So basically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263665460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all for net neutrality , except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795886</id>
	<title>Re:pfft</title>
	<author>richaemry</author>
	<datestamp>1263661080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA can't actually do what they are paid to do which is protect royalties. So what they do is create a media circus to make it appear to their clients that they are doing their jobs. Otherwise they would lose their clints if they relized how incompitent the people supposedly protecting their royalties are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA ca n't actually do what they are paid to do which is protect royalties .
So what they do is create a media circus to make it appear to their clients that they are doing their jobs .
Otherwise they would lose their clints if they relized how incompitent the people supposedly protecting their royalties are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA can't actually do what they are paid to do which is protect royalties.
So what they do is create a media circus to make it appear to their clients that they are doing their jobs.
Otherwise they would lose their clints if they relized how incompitent the people supposedly protecting their royalties are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791770</id>
	<title>Team RIAA, World Police</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1263668880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is another attempt by the RIAA to dilute their highly unpopular (and unconstitutional) warfare on anyone who exchanges music. If they can "get" the ISP's to do the filtering for them then the next step would be for the RIAA to "require" the ISP's to be the bad guys.</p><p>Net Neutrality is something worth fighting for. This RIAA attempt is a sideways attempt to undermine the free access to most information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is another attempt by the RIAA to dilute their highly unpopular ( and unconstitutional ) warfare on anyone who exchanges music .
If they can " get " the ISP 's to do the filtering for them then the next step would be for the RIAA to " require " the ISP 's to be the bad guys.Net Neutrality is something worth fighting for .
This RIAA attempt is a sideways attempt to undermine the free access to most information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is another attempt by the RIAA to dilute their highly unpopular (and unconstitutional) warfare on anyone who exchanges music.
If they can "get" the ISP's to do the filtering for them then the next step would be for the RIAA to "require" the ISP's to be the bad guys.Net Neutrality is something worth fighting for.
This RIAA attempt is a sideways attempt to undermine the free access to most information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791524</id>
	<title>Re:analogy with mail</title>
	<author>u4ya</author>
	<datestamp>1263667260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right.  What don't these RIAA jerks get?  It's almost like they are operating with their own agenda or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
What do n't these RIAA jerks get ?
It 's almost like they are operating with their own agenda or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
What don't these RIAA jerks get?
It's almost like they are operating with their own agenda or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795044</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1263651240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My comment either never successfully was attached, or it was removed.  Regardless, I will post it again:</p><p>Your "study" of constitutional law probably went no further than a high school classroom, as your comment is completely and utterly false.  The Bill of Rights are applicable to the states through the 14th amendment, and you would know what if you had actually studied constitutional law.  You can even find evidence of this when you read the constitutions of every state in the United States.</p><p>Regardless of any of this, private parties(citizen and/or corporation) have no legal right to violate another person's or corporation's privacy.  There are stiff penalties and there will be harsh reactions to such actions.  Though, the problem is that if a private organization is working to enforce the law, they are, by definition, acting as an arm of the government.  Still, the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights attached to it, protects people from governmental and private invasion.</p><p>Also, D.C. v Heller was already decided.  The only major, pending court decision is in McDonald v Chicago.  Get your damned facts straight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My comment either never successfully was attached , or it was removed .
Regardless , I will post it again : Your " study " of constitutional law probably went no further than a high school classroom , as your comment is completely and utterly false .
The Bill of Rights are applicable to the states through the 14th amendment , and you would know what if you had actually studied constitutional law .
You can even find evidence of this when you read the constitutions of every state in the United States.Regardless of any of this , private parties ( citizen and/or corporation ) have no legal right to violate another person 's or corporation 's privacy .
There are stiff penalties and there will be harsh reactions to such actions .
Though , the problem is that if a private organization is working to enforce the law , they are , by definition , acting as an arm of the government .
Still , the U.S. Constitution , as well as the Bill of Rights attached to it , protects people from governmental and private invasion.Also , D.C. v Heller was already decided .
The only major , pending court decision is in McDonald v Chicago .
Get your damned facts straight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My comment either never successfully was attached, or it was removed.
Regardless, I will post it again:Your "study" of constitutional law probably went no further than a high school classroom, as your comment is completely and utterly false.
The Bill of Rights are applicable to the states through the 14th amendment, and you would know what if you had actually studied constitutional law.
You can even find evidence of this when you read the constitutions of every state in the United States.Regardless of any of this, private parties(citizen and/or corporation) have no legal right to violate another person's or corporation's privacy.
There are stiff penalties and there will be harsh reactions to such actions.
Though, the problem is that if a private organization is working to enforce the law, they are, by definition, acting as an arm of the government.
Still, the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights attached to it, protects people from governmental and private invasion.Also, D.C. v Heller was already decided.
The only major, pending court decision is in McDonald v Chicago.
Get your damned facts straight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791448</id>
	<title>Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content?</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1263666780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police , though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy , potentially infringing traffic ( anything P2P , for instance , or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content ) .
Otherwise , it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid ( but which the RIAA would love to impose ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content).
Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791928</id>
	<title>Re:analogy with mail</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1263669960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail. </em> </p><p>
Bad analogy.  The postal inspectors are free to open (and re-seal)  any mail or message they deem suspicious.
</p><p>
And when packages are sent via <b>media mail</b> or other restricted mail service, that is only supposed to be used for books and certain other specifically allowed items,  they commonly do open items, inspect, and re-seal.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else 's mail .
Bad analogy .
The postal inspectors are free to open ( and re-seal ) any mail or message they deem suspicious .
And when packages are sent via media mail or other restricted mail service , that is only supposed to be used for books and certain other specifically allowed items , they commonly do open items , inspect , and re-seal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail.
Bad analogy.
The postal inspectors are free to open (and re-seal)  any mail or message they deem suspicious.
And when packages are sent via media mail or other restricted mail service, that is only supposed to be used for books and certain other specifically allowed items,  they commonly do open items, inspect, and re-seal.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792978</id>
	<title>People rule</title>
	<author>Peter Nikolic</author>
	<datestamp>1263635280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big thing here is  that it is the people of the country that rule and if enough of you get together and tell the RIAA and their Co Horts to go jump in a pool of liquid pig shit then they got to go do as they have been told likewise the people of the  Country vote for the Lawmakers ie the politicians so the people have the Ultimate Control over said individuals , It is within the ability of the people of the nation to say that is a step too far sunny back off! and groups like the RIAA only exist by the overall grace of the population forget the big corps like EMi , Sony  ect  they have no choice in the matter if the people pull together they have to play the game according to the rules OF the People<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>I spose i the simple way of putting it is get off ya asses and sort them out  simples***</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big thing here is that it is the people of the country that rule and if enough of you get together and tell the RIAA and their Co Horts to go jump in a pool of liquid pig shit then they got to go do as they have been told likewise the people of the Country vote for the Lawmakers ie the politicians so the people have the Ultimate Control over said individuals , It is within the ability of the people of the nation to say that is a step too far sunny back off !
and groups like the RIAA only exist by the overall grace of the population forget the big corps like EMi , Sony ect they have no choice in the matter if the people pull together they have to play the game according to the rules OF the People ..I spose i the simple way of putting it is get off ya asses and sort them out simples * * *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big thing here is  that it is the people of the country that rule and if enough of you get together and tell the RIAA and their Co Horts to go jump in a pool of liquid pig shit then they got to go do as they have been told likewise the people of the  Country vote for the Lawmakers ie the politicians so the people have the Ultimate Control over said individuals , It is within the ability of the people of the nation to say that is a step too far sunny back off!
and groups like the RIAA only exist by the overall grace of the population forget the big corps like EMi , Sony  ect  they have no choice in the matter if the people pull together they have to play the game according to the rules OF the People ..I spose i the simple way of putting it is get off ya asses and sort them out  simples***</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794666</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1263647400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities"</p><p>The Bill of Rights never was intended to apply to private and/or corporate entities.  It was meant to apply to private,  individual, CITIZENS.  Entities aren't citizens, and no rights apply to them.  You have that much right.</p><p>As for my own rights - I'm willing to defend my rights with force.  If you don't appreciate your rights, and you don't care to defend them, why do you stay in the US?  This is the  land of the free, and the home of the brave.  You must be uncomfortable here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities " The Bill of Rights never was intended to apply to private and/or corporate entities .
It was meant to apply to private , individual , CITIZENS .
Entities are n't citizens , and no rights apply to them .
You have that much right.As for my own rights - I 'm willing to defend my rights with force .
If you do n't appreciate your rights , and you do n't care to defend them , why do you stay in the US ?
This is the land of the free , and the home of the brave .
You must be uncomfortable here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities"The Bill of Rights never was intended to apply to private and/or corporate entities.
It was meant to apply to private,  individual, CITIZENS.
Entities aren't citizens, and no rights apply to them.
You have that much right.As for my own rights - I'm willing to defend my rights with force.
If you don't appreciate your rights, and you don't care to defend them, why do you stay in the US?
This is the  land of the free, and the home of the brave.
You must be uncomfortable here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791354</id>
	<title>Huhhnn?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263666060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what they're saying is their business model is so flawed that it can only be supported by making other businesses pay for their complete failure in the marketplace? Yeah, that makes sense... <i>in bizarro world.</i> The FCC is being maligned for being a "liberal" establishment, but this is about as conservative a viewpoint as it gets: They're asking for their business to get special treatment because it makes horseshoes in a automobile era. Or, put another way -- they want a bailout.</p><p>Yes, how very liberal of them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/snark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what they 're saying is their business model is so flawed that it can only be supported by making other businesses pay for their complete failure in the marketplace ?
Yeah , that makes sense... in bizarro world .
The FCC is being maligned for being a " liberal " establishment , but this is about as conservative a viewpoint as it gets : They 're asking for their business to get special treatment because it makes horseshoes in a automobile era .
Or , put another way -- they want a bailout.Yes , how very liberal of them .
/snark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what they're saying is their business model is so flawed that it can only be supported by making other businesses pay for their complete failure in the marketplace?
Yeah, that makes sense... in bizarro world.
The FCC is being maligned for being a "liberal" establishment, but this is about as conservative a viewpoint as it gets: They're asking for their business to get special treatment because it makes horseshoes in a automobile era.
Or, put another way -- they want a bailout.Yes, how very liberal of them.
/snark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791654</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1263668160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC is a part of the federal government, if they're actively encouraging private companies to rifle through private communications, or worse, forcing them to do so or penalizing them for NOT doing so, the situation is not so black and white that we can declare it to be outside the scope of bill of rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC is a part of the federal government , if they 're actively encouraging private companies to rifle through private communications , or worse , forcing them to do so or penalizing them for NOT doing so , the situation is not so black and white that we can declare it to be outside the scope of bill of rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC is a part of the federal government, if they're actively encouraging private companies to rifle through private communications, or worse, forcing them to do so or penalizing them for NOT doing so, the situation is not so black and white that we can declare it to be outside the scope of bill of rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793880</id>
	<title>Re:Meteor</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1263641940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, Russia is planning to launch a mission to deflect Apophis.</p><p>Maybe for a little fee they'll take suggestions for the new course.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , Russia is planning to launch a mission to deflect Apophis.Maybe for a little fee they 'll take suggestions for the new course .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, Russia is planning to launch a mission to deflect Apophis.Maybe for a little fee they'll take suggestions for the new course.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791572</id>
	<title>Re:Meteor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263667620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone tried calling sephiroth? I'm sure he has just enough power left to drop a meteor on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone tried calling sephiroth ?
I 'm sure he has just enough power left to drop a meteor on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone tried calling sephiroth?
I'm sure he has just enough power left to drop a meteor on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793964</id>
	<title>Re:Meteor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263642420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, the chances of that thing hitting the exact same spot as the location of their headquarters is astronomically small. You are also forgetting that they are like rats and will thus have multiple hiding places.</p><p>As the saying goes... Just nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , the chances of that thing hitting the exact same spot as the location of their headquarters is astronomically small .
You are also forgetting that they are like rats and will thus have multiple hiding places.As the saying goes... Just nuke it from orbit .
It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, the chances of that thing hitting the exact same spot as the location of their headquarters is astronomically small.
You are also forgetting that they are like rats and will thus have multiple hiding places.As the saying goes... Just nuke it from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792828</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263633900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because much like pirating software or other content, IT REALLY DOESN'T FUCKING HURT ANYONE, regardless of how much you whine and bitch about it.</p><p>And no, the girl that killed herself over a myspace or facebook page didn't do it because of online activities, she did it because she was mentally unstable and unable to survive in the real world.  Should would have done it based on something else the next day if it hadn't been for the website being there.</p><p>Get some perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because much like pirating software or other content , IT REALLY DOES N'T FUCKING HURT ANYONE , regardless of how much you whine and bitch about it.And no , the girl that killed herself over a myspace or facebook page did n't do it because of online activities , she did it because she was mentally unstable and unable to survive in the real world .
Should would have done it based on something else the next day if it had n't been for the website being there.Get some perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because much like pirating software or other content, IT REALLY DOESN'T FUCKING HURT ANYONE, regardless of how much you whine and bitch about it.And no, the girl that killed herself over a myspace or facebook page didn't do it because of online activities, she did it because she was mentally unstable and unable to survive in the real world.
Should would have done it based on something else the next day if it hadn't been for the website being there.Get some perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386</id>
	<title>Likely without precedent</title>
	<author>jarocho</author>
	<datestamp>1263666300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quoting: "Internet service providers should have authority to block subscribers from sharing music and other files without permission of the copyright owner, the RIAA said."
<br>
<br>
I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land. Et cetera. This would appear to be unprecedented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoting : " Internet service providers should have authority to block subscribers from sharing music and other files without permission of the copyright owner , the RIAA said .
" I do n't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto , or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy " beach-side " Florida swamp land .
Et cetera .
This would appear to be unprecedented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoting: "Internet service providers should have authority to block subscribers from sharing music and other files without permission of the copyright owner, the RIAA said.
"


I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land.
Et cetera.
This would appear to be unprecedented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791732</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1263668640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yes, but the constitutional ammendments also apply to the government using private entities.
</p><p>
For example, the government can't require all janitors to search for certain violations and report them directly to the government.
</p><p>
The government can't legally make an end-run around the first ammendment by hiring private companies to silence a person, jam their signal, or hack into their web host and delete their blog.
</p><p>
I'm suggesting the FCC requiring or encouraging ISPs to 'monitor' users activities (to determine if they were doing anything illegal) and report to the government,  would be equivalent to the government itself participating in that activity...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the constitutional ammendments also apply to the government using private entities .
For example , the government ca n't require all janitors to search for certain violations and report them directly to the government .
The government ca n't legally make an end-run around the first ammendment by hiring private companies to silence a person , jam their signal , or hack into their web host and delete their blog .
I 'm suggesting the FCC requiring or encouraging ISPs to 'monitor ' users activities ( to determine if they were doing anything illegal ) and report to the government , would be equivalent to the government itself participating in that activity.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yes, but the constitutional ammendments also apply to the government using private entities.
For example, the government can't require all janitors to search for certain violations and report them directly to the government.
The government can't legally make an end-run around the first ammendment by hiring private companies to silence a person, jam their signal, or hack into their web host and delete their blog.
I'm suggesting the FCC requiring or encouraging ISPs to 'monitor' users activities (to determine if they were doing anything illegal) and report to the government,  would be equivalent to the government itself participating in that activity...
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792250</id>
	<title>Re:Likely without precedent</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263672660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your highway analogy is flawed in that it involves actual stolen goods, as in things removed from some location and transferred elsewhere, unlike the RIAA's case. This only makes your example even stronger; even where actual stolen goods are being transferred, there isn't precedent for this.

</p><p>The RIAA guys need to get a real business model, because their artificial scarcity one requires way too many things to prop it up, and apparently quite expensive as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your highway analogy is flawed in that it involves actual stolen goods , as in things removed from some location and transferred elsewhere , unlike the RIAA 's case .
This only makes your example even stronger ; even where actual stolen goods are being transferred , there is n't precedent for this .
The RIAA guys need to get a real business model , because their artificial scarcity one requires way too many things to prop it up , and apparently quite expensive as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your highway analogy is flawed in that it involves actual stolen goods, as in things removed from some location and transferred elsewhere, unlike the RIAA's case.
This only makes your example even stronger; even where actual stolen goods are being transferred, there isn't precedent for this.
The RIAA guys need to get a real business model, because their artificial scarcity one requires way too many things to prop it up, and apparently quite expensive as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792840</id>
	<title>Ignorance</title>
	<author>J'raxis</author>
	<datestamp>1263634020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm completely opposed to the RIAA and think copyright should be outright abolished, but... "It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment"? The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply <em>at all</em> to what a private party can do to monitor another private party using their service. Provided it's in your contract with your ISP, which it most certainly is, they can monitor you for illegal activities (or any other activities they consider violations of said contract) and shut you down if they want.
</p><p>
Go look up "private property" and stop thinking it's the government's damn job to protect you against anything you don't like. (Same goes for "network neutrality," but that's beyond the scope of this post.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm completely opposed to the RIAA and think copyright should be outright abolished , but... " It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment " ?
The Fourth Amendment does n't apply at all to what a private party can do to monitor another private party using their service .
Provided it 's in your contract with your ISP , which it most certainly is , they can monitor you for illegal activities ( or any other activities they consider violations of said contract ) and shut you down if they want .
Go look up " private property " and stop thinking it 's the government 's damn job to protect you against anything you do n't like .
( Same goes for " network neutrality , " but that 's beyond the scope of this post .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm completely opposed to the RIAA and think copyright should be outright abolished, but... "It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment"?
The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply at all to what a private party can do to monitor another private party using their service.
Provided it's in your contract with your ISP, which it most certainly is, they can monitor you for illegal activities (or any other activities they consider violations of said contract) and shut you down if they want.
Go look up "private property" and stop thinking it's the government's damn job to protect you against anything you don't like.
(Same goes for "network neutrality," but that's beyond the scope of this post.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791348</id>
	<title>pfft</title>
	<author>arbiter1</author>
	<datestamp>1263666000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>RIAA just won't quit will they. Their idea would require ISP's to spend money, they don't even want to spend money to upgrade their networks to deal with increased load.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA just wo n't quit will they .
Their idea would require ISP 's to spend money , they do n't even want to spend money to upgrade their networks to deal with increased load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA just won't quit will they.
Their idea would require ISP's to spend money, they don't even want to spend money to upgrade their networks to deal with increased load.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792916</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263634620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a person from Europe, the concept of Federal government confuses me. How could 'THE' law (ie. the constitution, which at least in my country is the 'highest' possible law) only apply to the government, or in this case, only to a part of the government?<br>Reasoning from what I just read (4th amendment), assuming it only applies to the government, does that mean I can spy on my neighbour? Or is privacy from private persons simply arranged elsewhere in US law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a person from Europe , the concept of Federal government confuses me .
How could 'THE ' law ( ie .
the constitution , which at least in my country is the 'highest ' possible law ) only apply to the government , or in this case , only to a part of the government ? Reasoning from what I just read ( 4th amendment ) , assuming it only applies to the government , does that mean I can spy on my neighbour ?
Or is privacy from private persons simply arranged elsewhere in US law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a person from Europe, the concept of Federal government confuses me.
How could 'THE' law (ie.
the constitution, which at least in my country is the 'highest' possible law) only apply to the government, or in this case, only to a part of the government?Reasoning from what I just read (4th amendment), assuming it only applies to the government, does that mean I can spy on my neighbour?
Or is privacy from private persons simply arranged elsewhere in US law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30796198</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263666300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.</p></div></blockquote><p> The 14th amendment says otherwise.  Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments, so are the states.</p></div><p>I'm the originator of the post to which you replied.  Obviously, I'm aware of the 14th amendment.  But you must be aware that there is STILL ongoing debate about which amendments apply to the states. Here&rsquo;s some quick info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation\_\%28Bill\_of\_Rights\%29.  I used the example of the 2nd amendment.  Do some reading on McDonald v. Chicago.  I'm originally from Southern Illinois, a pro-gun rights advocate, and interested in constitutional law (aside from studying it in school). So naturally, I&rsquo;m following this case closely.</p><p>The US Constitution may be the highest law in the land, but the US Supreme Court interprets the law.  And they are continually doing that. To say that 14th amendment ended the debate on incorporation of the Bill or Rights is denying legal history and what is happening as I type this reply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g .
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C. The 14th amendment says otherwise .
Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments , so are the states.I 'm the originator of the post to which you replied .
Obviously , I 'm aware of the 14th amendment .
But you must be aware that there is STILL ongoing debate about which amendments apply to the states .
Here    s some quick info : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation \ _ \ % 28Bill \ _of \ _Rights \ % 29 .
I used the example of the 2nd amendment .
Do some reading on McDonald v. Chicago. I 'm originally from Southern Illinois , a pro-gun rights advocate , and interested in constitutional law ( aside from studying it in school ) .
So naturally , I    m following this case closely.The US Constitution may be the highest law in the land , but the US Supreme Court interprets the law .
And they are continually doing that .
To say that 14th amendment ended the debate on incorporation of the Bill or Rights is denying legal history and what is happening as I type this reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g.
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C. The 14th amendment says otherwise.
Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments, so are the states.I'm the originator of the post to which you replied.
Obviously, I'm aware of the 14th amendment.
But you must be aware that there is STILL ongoing debate about which amendments apply to the states.
Here’s some quick info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation\_\%28Bill\_of\_Rights\%29.
I used the example of the 2nd amendment.
Do some reading on McDonald v. Chicago.  I'm originally from Southern Illinois, a pro-gun rights advocate, and interested in constitutional law (aside from studying it in school).
So naturally, I’m following this case closely.The US Constitution may be the highest law in the land, but the US Supreme Court interprets the law.
And they are continually doing that.
To say that 14th amendment ended the debate on incorporation of the Bill or Rights is denying legal history and what is happening as I type this reply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793050</id>
	<title>Inroads to a new means of profit</title>
	<author>CosaNostra Pizza Inc</author>
	<datestamp>1263635940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What was once known as the Recording Industry Association of America seems to find more profit in lawsuits these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was once known as the Recording Industry Association of America seems to find more profit in lawsuits these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was once known as the Recording Industry Association of America seems to find more profit in lawsuits these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791816</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>ChiRaven</author>
	<datestamp>1263669180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're TALKING about the federal government here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... rules being set by the FCC.  "F" as in "Federal". They should be required to adhere to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're TALKING about the federal government here ... rules being set by the FCC .
" F " as in " Federal " .
They should be required to adhere to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're TALKING about the federal government here ... rules being set by the FCC.
"F" as in "Federal".
They should be required to adhere to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793710</id>
	<title>Re:Meteor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263640980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that would not kill them. The RIAA are more akin to cockroaches then dinosaurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that would not kill them .
The RIAA are more akin to cockroaches then dinosaurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that would not kill them.
The RIAA are more akin to cockroaches then dinosaurs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791788</id>
	<title>Me think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263669000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That RIAA, MPAA BSA etc. are dangerous terrorist organizations conspiring against the constitution of the United States of America and several other western countries. <br>They are more dangerous than armed terrorist because they are trying to minimize the rights/freedom of people. If we need laws like they want we also need a non-transferable copyright which is held only by the artist/writer/inventor and expires when the holder dies.<br>
Don't get me wrong, I do not like or support piracy but the ideas of those people reminds me of Stasi, KGB or NKVD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That RIAA , MPAA BSA etc .
are dangerous terrorist organizations conspiring against the constitution of the United States of America and several other western countries .
They are more dangerous than armed terrorist because they are trying to minimize the rights/freedom of people .
If we need laws like they want we also need a non-transferable copyright which is held only by the artist/writer/inventor and expires when the holder dies .
Do n't get me wrong , I do not like or support piracy but the ideas of those people reminds me of Stasi , KGB or NKVD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That RIAA, MPAA BSA etc.
are dangerous terrorist organizations conspiring against the constitution of the United States of America and several other western countries.
They are more dangerous than armed terrorist because they are trying to minimize the rights/freedom of people.
If we need laws like they want we also need a non-transferable copyright which is held only by the artist/writer/inventor and expires when the holder dies.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like or support piracy but the ideas of those people reminds me of Stasi, KGB or NKVD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792100</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Curunir\_wolf</author>
	<datestamp>1263671280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law.  I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.  They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.  There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.</p></div><p>
Pretty sure there are a lot of people that don't think it applies to the federal government anymore, either.  And they have a point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a lawyer , but I did study constitutional law .
I do n't mean to be critical , but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities .
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government .
There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g .
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C . Pretty sure there are a lot of people that do n't think it applies to the federal government anymore , either .
And they have a point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law.
I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.
There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g.
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.
Pretty sure there are a lot of people that don't think it applies to the federal government anymore, either.
And they have a point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791990</id>
	<title>Re:Likely without precedent</title>
	<author>rastilin</author>
	<datestamp>1263670320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land. Et cetera. This would appear to be unprecedented.</p></div><p>Actually it's a bit worse than that, because "permission of the copyright holder" is code for "our permission". Independent publishers crop up occasionally with stories of being banned from publishing their own songs because they lack "permission from the copyright holder". The RIAA doesn't check it owns the actual rights in the first place, and it will blanket ban with no appeal if it gets the chance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto , or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy " beach-side " Florida swamp land .
Et cetera .
This would appear to be unprecedented.Actually it 's a bit worse than that , because " permission of the copyright holder " is code for " our permission " .
Independent publishers crop up occasionally with stories of being banned from publishing their own songs because they lack " permission from the copyright holder " .
The RIAA does n't check it owns the actual rights in the first place , and it will blanket ban with no appeal if it gets the chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land.
Et cetera.
This would appear to be unprecedented.Actually it's a bit worse than that, because "permission of the copyright holder" is code for "our permission".
Independent publishers crop up occasionally with stories of being banned from publishing their own songs because they lack "permission from the copyright holder".
The RIAA doesn't check it owns the actual rights in the first place, and it will blanket ban with no appeal if it gets the chance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792122</id>
	<title>Re:Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1263671520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well i'm betting some of them do have a want to filter. Think of a cable company that gets told it wants to filter or it doesn't want to have access to new movies on Pay per view. See how that would work, "we're not sure of your ability to ensure that this PPV content doesn't get out, but if you manage to filter the internet connections you provide, we'll take that as a sign you are trustworthy"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well i 'm betting some of them do have a want to filter .
Think of a cable company that gets told it wants to filter or it does n't want to have access to new movies on Pay per view .
See how that would work , " we 're not sure of your ability to ensure that this PPV content does n't get out , but if you manage to filter the internet connections you provide , we 'll take that as a sign you are trustworthy "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well i'm betting some of them do have a want to filter.
Think of a cable company that gets told it wants to filter or it doesn't want to have access to new movies on Pay per view.
See how that would work, "we're not sure of your ability to ensure that this PPV content doesn't get out, but if you manage to filter the internet connections you provide, we'll take that as a sign you are trustworthy"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791730</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263668640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of the 14th amendment?  Made after the civil war...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of the 14th amendment ?
Made after the civil war.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of the 14th amendment?
Made after the civil war...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30796048</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1263663360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, I just drew a comparison between a repressive copyright regime and slavery. Did I just pull a super-Godwin?</i></p><p>Nah. Musicians have been calling record execs "plantation owners" for a long time. For one thing, indentured servants generally earned their freedom after seven years, much like the terms of a recording contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I just drew a comparison between a repressive copyright regime and slavery .
Did I just pull a super-Godwin ? Nah .
Musicians have been calling record execs " plantation owners " for a long time .
For one thing , indentured servants generally earned their freedom after seven years , much like the terms of a recording contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I just drew a comparison between a repressive copyright regime and slavery.
Did I just pull a super-Godwin?Nah.
Musicians have been calling record execs "plantation owners" for a long time.
For one thing, indentured servants generally earned their freedom after seven years, much like the terms of a recording contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792316</id>
	<title>Re:Corrupt FCC has no jurisdiction over TCPIP</title>
	<author>woody.jesus</author>
	<datestamp>1263673200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of course you're right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and if I might add some bile to your rage<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

IF ANYONE AT THE SO-CALLED DEPARTMENT OF 'JUSTICE' had any balls they'd be trust-busting the RIAA instead of Intel!</htmltext>
<tokenext>of course you 're right ... and if I might add some bile to your rage .. . IF ANYONE AT THE SO-CALLED DEPARTMENT OF 'JUSTICE ' had any balls they 'd be trust-busting the RIAA instead of Intel !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course you're right ... and if I might add some bile to your rage ...

IF ANYONE AT THE SO-CALLED DEPARTMENT OF 'JUSTICE' had any balls they'd be trust-busting the RIAA instead of Intel!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30801444</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>mldi</author>
	<datestamp>1263724620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law.  I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.  They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.  There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.</p></div><p>Since when is the internet or the bits travelling in it owned by private corporate entities?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a lawyer , but I did study constitutional law .
I do n't mean to be critical , but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities .
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government .
There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g .
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.Since when is the internet or the bits travelling in it owned by private corporate entities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law.
I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.
There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g.
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.Since when is the internet or the bits travelling in it owned by private corporate entities?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794064</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1263643140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Bill of Rights are also applicable to the states, by way of the 14th amendment.  If you had actually "studied" constitutional law, then you would know this.  There is a highly likely chance that a federal court will soon find that the second amendment is also applicable to the states, even though some try their hardest to believe otherwise.  An internet education does not replace a real educatoin.</p><p>Also, D.C. vs Heller was already decided, for your information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bill of Rights are also applicable to the states , by way of the 14th amendment .
If you had actually " studied " constitutional law , then you would know this .
There is a highly likely chance that a federal court will soon find that the second amendment is also applicable to the states , even though some try their hardest to believe otherwise .
An internet education does not replace a real educatoin.Also , D.C. vs Heller was already decided , for your information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bill of Rights are also applicable to the states, by way of the 14th amendment.
If you had actually "studied" constitutional law, then you would know this.
There is a highly likely chance that a federal court will soon find that the second amendment is also applicable to the states, even though some try their hardest to believe otherwise.
An internet education does not replace a real educatoin.Also, D.C. vs Heller was already decided, for your information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</id>
	<title>4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263666000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law.  I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.  They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.  There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a lawyer , but I did study constitutional law .
I do n't mean to be critical , but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities .
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government .
There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g .
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law.
I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.
There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g.
the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791910</id>
	<title>It's not their job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263669900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not Blockbuster's job to make sure I don't make copies of the movies I rent either.</p><p>It's not my power company's job to make sure I'm not using electricity to run my DVD-duplicator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Blockbuster 's job to make sure I do n't make copies of the movies I rent either.It 's not my power company 's job to make sure I 'm not using electricity to run my DVD-duplicator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Blockbuster's job to make sure I don't make copies of the movies I rent either.It's not my power company's job to make sure I'm not using electricity to run my DVD-duplicator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791542</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Travelsonic</author>
	<datestamp>1263667380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.</p></div></blockquote><p>Though that doesn't give private businesses the right to do ANYTHNG willy-nilly (and I am not, for the record, saying you are implying this), for example, a store can not detain you just because you refuse to show a receipt on the way out, they need probable cause - proof you actually shoplifted, lest they face all sorts of legal hell.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mean to be critical , but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities .
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.Though that does n't give private businesses the right to do ANYTHNG willy-nilly ( and I am not , for the record , saying you are implying this ) , for example , a store can not detain you just because you refuse to show a receipt on the way out , they need probable cause - proof you actually shoplifted , lest they face all sorts of legal hell .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.Though that doesn't give private businesses the right to do ANYTHNG willy-nilly (and I am not, for the record, saying you are implying this), for example, a store can not detain you just because you refuse to show a receipt on the way out, they need probable cause - proof you actually shoplifted, lest they face all sorts of legal hell.
:D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792366</id>
	<title>Re:analogy with mail</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1263673500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail.  This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying "yeah we agree that FEDEX etc. shouldn't be going through other peoples' mail... except to make sure that people aren't pirating things..."</p></div><p>I'm not saying it's right, but are carriers such as FedEx and UPS bound by those same restrictions.  I understand that it's illegal to snoop through USPS mail, but what about private, commercial carriers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else 's mail .
This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying " yeah we agree that FEDEX etc .
should n't be going through other peoples ' mail... except to make sure that people are n't pirating things... " I 'm not saying it 's right , but are carriers such as FedEx and UPS bound by those same restrictions .
I understand that it 's illegal to snoop through USPS mail , but what about private , commercial carriers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail.
This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying "yeah we agree that FEDEX etc.
shouldn't be going through other peoples' mail... except to make sure that people aren't pirating things..."I'm not saying it's right, but are carriers such as FedEx and UPS bound by those same restrictions.
I understand that it's illegal to snoop through USPS mail, but what about private, commercial carriers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792500</id>
	<title>RIAA wants to repeal the constitution</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1263674400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>again.  film at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>again .
film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>again.
film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792052</id>
	<title>But who says who the copyright owner is? The riaa</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263670860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But who says who the copyright owner is? The riaa wants to own all music and make un singed band be locked out of putting there own music on line for free without paying the riaa for the right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But who says who the copyright owner is ?
The riaa wants to own all music and make un singed band be locked out of putting there own music on line for free without paying the riaa for the right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But who says who the copyright owner is?
The riaa wants to own all music and make un singed band be locked out of putting there own music on line for free without paying the riaa for the right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791814</id>
	<title>RIAA go make your own country</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263669120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like RIAA just wants to have its own way.  Why doesn't it go and found some new country where they can make these crazy rules?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like RIAA just wants to have its own way .
Why does n't it go and found some new country where they can make these crazy rules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like RIAA just wants to have its own way.
Why doesn't it go and found some new country where they can make these crazy rules?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791818</id>
	<title>Block copyright material? block malware/spam too!</title>
	<author>yalap</author>
	<datestamp>1263669240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If SPs can sniff the data to detect and block copyright material then they will also be able to detect malware, spam and all the other attacks going in and out of their networks.

Maybe it is just easier to blame end users (including grandma) for not installing fixes to crazy security bugs and to charge them for the bandwidth when they're attacked than cleaning up their networks</htmltext>
<tokenext>If SPs can sniff the data to detect and block copyright material then they will also be able to detect malware , spam and all the other attacks going in and out of their networks .
Maybe it is just easier to blame end users ( including grandma ) for not installing fixes to crazy security bugs and to charge them for the bandwidth when they 're attacked than cleaning up their networks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If SPs can sniff the data to detect and block copyright material then they will also be able to detect malware, spam and all the other attacks going in and out of their networks.
Maybe it is just easier to blame end users (including grandma) for not installing fixes to crazy security bugs and to charge them for the bandwidth when they're attacked than cleaning up their networks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795792</id>
	<title>Re:analogy with mail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263659580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I feel suspiciously as though Joe Sixpack wouldn't even care about their mail either.</p><p>Do you honestly believe that if some politician got up and claimed they needed to inspect the mail for kiddie porn and terrorists, that Joe Sixpack wouldn't simply say "I got nut'in to hide" and be ok with that? If you do then you have more confidence in your fellow man than I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I feel suspiciously as though Joe Sixpack would n't even care about their mail either.Do you honestly believe that if some politician got up and claimed they needed to inspect the mail for kiddie porn and terrorists , that Joe Sixpack would n't simply say " I got nut'in to hide " and be ok with that ?
If you do then you have more confidence in your fellow man than I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I feel suspiciously as though Joe Sixpack wouldn't even care about their mail either.Do you honestly believe that if some politician got up and claimed they needed to inspect the mail for kiddie porn and terrorists, that Joe Sixpack wouldn't simply say "I got nut'in to hide" and be ok with that?
If you do then you have more confidence in your fellow man than I do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791686</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263668340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Constitutional rights hold for the individuals against the state (and newer founded federal) governments.  Maybe you should relearn your constitutional law, or was it just a self-study?  If so, go back and read the 14th (fourteenth) amendment.  Also, you should be re-read the preamble.  In all honesty, all these points are more pertinent today than ever, which is very sad.<br>
&nbsp; <br>And for the record, if ISPs are required to inspect traffic and regulate what is sent as implied, then if something does get through, the ISP is held liable and not the individual who sent it.  You just can not have your cake and eat it too.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Oh, and who would mod up an anonymous coward claiming to be the holy grail of constituional law when it is obviously the rantings of an RIAA plant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Constitutional rights hold for the individuals against the state ( and newer founded federal ) governments .
Maybe you should relearn your constitutional law , or was it just a self-study ?
If so , go back and read the 14th ( fourteenth ) amendment .
Also , you should be re-read the preamble .
In all honesty , all these points are more pertinent today than ever , which is very sad .
  And for the record , if ISPs are required to inspect traffic and regulate what is sent as implied , then if something does get through , the ISP is held liable and not the individual who sent it .
You just can not have your cake and eat it too .
  Oh , and who would mod up an anonymous coward claiming to be the holy grail of constituional law when it is obviously the rantings of an RIAA plant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Constitutional rights hold for the individuals against the state (and newer founded federal) governments.
Maybe you should relearn your constitutional law, or was it just a self-study?
If so, go back and read the 14th (fourteenth) amendment.
Also, you should be re-read the preamble.
In all honesty, all these points are more pertinent today than ever, which is very sad.
  And for the record, if ISPs are required to inspect traffic and regulate what is sent as implied, then if something does get through, the ISP is held liable and not the individual who sent it.
You just can not have your cake and eat it too.
  Oh, and who would mod up an anonymous coward claiming to be the holy grail of constituional law when it is obviously the rantings of an RIAA plant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794364</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263645120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law... There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states</p></div><p>You must have failed miserable then. I <em>haven't</em> studied constitutional law, but I can read and, far more importantly, I have actual reading comprehension skills: Something you, and many others, seem to lack.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."</p></div><p> - Article VI Section 2</p><p>This pretty clearly states that ALL federal laws, treaties, and the Constitution apply to ALL states regardless of that state's law or constitution.</p><p>The second amendment applies to all States, and all federal territories. The only reason fascists have gotten away with banning guns in the past is because idiots do not know how to separate a justification from a requirement.</p><p>Justification: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" or "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"<br>Statement: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." or " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."</p><p>The first quote is what was sent to the states to be ratified, the second is what congress passed.</p><p>What many idiots have a problem with is that they cannot understand that a single justification given does not limit the statement to apply only to that justification.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a lawyer , but I did study constitutional law... There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the statesYou must have failed miserable then .
I have n't studied constitutional law , but I can read and , far more importantly , I have actual reading comprehension skills : Something you , and many others , seem to lack .
" This Constitution , and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ; and all Treaties made , or which shall be made , under the Authority of the United States , shall be the supreme Law of the Land ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding .
" - Article VI Section 2This pretty clearly states that ALL federal laws , treaties , and the Constitution apply to ALL states regardless of that state 's law or constitution.The second amendment applies to all States , and all federal territories .
The only reason fascists have gotten away with banning guns in the past is because idiots do not know how to separate a justification from a requirement.Justification : " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State " or " A well regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State , " Statement : " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed .
" or " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed .
" The first quote is what was sent to the states to be ratified , the second is what congress passed.What many idiots have a problem with is that they can not understand that a single justification given does not limit the statement to apply only to that justification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law... There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the statesYou must have failed miserable then.
I haven't studied constitutional law, but I can read and, far more importantly, I have actual reading comprehension skills: Something you, and many others, seem to lack.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
" - Article VI Section 2This pretty clearly states that ALL federal laws, treaties, and the Constitution apply to ALL states regardless of that state's law or constitution.The second amendment applies to all States, and all federal territories.
The only reason fascists have gotten away with banning guns in the past is because idiots do not know how to separate a justification from a requirement.Justification: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" or "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"Statement: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
" or " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"The first quote is what was sent to the states to be ratified, the second is what congress passed.What many idiots have a problem with is that they cannot understand that a single justification given does not limit the statement to apply only to that justification.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795854</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>richaemry</author>
	<datestamp>1263660780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the interstate commerce act. The RIAA is not regulated by the 4th amendment directly but they are regulated by the interstate commerce act and what they are asking for violates that by violate 4th amenent by proxy of the interstate commerce act. You should study deeper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the interstate commerce act .
The RIAA is not regulated by the 4th amendment directly but they are regulated by the interstate commerce act and what they are asking for violates that by violate 4th amenent by proxy of the interstate commerce act .
You should study deeper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the interstate commerce act.
The RIAA is not regulated by the 4th amendment directly but they are regulated by the interstate commerce act and what they are asking for violates that by violate 4th amenent by proxy of the interstate commerce act.
You should study deeper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792294</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263673020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities"</p><p>Corporations are considered citizens of the US of A and are therefore required to follow the Constitution. If the constitution guaruntees them Freedom of speech... Your suggestion would allow them to have it both ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities " Corporations are considered citizens of the US of A and are therefore required to follow the Constitution .
If the constitution guaruntees them Freedom of speech... Your suggestion would allow them to have it both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities"Corporations are considered citizens of the US of A and are therefore required to follow the Constitution.
If the constitution guaruntees them Freedom of speech... Your suggestion would allow them to have it both ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793168</id>
	<title>Re:analogy with mail</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1263637020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Err.. Your 1st class mail is protected in that way, against random strangers going through it.
</p><p>
Something sent through FEDEX is not 1st class mail, and it's not a federal offense, if someone rifles through it.   Instead it's a civil matter and (possibly) local criminal matter, in the form of trespassing on your property to mess with it, (or theft, if they steal the item).
</p><p>
The word 'mail'  can only be used by the USPS.
Fedex \_could\_   [in theory] be required to check for pirated materials, and include a term to that effect in the agreement you sign to send something.
</p><p>
Your first class mail, sent through the USPS is the only thing you have  (reasonably) strong assurances about.
</p><p>
And under FISA/Patriot Act, even those can be snooped on (by the government).
</p><p>
A key difference here is the government is providing the service in the case of mail, and almost all correspondence is a private message.
</p><p>
With internet traffic,  most of the data transmitted is going to be public.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err.. Your 1st class mail is protected in that way , against random strangers going through it .
Something sent through FEDEX is not 1st class mail , and it 's not a federal offense , if someone rifles through it .
Instead it 's a civil matter and ( possibly ) local criminal matter , in the form of trespassing on your property to mess with it , ( or theft , if they steal the item ) .
The word 'mail ' can only be used by the USPS .
Fedex \ _could \ _ [ in theory ] be required to check for pirated materials , and include a term to that effect in the agreement you sign to send something .
Your first class mail , sent through the USPS is the only thing you have ( reasonably ) strong assurances about .
And under FISA/Patriot Act , even those can be snooped on ( by the government ) .
A key difference here is the government is providing the service in the case of mail , and almost all correspondence is a private message .
With internet traffic , most of the data transmitted is going to be public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Err.. Your 1st class mail is protected in that way, against random strangers going through it.
Something sent through FEDEX is not 1st class mail, and it's not a federal offense, if someone rifles through it.
Instead it's a civil matter and (possibly) local criminal matter, in the form of trespassing on your property to mess with it, (or theft, if they steal the item).
The word 'mail'  can only be used by the USPS.
Fedex \_could\_   [in theory] be required to check for pirated materials, and include a term to that effect in the agreement you sign to send something.
Your first class mail, sent through the USPS is the only thing you have  (reasonably) strong assurances about.
And under FISA/Patriot Act, even those can be snooped on (by the government).
A key difference here is the government is providing the service in the case of mail, and almost all correspondence is a private message.
With internet traffic,  most of the data transmitted is going to be public.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791956</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263670080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite right, but there is one amendment that applies to everyone, governments, corporations, and private citizens alike: the thirteenth.<br>
<br>
"<b>Section 1.</b> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."<br>
<br>
It's a Hail Mary, but the argument could be made that, if the RIAA has their way, we'll all be involuntarily serving them by being forced to pay up every time we hear, see, or think of a copyrighted work.  Actually, it could be argued that many corporations, the record companies included, treat the American people like a resource to be exploited, not like their gorram <i>customers</i>.<br>
<br>
Yes, I just drew a comparison between a repressive copyright regime and slavery.  Did I just pull a super-Godwin?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite right , but there is one amendment that applies to everyone , governments , corporations , and private citizens alike : the thirteenth .
" Section 1 .
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude , except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within the United States , or any place subject to their jurisdiction .
" It 's a Hail Mary , but the argument could be made that , if the RIAA has their way , we 'll all be involuntarily serving them by being forced to pay up every time we hear , see , or think of a copyrighted work .
Actually , it could be argued that many corporations , the record companies included , treat the American people like a resource to be exploited , not like their gorram customers .
Yes , I just drew a comparison between a repressive copyright regime and slavery .
Did I just pull a super-Godwin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite right, but there is one amendment that applies to everyone, governments, corporations, and private citizens alike: the thirteenth.
"Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
"

It's a Hail Mary, but the argument could be made that, if the RIAA has their way, we'll all be involuntarily serving them by being forced to pay up every time we hear, see, or think of a copyrighted work.
Actually, it could be argued that many corporations, the record companies included, treat the American people like a resource to be exploited, not like their gorram customers.
Yes, I just drew a comparison between a repressive copyright regime and slavery.
Did I just pull a super-Godwin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793792</id>
	<title>Re:So basically</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263641520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.</p></div><p>No kidding. They want limits on net neutrality, I want limits on their access to the Federal Government. These are the kind of people that drive the need for election reform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all for net neutrality , except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.No kidding .
They want limits on net neutrality , I want limits on their access to the Federal Government .
These are the kind of people that drive the need for election reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.No kidding.
They want limits on net neutrality, I want limits on their access to the Federal Government.
These are the kind of people that drive the need for election reform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406</id>
	<title>analogy with mail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263666420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail.  This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying "yeah we agree that FEDEX etc. shouldn't be going through other peoples' mail... except to make sure that people aren't pirating things..."  Everyone understands that position to be completely ridiculous so why is it that the concept is so difficult to apply to internet packets etc?  Just as your mail is legally protected from being ripped open by others, so should your internet packets.  It isn't the job of ISPs to do the RIAA's work nor is it their right to riffle through your online activities at their whim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else 's mail .
This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying " yeah we agree that FEDEX etc .
should n't be going through other peoples ' mail... except to make sure that people are n't pirating things... " Everyone understands that position to be completely ridiculous so why is it that the concept is so difficult to apply to internet packets etc ?
Just as your mail is legally protected from being ripped open by others , so should your internet packets .
It is n't the job of ISPs to do the RIAA 's work nor is it their right to riffle through your online activities at their whim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail.
This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying "yeah we agree that FEDEX etc.
shouldn't be going through other peoples' mail... except to make sure that people aren't pirating things..."  Everyone understands that position to be completely ridiculous so why is it that the concept is so difficult to apply to internet packets etc?
Just as your mail is legally protected from being ripped open by others, so should your internet packets.
It isn't the job of ISPs to do the RIAA's work nor is it their right to riffle through your online activities at their whim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30796316</id>
	<title>Re:So basically</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1263668520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality...</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then it wouldn't be net neutrality, would it?</p><p>The RIAA is so technologically clueless that I am frequently entertained at the depth and breadth of the stupid things that they say. They never seem to <i>really</i> understand the concept of anything (as evidenced by Sony's rootkit gift to the world), but I've gotta say, this may be the first time I've seen them make a proposal that was an oxymoron right out of the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality... ... then it would n't be net neutrality , would it ? The RIAA is so technologically clueless that I am frequently entertained at the depth and breadth of the stupid things that they say .
They never seem to really understand the concept of anything ( as evidenced by Sony 's rootkit gift to the world ) , but I 've got ta say , this may be the first time I 've seen them make a proposal that was an oxymoron right out of the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality... ... then it wouldn't be net neutrality, would it?The RIAA is so technologically clueless that I am frequently entertained at the depth and breadth of the stupid things that they say.
They never seem to really understand the concept of anything (as evidenced by Sony's rootkit gift to the world), but I've gotta say, this may be the first time I've seen them make a proposal that was an oxymoron right out of the box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344</id>
	<title>Meteor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263666000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing that can made the RIAA dinosaurs die out is a meteor on their headquarters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that can made the RIAA dinosaurs die out is a meteor on their headquarters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that can made the RIAA dinosaurs die out is a meteor on their headquarters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793870</id>
	<title>Re:Likely without precedent</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263641820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods</p></div><p>The RIAA (meaning: the large copyright holders they represent) want a high-tech, private police force beholden to no-one but big media, ideally one funded by US (either by having the ISP pay for it, or via government funding.) Private police forces are scary stuff, and our lawmakers should be leery of ever empowering such organizations. Heck, Congress can't be trusted to behave responsibly with the ridiculous amount of power they already have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... can we really expect the private sector (in this case, corporations that aren't even based in the U.S. for the most part) to be any better? Rhetorical question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto , or interstate smuggling of stolen goodsThe RIAA ( meaning : the large copyright holders they represent ) want a high-tech , private police force beholden to no-one but big media , ideally one funded by US ( either by having the ISP pay for it , or via government funding .
) Private police forces are scary stuff , and our lawmakers should be leery of ever empowering such organizations .
Heck , Congress ca n't be trusted to behave responsibly with the ridiculous amount of power they already have ... can we really expect the private sector ( in this case , corporations that are n't even based in the U.S. for the most part ) to be any better ?
Rhetorical question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goodsThe RIAA (meaning: the large copyright holders they represent) want a high-tech, private police force beholden to no-one but big media, ideally one funded by US (either by having the ISP pay for it, or via government funding.
) Private police forces are scary stuff, and our lawmakers should be leery of ever empowering such organizations.
Heck, Congress can't be trusted to behave responsibly with the ridiculous amount of power they already have ... can we really expect the private sector (in this case, corporations that aren't even based in the U.S. for the most part) to be any better?
Rhetorical question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792602</id>
	<title>Re:Corrupt FCC has no jurisdiction over TCPIP</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1263675420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The FCC wasn't created to do TCPIP.</p><p>IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY!</p></div><p>Err, yeah. And the British Army was created to deal with swords and pikes, not assault rifles.</p><p>I agree that these kinds of legislations should be kept out of the internet at large, not just the web, but your argument just plain sucks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC was n't created to do TCPIP.IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY ! Err , yeah .
And the British Army was created to deal with swords and pikes , not assault rifles.I agree that these kinds of legislations should be kept out of the internet at large , not just the web , but your argument just plain sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC wasn't created to do TCPIP.IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY!Err, yeah.
And the British Army was created to deal with swords and pikes, not assault rifles.I agree that these kinds of legislations should be kept out of the internet at large, not just the web, but your argument just plain sucks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792420</id>
	<title>Re:4th amendment and the RIAA</title>
	<author>andb52</author>
	<datestamp>1263673860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, technically this is not true.  What is true is that SCOTUS has, through the doctrine of incorporation, incorporated most of the BoR against the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.  I'm quite happy that they did, although it was, and still is, a bit of a legal stretch.  And not all of the amendments, as someone else said, have been incorporated.  The 2nd likely will after McDonald v. Chicago.  Other rights, such as the right to trial by jury in civil cases over $20, from the 7th Amendment, has also not been incorporated.

Oh, and interestingly, it is pretty widely assumed that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to be used as a tool of incorporation, but SCOTUS gutted this in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so that the clause has no power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , technically this is not true .
What is true is that SCOTUS has , through the doctrine of incorporation , incorporated most of the BoR against the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment .
I 'm quite happy that they did , although it was , and still is , a bit of a legal stretch .
And not all of the amendments , as someone else said , have been incorporated .
The 2nd likely will after McDonald v. Chicago. Other rights , such as the right to trial by jury in civil cases over $ 20 , from the 7th Amendment , has also not been incorporated .
Oh , and interestingly , it is pretty widely assumed that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to be used as a tool of incorporation , but SCOTUS gutted this in the Slaughterhouse Cases , so that the clause has no power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, technically this is not true.
What is true is that SCOTUS has, through the doctrine of incorporation, incorporated most of the BoR against the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
I'm quite happy that they did, although it was, and still is, a bit of a legal stretch.
And not all of the amendments, as someone else said, have been incorporated.
The 2nd likely will after McDonald v. Chicago.  Other rights, such as the right to trial by jury in civil cases over $20, from the 7th Amendment, has also not been incorporated.
Oh, and interestingly, it is pretty widely assumed that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to be used as a tool of incorporation, but SCOTUS gutted this in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so that the clause has no power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793900</id>
	<title>Re:Huhhnn?</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1263642060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC is not the one asking for this, they're the ones being asked by our favorite artist charity (*snerk*), the RIAA.</p><p>I'm hoping they won't back down that easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC is not the one asking for this , they 're the ones being asked by our favorite artist charity ( * snerk * ) , the RIAA.I 'm hoping they wo n't back down that easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC is not the one asking for this, they're the ones being asked by our favorite artist charity (*snerk*), the RIAA.I'm hoping they won't back down that easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791694</id>
	<title>Already patented.</title>
	<author>GiveBenADollar</author>
	<datestamp>1263668340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA can't legally do this because I already have a patent on:
'A technique for alienating your consumers by persecuting them.' US Patent 3,141,592
So I will charge a licensing fee of a modest 1 million dollars for every potential user of every ISP that uses this. Or approximately the population of the earth^3 million dollars.

Now I'm worried they may use it anyway, so I've already applied to have a tax instituted in Europe to make up for the losses of every potential infringement on my patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA ca n't legally do this because I already have a patent on : 'A technique for alienating your consumers by persecuting them .
' US Patent 3,141,592 So I will charge a licensing fee of a modest 1 million dollars for every potential user of every ISP that uses this .
Or approximately the population of the earth ^ 3 million dollars .
Now I 'm worried they may use it anyway , so I 've already applied to have a tax instituted in Europe to make up for the losses of every potential infringement on my patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA can't legally do this because I already have a patent on:
'A technique for alienating your consumers by persecuting them.
' US Patent 3,141,592
So I will charge a licensing fee of a modest 1 million dollars for every potential user of every ISP that uses this.
Or approximately the population of the earth^3 million dollars.
Now I'm worried they may use it anyway, so I've already applied to have a tax instituted in Europe to make up for the losses of every potential infringement on my patent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795230</id>
	<title>Inalienable has an actual meaning!</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1263653280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law. I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government."</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually I believe the framers intended that inalienable rights meant that they were inalienable.  I don't believe they meant that they are inalienable unless some local or State Government, or some corporation or special interest decides they want to rape us all.<br> <br>So you see, there is confusion, but it is <b> <i>not</i></b>  on our part; the confusion is on the part of those who don't know what the term inalienable means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm not a lawyer , but I did study constitutional law .
I do n't mean to be critical , but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities .
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government .
" Actually I believe the framers intended that inalienable rights meant that they were inalienable .
I do n't believe they meant that they are inalienable unless some local or State Government , or some corporation or special interest decides they want to rape us all .
So you see , there is confusion , but it is not on our part ; the confusion is on the part of those who do n't know what the term inalienable means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law.
I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities.
They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.
"Actually I believe the framers intended that inalienable rights meant that they were inalienable.
I don't believe they meant that they are inalienable unless some local or State Government, or some corporation or special interest decides they want to rape us all.
So you see, there is confusion, but it is  not  on our part; the confusion is on the part of those who don't know what the term inalienable means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792788</id>
	<title>Re:Huhhnn?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263633660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really do need to learn what 'liberal' and 'conservatives' think before you start making such retarded statements about such a generic political label.  The only statement you've made is that you are just some douche bag who listens to the news and parrots 'liberal' and 'conservative' when referring to your team or the other team.  Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.</p><p>Please get a fucking clue and stop being such a uneducated, ignorant moron that you use those words like they actually have any sort of meaning beyond which team your rooting for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really do need to learn what 'liberal ' and 'conservatives ' think before you start making such retarded statements about such a generic political label .
The only statement you 've made is that you are just some douche bag who listens to the news and parrots 'liberal ' and 'conservative ' when referring to your team or the other team .
Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you 're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.Please get a fucking clue and stop being such a uneducated , ignorant moron that you use those words like they actually have any sort of meaning beyond which team your rooting for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really do need to learn what 'liberal' and 'conservatives' think before you start making such retarded statements about such a generic political label.
The only statement you've made is that you are just some douche bag who listens to the news and parrots 'liberal' and 'conservative' when referring to your team or the other team.
Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.Please get a fucking clue and stop being such a uneducated, ignorant moron that you use those words like they actually have any sort of meaning beyond which team your rooting for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791670</id>
	<title>Re:Likely without precedent</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263668220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but why should ISPs care? Because of the increased bandwidth use? They have simpler tools to counter this (like metering the use and having their user pay for it). Independent of what's sent through the cable.</p><p>It would not only cost the ISPs money, that's actually a minor concern. The liability is. From "they should have the authority" it's a tiny step to "they have to". And then they'd be liable for any filesharing going on through their networks.</p><p>I could not see anything any ISP would fight harder against than that. Because it is nearly impossible to policy that without pretty much banning all traffic except traffic relying on public, well used protocols. And ponder how many of their users this would piss off and make them quit. All online gamers (because games, especially MMOs, pretty much have to use nonstandard data packets to avoid cheating and use of unauthorized clients) and all VPN users (and those are usually the ones with the fat contracts, think companies and the like) first of all.</p><p>If the RIAA wants a fight with the major ISPs, this is the way to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but why should ISPs care ?
Because of the increased bandwidth use ?
They have simpler tools to counter this ( like metering the use and having their user pay for it ) .
Independent of what 's sent through the cable.It would not only cost the ISPs money , that 's actually a minor concern .
The liability is .
From " they should have the authority " it 's a tiny step to " they have to " .
And then they 'd be liable for any filesharing going on through their networks.I could not see anything any ISP would fight harder against than that .
Because it is nearly impossible to policy that without pretty much banning all traffic except traffic relying on public , well used protocols .
And ponder how many of their users this would piss off and make them quit .
All online gamers ( because games , especially MMOs , pretty much have to use nonstandard data packets to avoid cheating and use of unauthorized clients ) and all VPN users ( and those are usually the ones with the fat contracts , think companies and the like ) first of all.If the RIAA wants a fight with the major ISPs , this is the way to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but why should ISPs care?
Because of the increased bandwidth use?
They have simpler tools to counter this (like metering the use and having their user pay for it).
Independent of what's sent through the cable.It would not only cost the ISPs money, that's actually a minor concern.
The liability is.
From "they should have the authority" it's a tiny step to "they have to".
And then they'd be liable for any filesharing going on through their networks.I could not see anything any ISP would fight harder against than that.
Because it is nearly impossible to policy that without pretty much banning all traffic except traffic relying on public, well used protocols.
And ponder how many of their users this would piss off and make them quit.
All online gamers (because games, especially MMOs, pretty much have to use nonstandard data packets to avoid cheating and use of unauthorized clients) and all VPN users (and those are usually the ones with the fat contracts, think companies and the like) first of all.If the RIAA wants a fight with the major ISPs, this is the way to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791760</id>
	<title>Too funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263668880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont see the RIAA helping the copyright holders defrauded by the CRIA in getting their money... In a previous article published by Zeropiad (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87340/canadian-music-industry-faces-6-billion-copyright-infringement-trial/)  it is estimated the CRIA has defrauded artists and copyright holders out of more then 30 million dollars.  It's funny how quick they are to try and chase the home consumer for piracy but I dont see them working that hard to ensure money gets to the copyright holders.  There is also the matter of the burden of proof and reasonable doubt... At the end of the day without a complete forensics analysis of each suspects computers they have no way of telling if their suspect (based on an IP and MAC address) is even the actual offender.  Thus they shouldn't have any right to request the ISP perform any policing of filesharing.  When a friend or client sends me a take down notice they receive form their ISP in Canada I have advised them to respond to them by telling them to get stuffed ; that they have no idea what they are talking about</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont see the RIAA helping the copyright holders defrauded by the CRIA in getting their money... In a previous article published by Zeropiad ( http : //www.zeropaid.com/news/87340/canadian-music-industry-faces-6-billion-copyright-infringement-trial/ ) it is estimated the CRIA has defrauded artists and copyright holders out of more then 30 million dollars .
It 's funny how quick they are to try and chase the home consumer for piracy but I dont see them working that hard to ensure money gets to the copyright holders .
There is also the matter of the burden of proof and reasonable doubt... At the end of the day without a complete forensics analysis of each suspects computers they have no way of telling if their suspect ( based on an IP and MAC address ) is even the actual offender .
Thus they should n't have any right to request the ISP perform any policing of filesharing .
When a friend or client sends me a take down notice they receive form their ISP in Canada I have advised them to respond to them by telling them to get stuffed ; that they have no idea what they are talking about</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont see the RIAA helping the copyright holders defrauded by the CRIA in getting their money... In a previous article published by Zeropiad (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87340/canadian-music-industry-faces-6-billion-copyright-infringement-trial/)  it is estimated the CRIA has defrauded artists and copyright holders out of more then 30 million dollars.
It's funny how quick they are to try and chase the home consumer for piracy but I dont see them working that hard to ensure money gets to the copyright holders.
There is also the matter of the burden of proof and reasonable doubt... At the end of the day without a complete forensics analysis of each suspects computers they have no way of telling if their suspect (based on an IP and MAC address) is even the actual offender.
Thus they shouldn't have any right to request the ISP perform any policing of filesharing.
When a friend or client sends me a take down notice they receive form their ISP in Canada I have advised them to respond to them by telling them to get stuffed ; that they have no idea what they are talking about</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30801474</id>
	<title>Re:Huhhnn?</title>
	<author>mldi</author>
	<datestamp>1263724800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You really do need to learn what 'liberal' and 'conservatives' think before you start making such retarded statements about such a generic political label.  The only statement you've made is that you are just some douche bag who listens to the news and parrots 'liberal' and 'conservative' when referring to your team or the other team.  Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.</p><p>Please get a fucking clue and stop being such a uneducated, ignorant moron that you use those words like they actually have any sort of meaning beyond which team your rooting for.</p></div><p>Something about rocks and glass houses rings a bell here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You really do need to learn what 'liberal ' and 'conservatives ' think before you start making such retarded statements about such a generic political label .
The only statement you 've made is that you are just some douche bag who listens to the news and parrots 'liberal ' and 'conservative ' when referring to your team or the other team .
Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you 're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.Please get a fucking clue and stop being such a uneducated , ignorant moron that you use those words like they actually have any sort of meaning beyond which team your rooting for.Something about rocks and glass houses rings a bell here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really do need to learn what 'liberal' and 'conservatives' think before you start making such retarded statements about such a generic political label.
The only statement you've made is that you are just some douche bag who listens to the news and parrots 'liberal' and 'conservative' when referring to your team or the other team.
Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.Please get a fucking clue and stop being such a uneducated, ignorant moron that you use those words like they actually have any sort of meaning beyond which team your rooting for.Something about rocks and glass houses rings a bell here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792788</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30801444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30800186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30801474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30796048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30796316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30796198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_160257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30796316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30800186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30801474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30796048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30801444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30793358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30794918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30795854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30792420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30796198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_160257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_160257.30791788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
