<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_22_1939256</id>
	<title>Judge Lowers Jammie Thomas' Damages to $54,000</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264152060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Judge Michael Davis has <a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/34476">slashed the amount Jammie Thomas-Rassett is said to owe Big Music</a> from almost $2,000,000 to $54,000. 'The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music. Moreover, although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages.' The <a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/jammie\%20newtrial.pdf">full decision</a> (PDF) is also available."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Judge Michael Davis has slashed the amount Jammie Thomas-Rassett is said to owe Big Music from almost $ 2,000,000 to $ 54,000 .
'The need for deterrence can not justify a $ 2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music .
Moreover , although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages , statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages .
' The full decision ( PDF ) is also available .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Judge Michael Davis has slashed the amount Jammie Thomas-Rassett is said to owe Big Music from almost $2,000,000 to $54,000.
'The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.
Moreover, although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages.
' The full decision (PDF) is also available.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865066</id>
	<title>Re:Quick!</title>
	<author>moderatorrater</author>
	<datestamp>1264163880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Penalties that can actually be paid?</p></div><p>Umm, no? Not unless I can get a mortgage on that thing, and then we're looking at paying it off around 30 years from now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Penalties that can actually be paid ? Umm , no ?
Not unless I can get a mortgage on that thing , and then we 're looking at paying it off around 30 years from now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Penalties that can actually be paid?Umm, no?
Not unless I can get a mortgage on that thing, and then we're looking at paying it off around 30 years from now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863812</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264156500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if 1000 people downloaded it (And 100\% of them would have purchased it otherwise), the damage would be ~$17k.  If 3k people downloaded it, damages would be == to actual losses.  Now, assuming that a small fraction of users would have purchased it if they didn't download it (Let's for arguments sake say 1\%), then 300k downloads would be needed to inflict around $50k of damages...<br> <br>
Do I believe this?  No, but this is the kind of math that would be used.  Of course, you'd need to justify not only how many people downloaded, but also the percentage of those that would have otherwise purchased the album.  Since that's not trivial at best (And not possible at worst), they settle on gross estimations (not even educated guesses)... <br> <br>Personally, $2k per song is still high, but a whole lot better than $200k...  And perhaps that's what they want.  Get the figure low enough that it's not worth fighting so people just give up and pay it...  Sad, really...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if 1000 people downloaded it ( And 100 \ % of them would have purchased it otherwise ) , the damage would be ~ $ 17k .
If 3k people downloaded it , damages would be = = to actual losses .
Now , assuming that a small fraction of users would have purchased it if they did n't download it ( Let 's for arguments sake say 1 \ % ) , then 300k downloads would be needed to inflict around $ 50k of damages.. . Do I believe this ?
No , but this is the kind of math that would be used .
Of course , you 'd need to justify not only how many people downloaded , but also the percentage of those that would have otherwise purchased the album .
Since that 's not trivial at best ( And not possible at worst ) , they settle on gross estimations ( not even educated guesses ) ... Personally , $ 2k per song is still high , but a whole lot better than $ 200k... And perhaps that 's what they want .
Get the figure low enough that it 's not worth fighting so people just give up and pay it... Sad , really.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if 1000 people downloaded it (And 100\% of them would have purchased it otherwise), the damage would be ~$17k.
If 3k people downloaded it, damages would be == to actual losses.
Now, assuming that a small fraction of users would have purchased it if they didn't download it (Let's for arguments sake say 1\%), then 300k downloads would be needed to inflict around $50k of damages... 
Do I believe this?
No, but this is the kind of math that would be used.
Of course, you'd need to justify not only how many people downloaded, but also the percentage of those that would have otherwise purchased the album.
Since that's not trivial at best (And not possible at worst), they settle on gross estimations (not even educated guesses)...  Personally, $2k per song is still high, but a whole lot better than $200k...  And perhaps that's what they want.
Get the figure low enough that it's not worth fighting so people just give up and pay it...  Sad, really...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30872476</id>
	<title>Re:Shoplifting for fun and profit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264240860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't pirate music, just go down to the local music store and steal it.</p></div><p>But then you'd actually be stealing something with a value, as it takes plastic, paper, ink, and a replacement CD for each case you leave the store with. There is no loss from downloading songs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't pirate music , just go down to the local music store and steal it.But then you 'd actually be stealing something with a value , as it takes plastic , paper , ink , and a replacement CD for each case you leave the store with .
There is no loss from downloading songs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't pirate music, just go down to the local music store and steal it.But then you'd actually be stealing something with a value, as it takes plastic, paper, ink, and a replacement CD for each case you leave the store with.
There is no loss from downloading songs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866246</id>
	<title>Re:Stealing?</title>
	<author>aukset</author>
	<datestamp>1264172820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to steal something, you must perform the act of theft. Figure it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to steal something , you must perform the act of theft .
Figure it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to steal something, you must perform the act of theft.
Figure it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864278</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1264158600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better three thousand than sixty thousand times - but it's still way too much. Hopefully the greedy bastards at the RIAA will appeal this and get slashed even lower next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better three thousand than sixty thousand times - but it 's still way too much .
Hopefully the greedy bastards at the RIAA will appeal this and get slashed even lower next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better three thousand than sixty thousand times - but it's still way too much.
Hopefully the greedy bastards at the RIAA will appeal this and get slashed even lower next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30868644</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like that, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264250880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that you will find that in that case society will have created a criminal.<br>It will force the person to be unable to support themselves in society and give them no ability to be able to 'get back on track' and put back into society.</p><p>There is good and bad here.</p><p>On the side of 'Good' the law is the law and this person will have broken the law.</p><p>On the other side of 'Good', there is a distinct possibility that 'going postal' may soon apply to the RIAA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that you will find that in that case society will have created a criminal.It will force the person to be unable to support themselves in society and give them no ability to be able to 'get back on track ' and put back into society.There is good and bad here.On the side of 'Good ' the law is the law and this person will have broken the law.On the other side of 'Good ' , there is a distinct possibility that 'going postal ' may soon apply to the RIAA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that you will find that in that case society will have created a criminal.It will force the person to be unable to support themselves in society and give them no ability to be able to 'get back on track' and put back into society.There is good and bad here.On the side of 'Good' the law is the law and this person will have broken the law.On the other side of 'Good', there is a distinct possibility that 'going postal' may soon apply to the RIAA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867232</id>
	<title>Re:She'll never work again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264184160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean jobs that report and don't pay cash within the united states don't you? Plus, I think they are limited to percentage of her paycheck anyway... or something like that. They can't just come in and take everything if I'm not mistaken. I could easily be wrong on this though. The law doesn't let them take everything exactly anyway. You end up being able to pay rent, lease a car, and continue working because when you get your paycheck they can only force your employer to like hand over 1/3 of it...  or something like that. The rest can be used for food, to pay rent, lease a car, etc. They can probably take any property though so if you did buy a car, house, etc... I bet you are screwed the moment it is paid off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean jobs that report and do n't pay cash within the united states do n't you ?
Plus , I think they are limited to percentage of her paycheck anyway... or something like that .
They ca n't just come in and take everything if I 'm not mistaken .
I could easily be wrong on this though .
The law does n't let them take everything exactly anyway .
You end up being able to pay rent , lease a car , and continue working because when you get your paycheck they can only force your employer to like hand over 1/3 of it... or something like that .
The rest can be used for food , to pay rent , lease a car , etc .
They can probably take any property though so if you did buy a car , house , etc... I bet you are screwed the moment it is paid off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean jobs that report and don't pay cash within the united states don't you?
Plus, I think they are limited to percentage of her paycheck anyway... or something like that.
They can't just come in and take everything if I'm not mistaken.
I could easily be wrong on this though.
The law doesn't let them take everything exactly anyway.
You end up being able to pay rent, lease a car, and continue working because when you get your paycheck they can only force your employer to like hand over 1/3 of it...  or something like that.
The rest can be used for food, to pay rent, lease a car, etc.
They can probably take any property though so if you did buy a car, house, etc... I bet you are screwed the moment it is paid off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808</id>
	<title>Incorrect analogy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264156440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the downloading, it's the uploading.</p><p>The correct analogy would be:</p><p>What sort of punishment would you get is you printed off 3000 CDs of copy right protected music, and gave them away for free with out the permission of the copy right holders?</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the downloading , it 's the uploading.The correct analogy would be : What sort of punishment would you get is you printed off 3000 CDs of copy right protected music , and gave them away for free with out the permission of the copy right holders ? -Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the downloading, it's the uploading.The correct analogy would be:What sort of punishment would you get is you printed off 3000 CDs of copy right protected music, and gave them away for free with out the permission of the copy right holders?-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867882</id>
	<title>Re:My favorite part</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1264237920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real damage:</p><p>24 songs * $.99 each = $23.76</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real damage : 24 songs * $ .99 each = $ 23.76</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real damage:24 songs * $.99 each = $23.76</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865076</id>
	<title>Re:Alt Title: Judge Makes Damages Only Mostly Insa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264163940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crazy indeed, but perhaps the big news is the reseting of expectations this may cause to the RIAA's legal staff and management. This 'pitance' of an award will severely tarnish and punish the RIAA's legal team.  They'll realize that their high-profile fight barely recovers enough money to get the keys to a mid-range BMW or Volvo, assuming this 'judgment' is ever paid in full, and they'll be laughed at by all the other lawyers for failing to take home their big judgment.  Plus the RIAA managers will be feeling doubly fragged in having to forego their yachting plans.  They can't show up in Bermuda or Jamaica with the other moguls and still hold their heads high after this.  If it is far less worthwhile it to legally pursue such things, if they're cannot expect to walk off with Ferrarri class judgments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crazy indeed , but perhaps the big news is the reseting of expectations this may cause to the RIAA 's legal staff and management .
This 'pitance ' of an award will severely tarnish and punish the RIAA 's legal team .
They 'll realize that their high-profile fight barely recovers enough money to get the keys to a mid-range BMW or Volvo , assuming this 'judgment ' is ever paid in full , and they 'll be laughed at by all the other lawyers for failing to take home their big judgment .
Plus the RIAA managers will be feeling doubly fragged in having to forego their yachting plans .
They ca n't show up in Bermuda or Jamaica with the other moguls and still hold their heads high after this .
If it is far less worthwhile it to legally pursue such things , if they 're can not expect to walk off with Ferrarri class judgments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crazy indeed, but perhaps the big news is the reseting of expectations this may cause to the RIAA's legal staff and management.
This 'pitance' of an award will severely tarnish and punish the RIAA's legal team.
They'll realize that their high-profile fight barely recovers enough money to get the keys to a mid-range BMW or Volvo, assuming this 'judgment' is ever paid in full, and they'll be laughed at by all the other lawyers for failing to take home their big judgment.
Plus the RIAA managers will be feeling doubly fragged in having to forego their yachting plans.
They can't show up in Bermuda or Jamaica with the other moguls and still hold their heads high after this.
If it is far less worthwhile it to legally pursue such things, if they're cannot expect to walk off with Ferrarri class judgments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864398</id>
	<title>Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work</title>
	<author>mooingyak</author>
	<datestamp>1264159080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents. Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60. Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.</p></div><p>Is that the case even if distribution is involved?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The maximum actual damages is ~ 35 cents per infringed work , since the wholesale price is ~ 70 cents and the expenses are around ~ 35 cents .
Under constitutional principles , the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $ 1.40 per infringed work , or a total of $ 33.60 .
Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages , a grossly excessive amount.Is that the case even if distribution is involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents.
Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60.
Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.Is that the case even if distribution is involved?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658</id>
	<title>My favorite part</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264155840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Per <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/01/jammie-thomas-verdict-reduced-from-192m.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> [blogspot.com]:<p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Judge Davis also indicated that he found even the reduced amount to be "harsh" and that, were he -- rather than a jury -- deciding the appropriate measure of damages, the award would have been even lower than $54,000. But he felt that since the jury had determined the damages, it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.</i></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Per NewYorkCountryLawyer [ blogspot.com ] : Judge Davis also indicated that he found even the reduced amount to be " harsh " and that , were he -- rather than a jury -- deciding the appropriate measure of damages , the award would have been even lower than $ 54,000 .
But he felt that since the jury had determined the damages , it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per NewYorkCountryLawyer [blogspot.com]: Judge Davis also indicated that he found even the reduced amount to be "harsh" and that, were he -- rather than a jury -- deciding the appropriate measure of damages, the award would have been even lower than $54,000.
But he felt that since the jury had determined the damages, it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864912</id>
	<title>Re:Stealing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264162560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I take issue with the language used. If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement. If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing.</p></div><p>Ahhhh! Give it a rest, will you (and everyone who brings this up in every thread like this)? The common definition of stealing does not having anything to do with DEPRIVING. It's merely about TAKING WITHOUT PERMISSION. And as for the legal definition of stealing? Well...as far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be one. The legal term you are looking for is theft. Of all the legal definition websites I checked (dictionary.law.com, definitions.uslegal.com, www.nolo.com , and several others), not a single one had a legal definition for the word steal. The closest I could find was definitions of things like "possession of stolen goods".  Granted IANAL, so I may be mistaken on this, but if it had a specific legal meaning I would expect at least one of the major legal websites to cover it.</p><p>And I'm pretty sure judges are allowed to use non-legally defined words when speaking in court...otherwise they wouldn't have too many options for speaking grammatically correct sentences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I take issue with the language used .
If I download and then upload a song , that 's copyright infringement .
If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD , that 's stealing.Ahhhh !
Give it a rest , will you ( and everyone who brings this up in every thread like this ) ?
The common definition of stealing does not having anything to do with DEPRIVING .
It 's merely about TAKING WITHOUT PERMISSION .
And as for the legal definition of stealing ?
Well...as far as I can tell , there does n't appear to be one .
The legal term you are looking for is theft .
Of all the legal definition websites I checked ( dictionary.law.com , definitions.uslegal.com , www.nolo.com , and several others ) , not a single one had a legal definition for the word steal .
The closest I could find was definitions of things like " possession of stolen goods " .
Granted IANAL , so I may be mistaken on this , but if it had a specific legal meaning I would expect at least one of the major legal websites to cover it.And I 'm pretty sure judges are allowed to use non-legally defined words when speaking in court...otherwise they would n't have too many options for speaking grammatically correct sentences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take issue with the language used.
If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement.
If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing.Ahhhh!
Give it a rest, will you (and everyone who brings this up in every thread like this)?
The common definition of stealing does not having anything to do with DEPRIVING.
It's merely about TAKING WITHOUT PERMISSION.
And as for the legal definition of stealing?
Well...as far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be one.
The legal term you are looking for is theft.
Of all the legal definition websites I checked (dictionary.law.com, definitions.uslegal.com, www.nolo.com , and several others), not a single one had a legal definition for the word steal.
The closest I could find was definitions of things like "possession of stolen goods".
Granted IANAL, so I may be mistaken on this, but if it had a specific legal meaning I would expect at least one of the major legal websites to cover it.And I'm pretty sure judges are allowed to use non-legally defined words when speaking in court...otherwise they wouldn't have too many options for speaking grammatically correct sentences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30876362</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264275900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NOTHING was stolen. Copyright was infringed. The two ARE NOT THE SAME.</p><p>To quote an excellent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post:</p><p>Piracy is ship to ship armed robbery. Calling copyright infringement piracy makes light of murderous thugs, and makes infringement sound worse than it is. It doesn't even work as a metaphor. When we use their misnomer, they win. Then one of two things will happen. Either infringers will be demonized people sharing 1s and 0s or the word piracy will lose its gravity.</p><p>Language matters; word choice matters. All actions start as thoughts, thoughts happen in words. By calling a government a regime, we can make overthrowing it more palatable. By calling a person a kike, nigger, rag head, witch etc, we can make them not human, so killing them won't be murder. Hacker was a positive term. The "man" (media, law, etc) has corrupted the word hacker to refer to criminals. It's like calling Nazis German over and over until the word German means Nazi. When we blur the distinction between words we lose expressiveness and have to invent awkward ways to regain specificity that we threw away out of laziness and ignorance. Yeah languages change over time, but there is evolution and there is devolution and corruption. Change is not inherently good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NOTHING was stolen .
Copyright was infringed .
The two ARE NOT THE SAME.To quote an excellent / .
post : Piracy is ship to ship armed robbery .
Calling copyright infringement piracy makes light of murderous thugs , and makes infringement sound worse than it is .
It does n't even work as a metaphor .
When we use their misnomer , they win .
Then one of two things will happen .
Either infringers will be demonized people sharing 1s and 0s or the word piracy will lose its gravity.Language matters ; word choice matters .
All actions start as thoughts , thoughts happen in words .
By calling a government a regime , we can make overthrowing it more palatable .
By calling a person a kike , nigger , rag head , witch etc , we can make them not human , so killing them wo n't be murder .
Hacker was a positive term .
The " man " ( media , law , etc ) has corrupted the word hacker to refer to criminals .
It 's like calling Nazis German over and over until the word German means Nazi .
When we blur the distinction between words we lose expressiveness and have to invent awkward ways to regain specificity that we threw away out of laziness and ignorance .
Yeah languages change over time , but there is evolution and there is devolution and corruption .
Change is not inherently good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOTHING was stolen.
Copyright was infringed.
The two ARE NOT THE SAME.To quote an excellent /.
post:Piracy is ship to ship armed robbery.
Calling copyright infringement piracy makes light of murderous thugs, and makes infringement sound worse than it is.
It doesn't even work as a metaphor.
When we use their misnomer, they win.
Then one of two things will happen.
Either infringers will be demonized people sharing 1s and 0s or the word piracy will lose its gravity.Language matters; word choice matters.
All actions start as thoughts, thoughts happen in words.
By calling a government a regime, we can make overthrowing it more palatable.
By calling a person a kike, nigger, rag head, witch etc, we can make them not human, so killing them won't be murder.
Hacker was a positive term.
The "man" (media, law, etc) has corrupted the word hacker to refer to criminals.
It's like calling Nazis German over and over until the word German means Nazi.
When we blur the distinction between words we lose expressiveness and have to invent awkward ways to regain specificity that we threw away out of laziness and ignorance.
Yeah languages change over time, but there is evolution and there is devolution and corruption.
Change is not inherently good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865278</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect analogy.</title>
	<author>Labcoat Samurai</author>
	<datestamp>1264165140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, the correct analogy would be that you shoplifted the CD and then the courts *presumed without evidence* that you had printed off 3000 CDs and given them away for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the correct analogy would be that you shoplifted the CD and then the courts * presumed without evidence * that you had printed off 3000 CDs and given them away for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the correct analogy would be that you shoplifted the CD and then the courts *presumed without evidence* that you had printed off 3000 CDs and given them away for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864682</id>
	<title>Re:Screw the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264160700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly how does something that does nothing to harm them supposed to add up to a death blow?</p><p>The money is NOT the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly how does something that does nothing to harm them supposed to add up to a death blow ? The money is NOT the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly how does something that does nothing to harm them supposed to add up to a death blow?The money is NOT the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865858</id>
	<title>Re:My favorite part</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264169220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, $54k does buy a 4-year education at most state schools (though not all).  It buys about 1 year at most private schools nowadays....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , $ 54k does buy a 4-year education at most state schools ( though not all ) .
It buys about 1 year at most private schools nowadays... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, $54k does buy a 4-year education at most state schools (though not all).
It buys about 1 year at most private schools nowadays....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867958</id>
	<title>Will you answer me a question then please?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264239120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are You so fucking stupid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are You so fucking stupid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are You so fucking stupid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865280</id>
	<title>Shoplifting for fun and profit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264165140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What kind of punishment would I get for shoplifting a $16 CD? Isn't petty theft like a $500 fine and community service? </i>
<br> <br>
Perhaps that's the lesson to be learned here. Don't pirate music, just go down to the local music store and steal it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of punishment would I get for shoplifting a $ 16 CD ?
Is n't petty theft like a $ 500 fine and community service ?
Perhaps that 's the lesson to be learned here .
Do n't pirate music , just go down to the local music store and steal it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of punishment would I get for shoplifting a $16 CD?
Isn't petty theft like a $500 fine and community service?
Perhaps that's the lesson to be learned here.
Don't pirate music, just go down to the local music store and steal it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30871422</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264276980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A criminal record, a strike (if you live in a 3 strikes state/location), and more like no trespassing wherever you got caught.  There are more issues of course, but those are the gimmes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A criminal record , a strike ( if you live in a 3 strikes state/location ) , and more like no trespassing wherever you got caught .
There are more issues of course , but those are the gimmes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A criminal record, a strike (if you live in a 3 strikes state/location), and more like no trespassing wherever you got caught.
There are more issues of course, but those are the gimmes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865556</id>
	<title>Re:She'll never work again</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1264167000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Ahhh but that's to make up for the "thousands" of people put out of work by her downloading 24 songs, er, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool .
      Ahhh but that 's to make up for the " thousands " of people put out of work by her downloading 24 songs , er , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool.
      Ahhh but that's to make up for the "thousands" of people put out of work by her downloading 24 songs, er, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864266</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect analogy.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1264158540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uploading 3000 copies would take quite a while on a typical broadband connection. Long enough that it seems rather unlikely any defendant has yet done it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uploading 3000 copies would take quite a while on a typical broadband connection .
Long enough that it seems rather unlikely any defendant has yet done it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uploading 3000 copies would take quite a while on a typical broadband connection.
Long enough that it seems rather unlikely any defendant has yet done it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863666</id>
	<title>Alt Title: Judge Makes Damages Only Mostly Insane</title>
	<author>viking099</author>
	<datestamp>1264155840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$54,000 is still a crazy amount all things considered, but hopefully this judgment can stand as a sort of benchmark for future ones, even if it's not setting a precedent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 54,000 is still a crazy amount all things considered , but hopefully this judgment can stand as a sort of benchmark for future ones , even if it 's not setting a precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$54,000 is still a crazy amount all things considered, but hopefully this judgment can stand as a sort of benchmark for future ones, even if it's not setting a precedent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865692</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264168080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Parent deserves +5 Insightful just for this:</p><p><i>It still seems quite high. I wonder if another case could appeal to get it lowered even further to something like, say, $5.00 per song. I mean, when you think about it, $54,000 could buy someone a 4 year education, a really nice car, could be used for a downpayment on a decent home, or, for the philanthropic, would be a very sizeable charity donation. That money that Jamie Thomas has to pay, now, could be used for some very important things that could help progress society (as in, employing a home builder or auto manufacturer, helping Jamie grow educationally to become a more productive member of society, etc.) Instead, it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookers, or maybe, at best, a very overpriced car that contributes to little more than an ego. </i></p><p>
&nbsp; One of the very basic problems in our society right now is that vast amounts of money go to small amounts of people of whom very, very few have done anything to actually earn it.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Parent deserves + 5 Insightful just for this : It still seems quite high .
I wonder if another case could appeal to get it lowered even further to something like , say , $ 5.00 per song .
I mean , when you think about it , $ 54,000 could buy someone a 4 year education , a really nice car , could be used for a downpayment on a decent home , or , for the philanthropic , would be a very sizeable charity donation .
That money that Jamie Thomas has to pay , now , could be used for some very important things that could help progress society ( as in , employing a home builder or auto manufacturer , helping Jamie grow educationally to become a more productive member of society , etc .
) Instead , it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookers , or maybe , at best , a very overpriced car that contributes to little more than an ego .
  One of the very basic problems in our society right now is that vast amounts of money go to small amounts of people of whom very , very few have done anything to actually earn it.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Parent deserves +5 Insightful just for this:It still seems quite high.
I wonder if another case could appeal to get it lowered even further to something like, say, $5.00 per song.
I mean, when you think about it, $54,000 could buy someone a 4 year education, a really nice car, could be used for a downpayment on a decent home, or, for the philanthropic, would be a very sizeable charity donation.
That money that Jamie Thomas has to pay, now, could be used for some very important things that could help progress society (as in, employing a home builder or auto manufacturer, helping Jamie grow educationally to become a more productive member of society, etc.
) Instead, it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookers, or maybe, at best, a very overpriced car that contributes to little more than an ego.
  One of the very basic problems in our society right now is that vast amounts of money go to small amounts of people of whom very, very few have done anything to actually earn it.SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865260</id>
	<title>Re:defusing the situation?</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1264164960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally.  We're going to need horrible penalties in order to show that they're too harsh so that we can lower them to something approaching reasonable.  Let's up the stakes a bit, and begin to advocate for capital punishment for copyright violations, and complain that we'll never get meaningful reform if they always commute the sentence.  We need to kill more infringers in order to show that killing them is unjust so that we can get the laws changed so that we won't have to keep killing them.</p><p>In other words, isn't diffusing the situation exactly what was called for?  Isn't the only complaint left now that it wasn't diffused <em>enough</em>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally .
We 're going to need horrible penalties in order to show that they 're too harsh so that we can lower them to something approaching reasonable .
Let 's up the stakes a bit , and begin to advocate for capital punishment for copyright violations , and complain that we 'll never get meaningful reform if they always commute the sentence .
We need to kill more infringers in order to show that killing them is unjust so that we can get the laws changed so that we wo n't have to keep killing them.In other words , is n't diffusing the situation exactly what was called for ?
Is n't the only complaint left now that it was n't diffused enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally.
We're going to need horrible penalties in order to show that they're too harsh so that we can lower them to something approaching reasonable.
Let's up the stakes a bit, and begin to advocate for capital punishment for copyright violations, and complain that we'll never get meaningful reform if they always commute the sentence.
We need to kill more infringers in order to show that killing them is unjust so that we can get the laws changed so that we won't have to keep killing them.In other words, isn't diffusing the situation exactly what was called for?
Isn't the only complaint left now that it wasn't diffused enough?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867496</id>
	<title>Re:My favorite part</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1264188720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>If that language was used in the official decision then that means that the maximum allowable fine per song would be set to $2,250 = $54,000/24 right? Is that how legal precedence is established?
</em> </p><p>
No precedent is set by the decision.
</p><p>
But it should actually probably be fairly non-controversial  (except as far as the Intellectual property owner is concerned).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that language was used in the official decision then that means that the maximum allowable fine per song would be set to $ 2,250 = $ 54,000/24 right ?
Is that how legal precedence is established ?
No precedent is set by the decision .
But it should actually probably be fairly non-controversial ( except as far as the Intellectual property owner is concerned ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If that language was used in the official decision then that means that the maximum allowable fine per song would be set to $2,250 = $54,000/24 right?
Is that how legal precedence is established?
No precedent is set by the decision.
But it should actually probably be fairly non-controversial  (except as far as the Intellectual property owner is concerned).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863842</id>
	<title>It's a positive</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1264156620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes the amount is still absurd, but at least the principle that the statutory damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages has been invoked and vindicated. My blog post is here: <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#7422327265235001066" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Jammie Thomas verdict reduced from $1.92M to $54,000</a> [blogspot.com] and my Slasdhot submission is <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1156834/Jammie-Thomas-verdict-reduced-from-192M-to-54k?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes the amount is still absurd , but at least the principle that the statutory damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages has been invoked and vindicated .
My blog post is here : Jammie Thomas verdict reduced from $ 1.92M to $ 54,000 [ blogspot.com ] and my Slasdhot submission is here [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes the amount is still absurd, but at least the principle that the statutory damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages has been invoked and vindicated.
My blog post is here: Jammie Thomas verdict reduced from $1.92M to $54,000 [blogspot.com] and my Slasdhot submission is here [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867512</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264188960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he didn't steal anything.  copyright infringement isn't theft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he did n't steal anything .
copyright infringement is n't theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he didn't steal anything.
copyright infringement isn't theft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30872400</id>
	<title>Re:Shoplifting for fun and profit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264240080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But then you'll have to pay for all the people who lose jobs because they can't work at the store because it collapsed due to stolen merchandise!</p><p>If your average worker would've worked for $10 an hour for 3 years, you need to pay at least 63k per worker just for money lost from not working!</p><p>Pay attention here, imaginary damages are also to be paid for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But then you 'll have to pay for all the people who lose jobs because they ca n't work at the store because it collapsed due to stolen merchandise ! If your average worker would 've worked for $ 10 an hour for 3 years , you need to pay at least 63k per worker just for money lost from not working ! Pay attention here , imaginary damages are also to be paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then you'll have to pay for all the people who lose jobs because they can't work at the store because it collapsed due to stolen merchandise!If your average worker would've worked for $10 an hour for 3 years, you need to pay at least 63k per worker just for money lost from not working!Pay attention here, imaginary damages are also to be paid for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864304</id>
	<title>Seriously People!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264158660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF, why don't people just buy their music??  Come on, you mean to tell me you can't pay 99 cents or less for a song?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF , why do n't people just buy their music ? ?
Come on , you mean to tell me you ca n't pay 99 cents or less for a song ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF, why don't people just buy their music??
Come on, you mean to tell me you can't pay 99 cents or less for a song?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30947384</id>
	<title>Re:My favorite part</title>
	<author>infolation</author>
	<datestamp>1264762440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead, it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookers</p></div><p>Ahem. Fruit and Flowers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookersAhem .
Fruit and Flowers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookersAhem.
Fruit and Flowers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30868006</id>
	<title>Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1264239600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NewYorkCountryLawyer, why do you insist on ignoring the DISTRIBUTING side of things?</p><p>The DOJ brief only ever talked about "downloading and distributing" (or on page 15, "distributing" alone). It never once even hinted at a penalty for downloading alone. And yet you spun it as a brief about downloading.</p><p>In this Jammie Thomas-Rasset brief again, the judge repeatedly talks about "downloading and distributing" or about "downloading and sharing" or about "sharing" alone. It spends a good half of its pages talking about how many other users Jammie might have distributed the work to. It is clear that the infringement count is about this distribution, not about the original downloading.</p><p>You seem to be systematically mischaracterizing the briefs and the legal issues. I think there are interesting things to be said about distributing (as the judge here did, and as the DOJ brief did). You know about the field, so please spend your energies on this more interesting and relevant legal question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer , why do you insist on ignoring the DISTRIBUTING side of things ? The DOJ brief only ever talked about " downloading and distributing " ( or on page 15 , " distributing " alone ) .
It never once even hinted at a penalty for downloading alone .
And yet you spun it as a brief about downloading.In this Jammie Thomas-Rasset brief again , the judge repeatedly talks about " downloading and distributing " or about " downloading and sharing " or about " sharing " alone .
It spends a good half of its pages talking about how many other users Jammie might have distributed the work to .
It is clear that the infringement count is about this distribution , not about the original downloading.You seem to be systematically mischaracterizing the briefs and the legal issues .
I think there are interesting things to be said about distributing ( as the judge here did , and as the DOJ brief did ) .
You know about the field , so please spend your energies on this more interesting and relevant legal question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer, why do you insist on ignoring the DISTRIBUTING side of things?The DOJ brief only ever talked about "downloading and distributing" (or on page 15, "distributing" alone).
It never once even hinted at a penalty for downloading alone.
And yet you spun it as a brief about downloading.In this Jammie Thomas-Rasset brief again, the judge repeatedly talks about "downloading and distributing" or about "downloading and sharing" or about "sharing" alone.
It spends a good half of its pages talking about how many other users Jammie might have distributed the work to.
It is clear that the infringement count is about this distribution, not about the original downloading.You seem to be systematically mischaracterizing the briefs and the legal issues.
I think there are interesting things to be said about distributing (as the judge here did, and as the DOJ brief did).
You know about the field, so please spend your energies on this more interesting and relevant legal question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782</id>
	<title>Stealing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264156380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.</i></p><p>I take issue with the language used. If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement. If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing. WalMart has been deprived of their property. In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything. Plus, WalMart owns the CD, Warner does NOT own the music. In the US, this "property" belongs to all of us; the "content creator" has a limited time monopoly on its publication, not ownership.</p><p>If I steal a CD and get caught I have a misdemeanor criminal charge and a few hundred dollar fine, but if I infringe copyright and get caught it costs $50k. This is better than before, but still very bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'The need for deterrence can not justify a $ 2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.I take issue with the language used .
If I download and then upload a song , that 's copyright infringement .
If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD , that 's stealing .
WalMart has been deprived of their property .
In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything .
Plus , WalMart owns the CD , Warner does NOT own the music .
In the US , this " property " belongs to all of us ; the " content creator " has a limited time monopoly on its publication , not ownership.If I steal a CD and get caught I have a misdemeanor criminal charge and a few hundred dollar fine , but if I infringe copyright and get caught it costs $ 50k .
This is better than before , but still very bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.I take issue with the language used.
If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement.
If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing.
WalMart has been deprived of their property.
In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything.
Plus, WalMart owns the CD, Warner does NOT own the music.
In the US, this "property" belongs to all of us; the "content creator" has a limited time monopoly on its publication, not ownership.If I steal a CD and get caught I have a misdemeanor criminal charge and a few hundred dollar fine, but if I infringe copyright and get caught it costs $50k.
This is better than before, but still very bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865162</id>
	<title>Re:My favorite part</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264164480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One word: JEWS.</p><p>Are you sick of this yet? Your country has been stolen from under your noses by JEWS. They own your governmen</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One word : JEWS.Are you sick of this yet ?
Your country has been stolen from under your noses by JEWS .
They own your governmen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One word: JEWS.Are you sick of this yet?
Your country has been stolen from under your noses by JEWS.
They own your governmen</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912</id>
	<title>defusing the situation?</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1264156980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ok, call me paranoid, but could this be an attempt to defuse the situation?  $2M damages for 2 CDs worth of songs is outrageous enough to get the attention of even the most complacent.  $54K, although a heavy burden, is significantly less so and (seems to me) much less likely to cause a general backlash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , call me paranoid , but could this be an attempt to defuse the situation ?
$ 2M damages for 2 CDs worth of songs is outrageous enough to get the attention of even the most complacent .
$ 54K , although a heavy burden , is significantly less so and ( seems to me ) much less likely to cause a general backlash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ok, call me paranoid, but could this be an attempt to defuse the situation?
$2M damages for 2 CDs worth of songs is outrageous enough to get the attention of even the most complacent.
$54K, although a heavy burden, is significantly less so and (seems to me) much less likely to cause a general backlash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863726</id>
	<title>Quick!</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1264156080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone get vaccinated, this outbreak of common sense might be contagious!<br>
Penalties that can actually be paid? Preposterous! My God man, next thing you know they'll say gay marriage is acceptable! Harumph!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone get vaccinated , this outbreak of common sense might be contagious !
Penalties that can actually be paid ?
Preposterous ! My God man , next thing you know they 'll say gay marriage is acceptable !
Harumph !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone get vaccinated, this outbreak of common sense might be contagious!
Penalties that can actually be paid?
Preposterous! My God man, next thing you know they'll say gay marriage is acceptable!
Harumph!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866492</id>
	<title>Re:Quick!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264175640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, as I said earlier, it&rsquo;s the maximum amount she can pay, without resorting to bankruptcy and them getting nothing.<br>As determined by the RIAA agents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , as I said earlier , it    s the maximum amount she can pay , without resorting to bankruptcy and them getting nothing.As determined by the RIAA agents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, as I said earlier, it’s the maximum amount she can pay, without resorting to bankruptcy and them getting nothing.As determined by the RIAA agents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867274</id>
	<title>Re:It's a positive</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1264184880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chosen submission was selected probably because it has less details and more interesting "sound bites".  I'm beginning to think the Slashdot team members are afraid of lawyer-speak.</p><p><i>(Imagining grabbing a binder full of legal documents and hitting them on the head with it.)</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chosen submission was selected probably because it has less details and more interesting " sound bites " .
I 'm beginning to think the Slashdot team members are afraid of lawyer-speak .
( Imagining grabbing a binder full of legal documents and hitting them on the head with it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chosen submission was selected probably because it has less details and more interesting "sound bites".
I'm beginning to think the Slashdot team members are afraid of lawyer-speak.
(Imagining grabbing a binder full of legal documents and hitting them on the head with it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30880778</id>
	<title>Re:She'll never work again</title>
	<author>Sir Homer</author>
	<datestamp>1264363200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Civil lawsuits are NOT designed to create indebtedness. There is a time limit to collect a civil judgment ranging from 4 to 7 years in most states. And you can declare bankruptcy before then. Basically if she doesn't have the money laying around before the verdict, it's unlikely the RIAA will get almost anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Civil lawsuits are NOT designed to create indebtedness .
There is a time limit to collect a civil judgment ranging from 4 to 7 years in most states .
And you can declare bankruptcy before then .
Basically if she does n't have the money laying around before the verdict , it 's unlikely the RIAA will get almost anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Civil lawsuits are NOT designed to create indebtedness.
There is a time limit to collect a civil judgment ranging from 4 to 7 years in most states.
And you can declare bankruptcy before then.
Basically if she doesn't have the money laying around before the verdict, it's unlikely the RIAA will get almost anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30889592</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantic much?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264433400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't think that a strict distinction between apples and oranges is just a tad pedantic? Or between rape and murder? No, I don't think it's pedantic at all; calling copyright infringers "thieves" is a deliberate lie by the music and movie industries. Calling a liar a liar isn't pedantic in the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't think that a strict distinction between apples and oranges is just a tad pedantic ?
Or between rape and murder ?
No , I do n't think it 's pedantic at all ; calling copyright infringers " thieves " is a deliberate lie by the music and movie industries .
Calling a liar a liar is n't pedantic in the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't think that a strict distinction between apples and oranges is just a tad pedantic?
Or between rape and murder?
No, I don't think it's pedantic at all; calling copyright infringers "thieves" is a deliberate lie by the music and movie industries.
Calling a liar a liar isn't pedantic in the least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866882</id>
	<title>Re:She'll never work again</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1264180380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool.</p></div><p>... and adding one person to receive unemployment, welfare, etc in the case her situation causes her to qualify for it. Brilliant!<br> <br>As a taxpayer, this stupid decision will cost <em>me</em> even more money in the future, not just for the legal proceedings and red tape but for the ruling's effect on this family.<br> <br>(NYCL put your hands over your eyes for a minute) The problem is with the lawyers. When we run out of meat, I say we eat them first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool.... and adding one person to receive unemployment , welfare , etc in the case her situation causes her to qualify for it .
Brilliant ! As a taxpayer , this stupid decision will cost me even more money in the future , not just for the legal proceedings and red tape but for the ruling 's effect on this family .
( NYCL put your hands over your eyes for a minute ) The problem is with the lawyers .
When we run out of meat , I say we eat them first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool.... and adding one person to receive unemployment, welfare, etc in the case her situation causes her to qualify for it.
Brilliant! As a taxpayer, this stupid decision will cost me even more money in the future, not just for the legal proceedings and red tape but for the ruling's effect on this family.
(NYCL put your hands over your eyes for a minute) The problem is with the lawyers.
When we run out of meat, I say we eat them first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866514</id>
	<title>Re:She'll never work again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264175820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So? I&rsquo;d hire her exactly <em>because</em> of her refusing to cave to the bullshit reality of others.<br>That makes her reliable not to fall for schizophrenia-like diseases, like religion, strong irrational beliefs, being detached from reality etc.<br>Which is a great and rare quality to have.</p><p>Also, I&rsquo;d hire her for minimum legal wage, and unofficially pay her a lot more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ?
I    d hire her exactly because of her refusing to cave to the bullshit reality of others.That makes her reliable not to fall for schizophrenia-like diseases , like religion , strong irrational beliefs , being detached from reality etc.Which is a great and rare quality to have.Also , I    d hire her for minimum legal wage , and unofficially pay her a lot more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?
I’d hire her exactly because of her refusing to cave to the bullshit reality of others.That makes her reliable not to fall for schizophrenia-like diseases, like religion, strong irrational beliefs, being detached from reality etc.Which is a great and rare quality to have.Also, I’d hire her for minimum legal wage, and unofficially pay her a lot more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30880628</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like that, but...</title>
	<author>Sir Homer</author>
	<datestamp>1264362600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The maximum amount of time a civil plaintiff has to collect damages is 7 years (shorter if bankruptcy is declared). For government debt, the maximum is 20 years. There is no life indebtedness in the USA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The maximum amount of time a civil plaintiff has to collect damages is 7 years ( shorter if bankruptcy is declared ) .
For government debt , the maximum is 20 years .
There is no life indebtedness in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The maximum amount of time a civil plaintiff has to collect damages is 7 years (shorter if bankruptcy is declared).
For government debt, the maximum is 20 years.
There is no life indebtedness in the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863686</id>
	<title>Screw the RIAA</title>
	<author>cavis</author>
	<datestamp>1264155900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm hoping that this is the death blow for the RIAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping that this is the death blow for the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping that this is the death blow for the RIAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866462</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264175400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The damage is <strong>still</strong> $0.<br>Refuting that argument, is as absurd as refuting gravity.<br>That fact will never change. No matter it what parallel-reality bullshit everyone (even here) got dragged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The damage is still $ 0.Refuting that argument , is as absurd as refuting gravity.That fact will never change .
No matter it what parallel-reality bullshit everyone ( even here ) got dragged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damage is still $0.Refuting that argument, is as absurd as refuting gravity.That fact will never change.
No matter it what parallel-reality bullshit everyone (even here) got dragged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864312</id>
	<title>Pedantic much?</title>
	<author>Spazmania</author>
	<datestamp>1264158660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864102</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect analogy.</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264157760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they ever actually prove the uploading? I'm not trolling here, I'm actually curious<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... did they download a copy from her machine, or observe it from the ISP? I can see "intent to upload" otherwise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they ever actually prove the uploading ?
I 'm not trolling here , I 'm actually curious ... did they download a copy from her machine , or observe it from the ISP ?
I can see " intent to upload " otherwise .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they ever actually prove the uploading?
I'm not trolling here, I'm actually curious ... did they download a copy from her machine, or observe it from the ISP?
I can see "intent to upload" otherwise ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866098</id>
	<title>Re:Stealing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264171380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fair enough.</p><p>How is making a copy "taking". The original wasn't even touched! If I had a really cool camera that could make perfect copies of objects I take "pictures" of, would that be stealing?</p><p>Second it's a bit ridiculous to be anal about the legal definition of stealing when even the plaintiff in this case admits copyright infringement is not part of it. He's not suing to force the DA to charge with theft, is he? No. He's suing in a civil court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair enough.How is making a copy " taking " .
The original was n't even touched !
If I had a really cool camera that could make perfect copies of objects I take " pictures " of , would that be stealing ? Second it 's a bit ridiculous to be anal about the legal definition of stealing when even the plaintiff in this case admits copyright infringement is not part of it .
He 's not suing to force the DA to charge with theft , is he ?
No. He 's suing in a civil court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair enough.How is making a copy "taking".
The original wasn't even touched!
If I had a really cool camera that could make perfect copies of objects I take "pictures" of, would that be stealing?Second it's a bit ridiculous to be anal about the legal definition of stealing when even the plaintiff in this case admits copyright infringement is not part of it.
He's not suing to force the DA to charge with theft, is he?
No. He's suing in a civil court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864530</id>
	<title>Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264159860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Care to cite the part of the constitution that limits damages in this case?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to cite the part of the constitution that limits damages in this case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to cite the part of the constitution that limits damages in this case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865184</id>
	<title>Re:Question</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1264164600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you accept the RIAA's contention that each of these songs could be passed on to other people, who could in turn pass them on to more people, it may sound reasonable.</p> </div><p>That always seemed completely unreasonable to me. Ok, if some person A puts music on their computer and allows others to download it, then damage is done every time someone downloads. That's fine. Now the downloader B has the music on their computer. That person can again allow more people to download from his or her computer, but that's B's problem. Whether B distributes music that comes from his own CDs, or music that was illegally downloaded from A's computer, that doesn't make a difference. And it has nothing to do with the original distributor A.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you accept the RIAA 's contention that each of these songs could be passed on to other people , who could in turn pass them on to more people , it may sound reasonable .
That always seemed completely unreasonable to me .
Ok , if some person A puts music on their computer and allows others to download it , then damage is done every time someone downloads .
That 's fine .
Now the downloader B has the music on their computer .
That person can again allow more people to download from his or her computer , but that 's B 's problem .
Whether B distributes music that comes from his own CDs , or music that was illegally downloaded from A 's computer , that does n't make a difference .
And it has nothing to do with the original distributor A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you accept the RIAA's contention that each of these songs could be passed on to other people, who could in turn pass them on to more people, it may sound reasonable.
That always seemed completely unreasonable to me.
Ok, if some person A puts music on their computer and allows others to download it, then damage is done every time someone downloads.
That's fine.
Now the downloader B has the music on their computer.
That person can again allow more people to download from his or her computer, but that's B's problem.
Whether B distributes music that comes from his own CDs, or music that was illegally downloaded from A's computer, that doesn't make a difference.
And it has nothing to do with the original distributor A.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864214</id>
	<title>Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264158300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that the damages were largely not from downloading a copyrighted work, but for uploading.<br> <br>A physical analogy would be copying a CD you acquired by some means and then distributing the copies to random people.  The damages are not from you stealing/borrowing/buying the CD, but from redistributing it to however many people.  That said, $54,000 is still unreasonable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the damages were largely not from downloading a copyrighted work , but for uploading .
A physical analogy would be copying a CD you acquired by some means and then distributing the copies to random people .
The damages are not from you stealing/borrowing/buying the CD , but from redistributing it to however many people .
That said , $ 54,000 is still unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the damages were largely not from downloading a copyrighted work, but for uploading.
A physical analogy would be copying a CD you acquired by some means and then distributing the copies to random people.
The damages are not from you stealing/borrowing/buying the CD, but from redistributing it to however many people.
That said, $54,000 is still unreasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863724</id>
	<title>Finally...</title>
	<author>hoboroadie</author>
	<datestamp>1264156080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Justice!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Justice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Justice!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864510</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect analogy.</title>
	<author>Dalzhim</author>
	<datestamp>1264159680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then again, it's not because someone uploads to 100 different leeches that he has uploaded 100 copies. It's probably most like he's uploaded one single copy divided amongst 100 leeches.
<br> <br>
A real "criminal uploader" that I'd expect the RIAA to go after wouldn't seed only 24 songs... He'd most likely have a few thousands...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then again , it 's not because someone uploads to 100 different leeches that he has uploaded 100 copies .
It 's probably most like he 's uploaded one single copy divided amongst 100 leeches .
A real " criminal uploader " that I 'd expect the RIAA to go after would n't seed only 24 songs... He 'd most likely have a few thousands.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then again, it's not because someone uploads to 100 different leeches that he has uploaded 100 copies.
It's probably most like he's uploaded one single copy divided amongst 100 leeches.
A real "criminal uploader" that I'd expect the RIAA to go after wouldn't seed only 24 songs... He'd most likely have a few thousands...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866522</id>
	<title>Re:Stealing?</title>
	<author>nsheppar</author>
	<datestamp>1264175940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement. If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing. WalMart has been deprived of their property. In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything.</p></div><p>In the former, the record company may have been deprived of some of the money you would have spent if you had actually bought the music legally (whether a CD in Wal-Mart or iTunes, etc.).</p><p>Actually, this is an interesting matter. If hypothetically you always bought physical CDs and never used iTunes, then given that large stores buying lots of CDs has some overflow (e.g. Wal-Mart can't know exactly how many people will buy some album, and so will end up with extras in stock) then you could argue that if you were to instead download an album for free, you actually weren't depriving the record company of any money (since all you've done is cause one more album to sit on Wal-Mart's shelves rather than leave Wal-Mart's shelves, and Wal-Mart has already paid Warner when it bought the CDs in bulk).  However, in that case you're depriving Wal-Mart of money (by not buying the CD, and by causing it to sit on a shelf, which apparently costs some money), though it would be tough to argue that that money is rightfully Wal-Mart's. Nevertheless, you have clearly violated copyright.</p><p>On the other hand, if you always bought music on iTunes, then in this case since your money goes to Apple and then royalties from that automatically go to the record companies (full disclosure: I do not have certainty that this is how it actually works, but this is how I think it works), then you are in fact depriving the record company of money it should rightfully get.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Plus, WalMart owns the CD, Warner does NOT own the music. In the US, this "property" belongs to all of us; the "content creator" has a limited time monopoly on its publication, not ownership.</p></div><p>Yes, but Warner owns the right to copy the music (fair use excepted). By copying the music herself, Jammie deprived Warner of its rights, as well as money which is rightfully Warner's.  The fact that Warner is a large corporation and probably has "way too much money" and probably Does Evil does not legitimize doing wrong against it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I steal a CD and get caught I have a misdemeanor criminal charge and a few hundred dollar fine, but if I infringe copyright and get caught it costs $50k. This is better than before, but still very bad.</p></div><p>I agree, the damages in both cases should be comparable, and the solution is not increasing the damages from a theft of a physical CD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I download and then upload a song , that 's copyright infringement .
If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD , that 's stealing .
WalMart has been deprived of their property .
In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything.In the former , the record company may have been deprived of some of the money you would have spent if you had actually bought the music legally ( whether a CD in Wal-Mart or iTunes , etc .
) .Actually , this is an interesting matter .
If hypothetically you always bought physical CDs and never used iTunes , then given that large stores buying lots of CDs has some overflow ( e.g .
Wal-Mart ca n't know exactly how many people will buy some album , and so will end up with extras in stock ) then you could argue that if you were to instead download an album for free , you actually were n't depriving the record company of any money ( since all you 've done is cause one more album to sit on Wal-Mart 's shelves rather than leave Wal-Mart 's shelves , and Wal-Mart has already paid Warner when it bought the CDs in bulk ) .
However , in that case you 're depriving Wal-Mart of money ( by not buying the CD , and by causing it to sit on a shelf , which apparently costs some money ) , though it would be tough to argue that that money is rightfully Wal-Mart 's .
Nevertheless , you have clearly violated copyright.On the other hand , if you always bought music on iTunes , then in this case since your money goes to Apple and then royalties from that automatically go to the record companies ( full disclosure : I do not have certainty that this is how it actually works , but this is how I think it works ) , then you are in fact depriving the record company of money it should rightfully get.Plus , WalMart owns the CD , Warner does NOT own the music .
In the US , this " property " belongs to all of us ; the " content creator " has a limited time monopoly on its publication , not ownership.Yes , but Warner owns the right to copy the music ( fair use excepted ) .
By copying the music herself , Jammie deprived Warner of its rights , as well as money which is rightfully Warner 's .
The fact that Warner is a large corporation and probably has " way too much money " and probably Does Evil does not legitimize doing wrong against it.If I steal a CD and get caught I have a misdemeanor criminal charge and a few hundred dollar fine , but if I infringe copyright and get caught it costs $ 50k .
This is better than before , but still very bad.I agree , the damages in both cases should be comparable , and the solution is not increasing the damages from a theft of a physical CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement.
If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing.
WalMart has been deprived of their property.
In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything.In the former, the record company may have been deprived of some of the money you would have spent if you had actually bought the music legally (whether a CD in Wal-Mart or iTunes, etc.
).Actually, this is an interesting matter.
If hypothetically you always bought physical CDs and never used iTunes, then given that large stores buying lots of CDs has some overflow (e.g.
Wal-Mart can't know exactly how many people will buy some album, and so will end up with extras in stock) then you could argue that if you were to instead download an album for free, you actually weren't depriving the record company of any money (since all you've done is cause one more album to sit on Wal-Mart's shelves rather than leave Wal-Mart's shelves, and Wal-Mart has already paid Warner when it bought the CDs in bulk).
However, in that case you're depriving Wal-Mart of money (by not buying the CD, and by causing it to sit on a shelf, which apparently costs some money), though it would be tough to argue that that money is rightfully Wal-Mart's.
Nevertheless, you have clearly violated copyright.On the other hand, if you always bought music on iTunes, then in this case since your money goes to Apple and then royalties from that automatically go to the record companies (full disclosure: I do not have certainty that this is how it actually works, but this is how I think it works), then you are in fact depriving the record company of money it should rightfully get.Plus, WalMart owns the CD, Warner does NOT own the music.
In the US, this "property" belongs to all of us; the "content creator" has a limited time monopoly on its publication, not ownership.Yes, but Warner owns the right to copy the music (fair use excepted).
By copying the music herself, Jammie deprived Warner of its rights, as well as money which is rightfully Warner's.
The fact that Warner is a large corporation and probably has "way too much money" and probably Does Evil does not legitimize doing wrong against it.If I steal a CD and get caught I have a misdemeanor criminal charge and a few hundred dollar fine, but if I infringe copyright and get caught it costs $50k.
This is better than before, but still very bad.I agree, the damages in both cases should be comparable, and the solution is not increasing the damages from a theft of a physical CD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900</id>
	<title>Actual damages are 35 cents per work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264156920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents. Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60. Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The maximum actual damages is ~ 35 cents per infringed work , since the wholesale price is ~ 70 cents and the expenses are around ~ 35 cents .
Under constitutional principles , the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $ 1.40 per infringed work , or a total of $ 33.60 .
Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages , a grossly excessive amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents.
Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60.
Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30871278</id>
	<title>Re:My favorite part</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264276080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't do the crime if you can't pay the dime...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me remembers Baretta</p><p>And yes, I know it is "do the time."</p><p>And this person won't have to pay it all at once.  At least, I wouldn't think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't do the crime if you ca n't pay the dime... /me remembers BarettaAnd yes , I know it is " do the time .
" And this person wo n't have to pay it all at once .
At least , I would n't think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't do the crime if you can't pay the dime... /me remembers BarettaAnd yes, I know it is "do the time.
"And this person won't have to pay it all at once.
At least, I wouldn't think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863662</id>
	<title>Outrageous!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264155840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The terrorists have won.  This is what happens when you elect a muslim president, people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The terrorists have won .
This is what happens when you elect a muslim president , people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The terrorists have won.
This is what happens when you elect a muslim president, people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698</id>
	<title>She'll never work again</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1264160820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As has been pointed out, that's roughly the value of a house in the area of the country she lives in.  She's married now so I'm guessing she'll quit her job (if she hasn't already), and never work for a wage again.  Since she can't get rid of the judgment by declaring bankruptcy, she has no incentive to ever earn money that will only be taken away from her.</p><p>So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool.  Congratulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As has been pointed out , that 's roughly the value of a house in the area of the country she lives in .
She 's married now so I 'm guessing she 'll quit her job ( if she has n't already ) , and never work for a wage again .
Since she ca n't get rid of the judgment by declaring bankruptcy , she has no incentive to ever earn money that will only be taken away from her.So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool .
Congratulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As has been pointed out, that's roughly the value of a house in the area of the country she lives in.
She's married now so I'm guessing she'll quit her job (if she hasn't already), and never work for a wage again.
Since she can't get rid of the judgment by declaring bankruptcy, she has no incentive to ever earn money that will only be taken away from her.So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool.
Congratulations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864730</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1264161060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Priced at the retail $1 US per song and assuming 3 megs per song, it'd take most people 1.5-3 months to inflict $54k.  Seriously overkill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Priced at the retail $ 1 US per song and assuming 3 megs per song , it 'd take most people 1.5-3 months to inflict $ 54k .
Seriously overkill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Priced at the retail $1 US per song and assuming 3 megs per song, it'd take most people 1.5-3 months to inflict $54k.
Seriously overkill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30890748</id>
	<title>Re:My favorite part</title>
	<author>StormyWeather</author>
	<datestamp>1264437660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course she will probably file bankruptcy and receive it which will end up costing the riaa a lot more than they will ever see from her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course she will probably file bankruptcy and receive it which will end up costing the riaa a lot more than they will ever see from her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course she will probably file bankruptcy and receive it which will end up costing the riaa a lot more than they will ever see from her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863816</id>
	<title>Welp...</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1264156500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I think it is still a bit much, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was.  I like that the judge acknowledged that he wasn't doing this because he sympathised with the defendant, but rather was disgusted with the punishment based on the crime.  The reasons he gave for changing the amount are the way a judge SHOULD be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I think it is still a bit much , but it 's a hell of a lot better than it was .
I like that the judge acknowledged that he was n't doing this because he sympathised with the defendant , but rather was disgusted with the punishment based on the crime .
The reasons he gave for changing the amount are the way a judge SHOULD be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I think it is still a bit much, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was.
I like that the judge acknowledged that he wasn't doing this because he sympathised with the defendant, but rather was disgusted with the punishment based on the crime.
The reasons he gave for changing the amount are the way a judge SHOULD be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866624</id>
	<title>Re:Stealing?</title>
	<author>Christoph</author>
	<datestamp>1264177500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think much of the argument about infringement being called "stealing" is the fact people use "stealing" rhetorically for lots of things that are understood not to be the literal theft of property. For example:</p><p> <i>"You stole my joke!"</i> is not an allegation someone took custody of a piece of paper with a joke written on it. It does not deprive you of still telling the joke (perhaps to lesser effect).</p><p> <i>"You stole my girlfriend!"</i> is not an allegation of kidnapping your girlfriend.</p><p> <i>"You stole my seat!"</i>, etc. etc. I think it's clear that infringement of intellectual property and theft of physical property are very different on many levels. But the word "stole" can be used to loosely refer to infringement (in a rhetorical sense) in a way that's understandable and potentially reasonable.</p><p> <i>"A court ordered a corporation to pay me 20K for stealing two of my photos for use in their advertisements"</i>. The actual lawsuit was for <a href="http://www.cgstock.com/essays/copyright\_infringement" title="cgstock.com">copyright infringement</a> [cgstock.com]. Most people will understand the use of "stealing" in that sentence to mean "using without paying the rightful owner the customary fee".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think much of the argument about infringement being called " stealing " is the fact people use " stealing " rhetorically for lots of things that are understood not to be the literal theft of property .
For example : " You stole my joke !
" is not an allegation someone took custody of a piece of paper with a joke written on it .
It does not deprive you of still telling the joke ( perhaps to lesser effect ) .
" You stole my girlfriend !
" is not an allegation of kidnapping your girlfriend .
" You stole my seat !
" , etc .
etc. I think it 's clear that infringement of intellectual property and theft of physical property are very different on many levels .
But the word " stole " can be used to loosely refer to infringement ( in a rhetorical sense ) in a way that 's understandable and potentially reasonable .
" A court ordered a corporation to pay me 20K for stealing two of my photos for use in their advertisements " .
The actual lawsuit was for copyright infringement [ cgstock.com ] .
Most people will understand the use of " stealing " in that sentence to mean " using without paying the rightful owner the customary fee " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think much of the argument about infringement being called "stealing" is the fact people use "stealing" rhetorically for lots of things that are understood not to be the literal theft of property.
For example: "You stole my joke!
" is not an allegation someone took custody of a piece of paper with a joke written on it.
It does not deprive you of still telling the joke (perhaps to lesser effect).
"You stole my girlfriend!
" is not an allegation of kidnapping your girlfriend.
"You stole my seat!
", etc.
etc. I think it's clear that infringement of intellectual property and theft of physical property are very different on many levels.
But the word "stole" can be used to loosely refer to infringement (in a rhetorical sense) in a way that's understandable and potentially reasonable.
"A court ordered a corporation to pay me 20K for stealing two of my photos for use in their advertisements".
The actual lawsuit was for copyright infringement [cgstock.com].
Most people will understand the use of "stealing" in that sentence to mean "using without paying the rightful owner the customary fee".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864552</id>
	<title>Re:defusing the situation?</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1264159980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;$2M damages for 2 CDs worth of songs is outrageous enough to get the attention of even the most complacent.
<br> <br>
And then what?  What are "even the most complacent" going to do?  Stop listening to music? Demand change?  Fat chance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; $ 2M damages for 2 CDs worth of songs is outrageous enough to get the attention of even the most complacent .
And then what ?
What are " even the most complacent " going to do ?
Stop listening to music ?
Demand change ?
Fat chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;$2M damages for 2 CDs worth of songs is outrageous enough to get the attention of even the most complacent.
And then what?
What are "even the most complacent" going to do?
Stop listening to music?
Demand change?
Fat chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864678</id>
	<title>I'd like that, but...</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1264160700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I'm hoping that this is the death blow for the RIAA.</i>

</p><p>I'd really like it if it was, but I don't see how this could have that result.

</p><p>It's not like they could have gotten the two million from this poor person anyways.  About 50k is probably the limit they would have gotten from her anyways.  She'll be in debt to the RIAA until she dies from old age, most likely.  My college loan was less than that (about half actually) and I'm *still* paying on the bastard.

</p><p>And a precedent in that court was set.  Payoff is:  $750 * 3 * [number of songs].  Wait until they catch some poor schmuck sharing his whole boot drive.  It'll be back up in the millions pretty quick.  50k is what you get for sharing <i>only 24 songs.</i>

</p><p>Nope, this doesn't go down in the win column for us I'm thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping that this is the death blow for the RIAA .
I 'd really like it if it was , but I do n't see how this could have that result .
It 's not like they could have gotten the two million from this poor person anyways .
About 50k is probably the limit they would have gotten from her anyways .
She 'll be in debt to the RIAA until she dies from old age , most likely .
My college loan was less than that ( about half actually ) and I 'm * still * paying on the bastard .
And a precedent in that court was set .
Payoff is : $ 750 * 3 * [ number of songs ] .
Wait until they catch some poor schmuck sharing his whole boot drive .
It 'll be back up in the millions pretty quick .
50k is what you get for sharing only 24 songs .
Nope , this does n't go down in the win column for us I 'm thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm hoping that this is the death blow for the RIAA.
I'd really like it if it was, but I don't see how this could have that result.
It's not like they could have gotten the two million from this poor person anyways.
About 50k is probably the limit they would have gotten from her anyways.
She'll be in debt to the RIAA until she dies from old age, most likely.
My college loan was less than that (about half actually) and I'm *still* paying on the bastard.
And a precedent in that court was set.
Payoff is:  $750 * 3 * [number of songs].
Wait until they catch some poor schmuck sharing his whole boot drive.
It'll be back up in the millions pretty quick.
50k is what you get for sharing only 24 songs.
Nope, this doesn't go down in the win column for us I'm thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932</id>
	<title>Re:My favorite part</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1264157100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.</p></div><p>
If that language was used in the official decision then that means that the maximum allowable fine per song would be set to $2,250 = $54,000/24 right? Is that how legal precedence is established?
<br> <br>
It still seems quite high. I wonder if another case could appeal to get it lowered even further to something like, say, $5.00 per song. I mean, when you think about it, $54,000 could buy someone a 4 year education, a really nice car, could be used for a downpayment on a decent home, or, for the philanthropic, would be a very sizeable charity donation. That money that Jamie Thomas has to pay, now, could be used for some very important things that could help progress society (as in, employing a home builder or auto manufacturer, helping Jamie grow educationally to become a more productive member of society, etc.) Instead, it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookers, or maybe, at best, a very overpriced car that contributes to little more than an ego.
<br> <br>
Lame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award .
If that language was used in the official decision then that means that the maximum allowable fine per song would be set to $ 2,250 = $ 54,000/24 right ?
Is that how legal precedence is established ?
It still seems quite high .
I wonder if another case could appeal to get it lowered even further to something like , say , $ 5.00 per song .
I mean , when you think about it , $ 54,000 could buy someone a 4 year education , a really nice car , could be used for a downpayment on a decent home , or , for the philanthropic , would be a very sizeable charity donation .
That money that Jamie Thomas has to pay , now , could be used for some very important things that could help progress society ( as in , employing a home builder or auto manufacturer , helping Jamie grow educationally to become a more productive member of society , etc .
) Instead , it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookers , or maybe , at best , a very overpriced car that contributes to little more than an ego .
Lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.
If that language was used in the official decision then that means that the maximum allowable fine per song would be set to $2,250 = $54,000/24 right?
Is that how legal precedence is established?
It still seems quite high.
I wonder if another case could appeal to get it lowered even further to something like, say, $5.00 per song.
I mean, when you think about it, $54,000 could buy someone a 4 year education, a really nice car, could be used for a downpayment on a decent home, or, for the philanthropic, would be a very sizeable charity donation.
That money that Jamie Thomas has to pay, now, could be used for some very important things that could help progress society (as in, employing a home builder or auto manufacturer, helping Jamie grow educationally to become a more productive member of society, etc.
) Instead, it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookers, or maybe, at best, a very overpriced car that contributes to little more than an ego.
Lame.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864936</id>
	<title>Re:defusing the situation?</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1264162740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure that if the original judgement was 54k, and that 2MM was never raised, 54k would still be called outrageous.</p><p>Reducing a fine from $Texas to $texas is still higher than a reasonable fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that if the original judgement was 54k , and that 2MM was never raised , 54k would still be called outrageous.Reducing a fine from $ Texas to $ texas is still higher than a reasonable fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that if the original judgement was 54k, and that 2MM was never raised, 54k would still be called outrageous.Reducing a fine from $Texas to $texas is still higher than a reasonable fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863946</id>
	<title>Re:Alt Title: Judge Makes Damages Only Mostly Insa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264157100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that the statutory *minimum* for copyright infringement in this case would have been $18,000.  So that was the lowest number the judge could come up with.  Because of the strong arguments that the behavior was "willful" and the strong need for deterrence because of the low cost of infringement and high cost of enforcement pushed him into the "treble damages" routine, just tripling the minimum number and saying that is basically as high as you can justify for the purposes of deterrence.</p><p>Still, I think $18,000 is a number that already more than took into effect the need for deterrence and costs of enforcement, since it's already massively higher than any actual damages or lost revenues, which are in the several hundreds of dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the statutory * minimum * for copyright infringement in this case would have been $ 18,000 .
So that was the lowest number the judge could come up with .
Because of the strong arguments that the behavior was " willful " and the strong need for deterrence because of the low cost of infringement and high cost of enforcement pushed him into the " treble damages " routine , just tripling the minimum number and saying that is basically as high as you can justify for the purposes of deterrence.Still , I think $ 18,000 is a number that already more than took into effect the need for deterrence and costs of enforcement , since it 's already massively higher than any actual damages or lost revenues , which are in the several hundreds of dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the statutory *minimum* for copyright infringement in this case would have been $18,000.
So that was the lowest number the judge could come up with.
Because of the strong arguments that the behavior was "willful" and the strong need for deterrence because of the low cost of infringement and high cost of enforcement pushed him into the "treble damages" routine, just tripling the minimum number and saying that is basically as high as you can justify for the purposes of deterrence.Still, I think $18,000 is a number that already more than took into effect the need for deterrence and costs of enforcement, since it's already massively higher than any actual damages or lost revenues, which are in the several hundreds of dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867916</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect analogy.</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1264238460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not the downloading, it's the uploading.</p><p>The correct analogy would be:</p><p>What sort of punishment would you get is you printed off 3000 CDs of copy right protected music, and gave them away for free with out the permission of the copy right holders?</p></div><p>Remember that 3000 is a number taken from the idea that other people made copies of the copies. So really, a much more accurate analogy would be:</p><p>What sort of punishment would you get if you took 24 songs and burned them to one or two CDs, and then gave the one or two CDs away for free without permission (leaving the recipient(s) to do what he or she will with the pirated content)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the downloading , it 's the uploading.The correct analogy would be : What sort of punishment would you get is you printed off 3000 CDs of copy right protected music , and gave them away for free with out the permission of the copy right holders ? Remember that 3000 is a number taken from the idea that other people made copies of the copies .
So really , a much more accurate analogy would be : What sort of punishment would you get if you took 24 songs and burned them to one or two CDs , and then gave the one or two CDs away for free without permission ( leaving the recipient ( s ) to do what he or she will with the pirated content ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the downloading, it's the uploading.The correct analogy would be:What sort of punishment would you get is you printed off 3000 CDs of copy right protected music, and gave them away for free with out the permission of the copy right holders?Remember that 3000 is a number taken from the idea that other people made copies of the copies.
So really, a much more accurate analogy would be:What sort of punishment would you get if you took 24 songs and burned them to one or two CDs, and then gave the one or two CDs away for free without permission (leaving the recipient(s) to do what he or she will with the pirated content)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864160</id>
	<title>Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1264158000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be the actual damages resulting from her not buying the music herself.  However, her uploading did allow many others to cause the plaintiffs the same damages.  We just don't know how many.</p><p>Personally I'd probably have aimed more at $10k than $50k, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for the court to take a position that punishes people for violating the intent of a law.  Otherwise, what point is there in having the law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be the actual damages resulting from her not buying the music herself .
However , her uploading did allow many others to cause the plaintiffs the same damages .
We just do n't know how many.Personally I 'd probably have aimed more at $ 10k than $ 50k , but I do n't think that it is unreasonable for the court to take a position that punishes people for violating the intent of a law .
Otherwise , what point is there in having the law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be the actual damages resulting from her not buying the music herself.
However, her uploading did allow many others to cause the plaintiffs the same damages.
We just don't know how many.Personally I'd probably have aimed more at $10k than $50k, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for the court to take a position that punishes people for violating the intent of a law.
Otherwise, what point is there in having the law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865588</id>
	<title>BitZtream: The trolling and skimming scumbag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264167240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512306&amp;cid=30785704" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512306&amp;cid=30785704</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Utterly hilarious - See BitzTream run in the URL above (after he being caught skimming like the typical troll does).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1512306&amp;cid = 30785704 [ slashdot.org ] Utterly hilarious - See BitzTream run in the URL above ( after he being caught skimming like the typical troll does ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512306&amp;cid=30785704 [slashdot.org]Utterly hilarious - See BitzTream run in the URL above (after he being caught skimming like the typical troll does).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866856</id>
	<title>tobiah showed us just how stupid you are BitZtream</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264180080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521258&amp;cid=30865256" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521258&amp;cid=30865256</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1521258&amp;cid = 30865256 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521258&amp;cid=30865256 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864620</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantic much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264160340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic?</p></div><p>The law doesn't think so. Why should those of us discussing the law?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic ? The law does n't think so .
Why should those of us discussing the law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic?The law doesn't think so.
Why should those of us discussing the law?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863870</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1264156740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Saying he didn't steal anything is a bit much unless he actually had a legitimate copy of whatever songs they said he infringed. However, I would like to see them start to go after downloaders; it shouldn't be the responsibility of an uploader to make sure the downloader has a legitimate license for something. <br> <br>

I know fair use doesn't allow receiving a backup of something from another individual, but it should. If it did, though, what would the great big corporations do if they could only sue downloaders for only a couple hundred bucks? (technically they could charge them for criminal theft at that point I think)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying he did n't steal anything is a bit much unless he actually had a legitimate copy of whatever songs they said he infringed .
However , I would like to see them start to go after downloaders ; it should n't be the responsibility of an uploader to make sure the downloader has a legitimate license for something .
I know fair use does n't allow receiving a backup of something from another individual , but it should .
If it did , though , what would the great big corporations do if they could only sue downloaders for only a couple hundred bucks ?
( technically they could charge them for criminal theft at that point I think )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying he didn't steal anything is a bit much unless he actually had a legitimate copy of whatever songs they said he infringed.
However, I would like to see them start to go after downloaders; it shouldn't be the responsibility of an uploader to make sure the downloader has a legitimate license for something.
I know fair use doesn't allow receiving a backup of something from another individual, but it should.
If it did, though, what would the great big corporations do if they could only sue downloaders for only a couple hundred bucks?
(technically they could charge them for criminal theft at that point I think)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866678</id>
	<title>Re:It's a positive</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264178220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. -54000 still is a negative number, relative to the damages of $0.<br>Ideas are no goods and have no money value. (Services that provide them, have.)<br>They can not be owned. Physics don&rsquo;t care if you disagree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
-54000 still is a negative number , relative to the damages of $ 0.Ideas are no goods and have no money value .
( Services that provide them , have .
) They can not be owned .
Physics don    t care if you disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
-54000 still is a negative number, relative to the damages of $0.Ideas are no goods and have no money value.
(Services that provide them, have.
)They can not be owned.
Physics don’t care if you disagree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864400</id>
	<title>Re:Stealing?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1264159080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I take issue with the language used. If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement. If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing. WalMart has been deprived of their property. In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything.</p></div><p>The record company has been deprived of its right to distribute.</p><p>Instead of talking about Walmart and stealing CDs, consider if you copied a print by a famous artist and started selling it yourself. You haven't "stolen" from the artist, per se, but you are certainly infringing that artist's exclusive right to reproduce his/her work.</p><p>The simple version is that it isn't yours to give away, whether or not you profit from it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I take issue with the language used .
If I download and then upload a song , that 's copyright infringement .
If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD , that 's stealing .
WalMart has been deprived of their property .
In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything.The record company has been deprived of its right to distribute.Instead of talking about Walmart and stealing CDs , consider if you copied a print by a famous artist and started selling it yourself .
You have n't " stolen " from the artist , per se , but you are certainly infringing that artist 's exclusive right to reproduce his/her work.The simple version is that it is n't yours to give away , whether or not you profit from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take issue with the language used.
If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement.
If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing.
WalMart has been deprived of their property.
In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything.The record company has been deprived of its right to distribute.Instead of talking about Walmart and stealing CDs, consider if you copied a print by a famous artist and started selling it yourself.
You haven't "stolen" from the artist, per se, but you are certainly infringing that artist's exclusive right to reproduce his/her work.The simple version is that it isn't yours to give away, whether or not you profit from it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692</id>
	<title>Some relation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264155960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wholesale price of 24 songs is $16.80. $54,000 is over <i>3,000 times</i> the maximum possible damages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wholesale price of 24 songs is $ 16.80 .
$ 54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wholesale price of 24 songs is $16.80.
$54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864332</id>
	<title>Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work</title>
	<author>Saib0t</author>
	<datestamp>1264158780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents. Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60. Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
What about the distribution part? I don't agree with the principle that unwillingly distributing (as is the case with P2P technologies) should be grounds for extra payment since it wasn't the person's objective, but since the money is for obtaining AND distributing, there should be something there as well, don't you think? Is there some kind of constitutional limit to that as well?
</p><p>
As a side note, where I live (belgium) we now have a "tax" on hard drives, recordable CDs/DVDs and all forms of storage to pay for the piracy going on, no matter what that storage device is going to be used for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/
<br>The upside is that I now have no moral issue whatsoever with downloading other's copyrighted works to my heart's content. I pay for it, I'm going to use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The maximum actual damages is ~ 35 cents per infringed work , since the wholesale price is ~ 70 cents and the expenses are around ~ 35 cents .
Under constitutional principles , the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $ 1.40 per infringed work , or a total of $ 33.60 .
Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages , a grossly excessive amount .
What about the distribution part ?
I do n't agree with the principle that unwillingly distributing ( as is the case with P2P technologies ) should be grounds for extra payment since it was n't the person 's objective , but since the money is for obtaining AND distributing , there should be something there as well , do n't you think ?
Is there some kind of constitutional limit to that as well ?
As a side note , where I live ( belgium ) we now have a " tax " on hard drives , recordable CDs/DVDs and all forms of storage to pay for the piracy going on , no matter what that storage device is going to be used for : -/ The upside is that I now have no moral issue whatsoever with downloading other 's copyrighted works to my heart 's content .
I pay for it , I 'm going to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents.
Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60.
Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.
What about the distribution part?
I don't agree with the principle that unwillingly distributing (as is the case with P2P technologies) should be grounds for extra payment since it wasn't the person's objective, but since the money is for obtaining AND distributing, there should be something there as well, don't you think?
Is there some kind of constitutional limit to that as well?
As a side note, where I live (belgium) we now have a "tax" on hard drives, recordable CDs/DVDs and all forms of storage to pay for the piracy going on, no matter what that storage device is going to be used for :-/
The upside is that I now have no moral issue whatsoever with downloading other's copyrighted works to my heart's content.
I pay for it, I'm going to use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865092</id>
	<title>Re:Screw the RIAA</title>
	<author>Dr. Hellno</author>
	<datestamp>1264164060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they actively lobbied for it. 54k is really a better number for them: it doesn't sound as ridiculous, so public interest and outrage will be dulled. Yet it's still enough to bring financial ruin upon most families, which is what they want. Remember, their real goal in this litigation isn't to recoup damages but to establish an effective deterrent.<br>
Also, I seem to recall a pending suit against the labels filed by artists who haven't been paid for the use of their work on compilation CDs. Using the RIAA's own figures, they alleged something like 60 billion dollars in damages if I recall. This would reduce that figure enormously.<br>
Ok, my last point was a little ridiculous. But we know these guys don't always abide by the law themselves. It's not really in their interests to establish astronomical damage figures. I'm sure they'd rather have damages set at something they can pay whenever they feel like scoffing at the law, but that the vast majority of consumers couldn't possibly afford. Food for thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be entirely surprised if they actively lobbied for it .
54k is really a better number for them : it does n't sound as ridiculous , so public interest and outrage will be dulled .
Yet it 's still enough to bring financial ruin upon most families , which is what they want .
Remember , their real goal in this litigation is n't to recoup damages but to establish an effective deterrent .
Also , I seem to recall a pending suit against the labels filed by artists who have n't been paid for the use of their work on compilation CDs .
Using the RIAA 's own figures , they alleged something like 60 billion dollars in damages if I recall .
This would reduce that figure enormously .
Ok , my last point was a little ridiculous .
But we know these guys do n't always abide by the law themselves .
It 's not really in their interests to establish astronomical damage figures .
I 'm sure they 'd rather have damages set at something they can pay whenever they feel like scoffing at the law , but that the vast majority of consumers could n't possibly afford .
Food for thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they actively lobbied for it.
54k is really a better number for them: it doesn't sound as ridiculous, so public interest and outrage will be dulled.
Yet it's still enough to bring financial ruin upon most families, which is what they want.
Remember, their real goal in this litigation isn't to recoup damages but to establish an effective deterrent.
Also, I seem to recall a pending suit against the labels filed by artists who haven't been paid for the use of their work on compilation CDs.
Using the RIAA's own figures, they alleged something like 60 billion dollars in damages if I recall.
This would reduce that figure enormously.
Ok, my last point was a little ridiculous.
But we know these guys don't always abide by the law themselves.
It's not really in their interests to establish astronomical damage figures.
I'm sure they'd rather have damages set at something they can pay whenever they feel like scoffing at the law, but that the vast majority of consumers couldn't possibly afford.
Food for thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30889946</id>
	<title>Re:Stealing?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264434720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, the artist does not own his work -- he's merely given a "limited time" monopoly on its distribution. The art belongs to everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , the artist does not own his work -- he 's merely given a " limited time " monopoly on its distribution .
The art belongs to everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, the artist does not own his work -- he's merely given a "limited time" monopoly on its distribution.
The art belongs to everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866776</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1264179180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you should steal like 300 CD's and hand them out to everyone in your neighborhood. Still under $5000 in value so I think it's still relatively small fries.<br> <br>... oh wait, that's kinda what this person did, only they want $54,000 for it because it was done online? The bastards!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you should steal like 300 CD 's and hand them out to everyone in your neighborhood .
Still under $ 5000 in value so I think it 's still relatively small fries .
... oh wait , that 's kinda what this person did , only they want $ 54,000 for it because it was done online ?
The bastards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you should steal like 300 CD's and hand them out to everyone in your neighborhood.
Still under $5000 in value so I think it's still relatively small fries.
... oh wait, that's kinda what this person did, only they want $54,000 for it because it was done online?
The bastards!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864112</id>
	<title>Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264157820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judge seemed to indicate he thought $54,000 was still high, how did he settle on that number?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge seemed to indicate he thought $ 54,000 was still high , how did he settle on that number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge seemed to indicate he thought $54,000 was still high, how did he settle on that number?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865058</id>
	<title>Re:She'll never work again</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264163820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that, being married, they'll take it from her husbands paycheck then, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that , being married , they 'll take it from her husbands paycheck then , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that, being married, they'll take it from her husbands paycheck then, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863930</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1264157100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can the RIAA appeal this verdict and demand more money? NewYorkCountryLawyer, are you listening? $54,000 is still an unreasonable amount for <b>downloading</b> a few songs (my entire 80GByte MP3 collection only cost about $10,000). If you accept the RIAA's contention that each of these songs could be passed on to other people, who could in turn pass them on to more people, it may sound reasonable. However, it that is the case, then shouldn't the commercial price of a song on iTunes be about $2000?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can the RIAA appeal this verdict and demand more money ?
NewYorkCountryLawyer , are you listening ?
$ 54,000 is still an unreasonable amount for downloading a few songs ( my entire 80GByte MP3 collection only cost about $ 10,000 ) .
If you accept the RIAA 's contention that each of these songs could be passed on to other people , who could in turn pass them on to more people , it may sound reasonable .
However , it that is the case , then should n't the commercial price of a song on iTunes be about $ 2000 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can the RIAA appeal this verdict and demand more money?
NewYorkCountryLawyer, are you listening?
$54,000 is still an unreasonable amount for downloading a few songs (my entire 80GByte MP3 collection only cost about $10,000).
If you accept the RIAA's contention that each of these songs could be passed on to other people, who could in turn pass them on to more people, it may sound reasonable.
However, it that is the case, then shouldn't the commercial price of a song on iTunes be about $2000?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864662</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect analogy.</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1264160580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the hell has a CD player these days? I haven't seen a music CD in at least 7-10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell has a CD player these days ?
I have n't seen a music CD in at least 7-10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell has a CD player these days?
I haven't seen a music CD in at least 7-10 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768</id>
	<title>Re:Some relation?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1264156260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The wholesale price of 24 songs is $16.80. $54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages.</p></div><p>What kind of punishment would I get for shoplifting a $16 CD? Isn't petty theft like a $500 fine and community service? This guy didn't even steal anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The wholesale price of 24 songs is $ 16.80 .
$ 54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages.What kind of punishment would I get for shoplifting a $ 16 CD ?
Is n't petty theft like a $ 500 fine and community service ?
This guy did n't even steal anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wholesale price of 24 songs is $16.80.
$54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages.What kind of punishment would I get for shoplifting a $16 CD?
Isn't petty theft like a $500 fine and community service?
This guy didn't even steal anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864934</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantic much?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1264162740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic?</p></div><p>No more than if a judge calls you a rapist after convicting you for jaywalking.</p><p>Of course going by penalty not damage from the crime here.  Jaywalking is a ticket.  Rape is a prison sentence.</p><p>It's bad enough to be called on a crime you actually committed, but to also have a judge of all people call that crime by a ton of other unrelated criminal acts is not pedantic at all, its a simple matter of being literate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic ? No more than if a judge calls you a rapist after convicting you for jaywalking.Of course going by penalty not damage from the crime here .
Jaywalking is a ticket .
Rape is a prison sentence.It 's bad enough to be called on a crime you actually committed , but to also have a judge of all people call that crime by a ton of other unrelated criminal acts is not pedantic at all , its a simple matter of being literate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic?No more than if a judge calls you a rapist after convicting you for jaywalking.Of course going by penalty not damage from the crime here.
Jaywalking is a ticket.
Rape is a prison sentence.It's bad enough to be called on a crime you actually committed, but to also have a judge of all people call that crime by a ton of other unrelated criminal acts is not pedantic at all, its a simple matter of being literate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864370</id>
	<title>Way to much still..</title>
	<author>Kaffien</author>
	<datestamp>1264158960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just silly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....   reflecting damages. You steal it, do not distribute it.  Therefore you have 'stolen'  two cd's worth and should be
fined a maximum of 25 dollars per 'CD'.  His fine should not exceed $50.

These guys are fishing with dynamite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just silly .... reflecting damages .
You steal it , do not distribute it .
Therefore you have 'stolen ' two cd 's worth and should be fined a maximum of 25 dollars per 'CD' .
His fine should not exceed $ 50 .
These guys are fishing with dynamite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just silly ....   reflecting damages.
You steal it, do not distribute it.
Therefore you have 'stolen'  two cd's worth and should be
fined a maximum of 25 dollars per 'CD'.
His fine should not exceed $50.
These guys are fishing with dynamite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864584</id>
	<title>Still out of control...</title>
	<author>TomXP411</author>
	<datestamp>1264160100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fine for running a red light is $351. The fine for sharing songs is, apparently, $2,250 per song.</p><p>Running a red light can kill someone.</p><p>Sharing an MP3 might cost the record company $1.</p><p>Since when did a record become 641\% MORE valuable than a human life?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fine for running a red light is $ 351 .
The fine for sharing songs is , apparently , $ 2,250 per song.Running a red light can kill someone.Sharing an MP3 might cost the record company $ 1.Since when did a record become 641 \ % MORE valuable than a human life ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fine for running a red light is $351.
The fine for sharing songs is, apparently, $2,250 per song.Running a red light can kill someone.Sharing an MP3 might cost the record company $1.Since when did a record become 641\% MORE valuable than a human life?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30868908</id>
	<title>Re:Alt Title: Judge Makes Damages Only Mostly Insa</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1264254240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$54,000 is still a crazy amount all things considered, but hopefully this judgment can stand as a sort of benchmark for future ones, even if it's not setting a precedent.</p></div><p>It sounds as if that was the best the judge could reasonably do without forcing a retrial - which I'm guessing would have cost Thomas another 5-figure sum in legal fees, win or lose, plus whatever damages the new trial decided. So maybe its for the best.
</p><p>Look on the bright side: $54k isn't going to pay RIAA's fees, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 54,000 is still a crazy amount all things considered , but hopefully this judgment can stand as a sort of benchmark for future ones , even if it 's not setting a precedent.It sounds as if that was the best the judge could reasonably do without forcing a retrial - which I 'm guessing would have cost Thomas another 5-figure sum in legal fees , win or lose , plus whatever damages the new trial decided .
So maybe its for the best .
Look on the bright side : $ 54k is n't going to pay RIAA 's fees , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$54,000 is still a crazy amount all things considered, but hopefully this judgment can stand as a sort of benchmark for future ones, even if it's not setting a precedent.It sounds as if that was the best the judge could reasonably do without forcing a retrial - which I'm guessing would have cost Thomas another 5-figure sum in legal fees, win or lose, plus whatever damages the new trial decided.
So maybe its for the best.
Look on the bright side: $54k isn't going to pay RIAA's fees, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864392</id>
	<title>Infinite Reproducibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264159080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point, I'd like to introduce the concept of "infinite reproducibility"(tm).</p><p>Infinite reproducibility exists on freely distributable information networks. I claim that the value of all information drops to zero, since it is easily reproduced and distributed beyond the means that modern markets are framed around. Supply and demand become non-physical variables in the monetary equations of distribution, yet remain intact for supply and demand side holding. Only the distribution market has changed.</p><p>Since the computers, and the Internet allow information to be reproduced rapidly, in quantity, and over vast distances, the expectation of any piece of information, Copyrighted, Trademarked, Secret, or other, to hold up to past scrutinies of reproducibility, becomes null. The threshold for control on a freely distributable information network, will not move away from that which its contributors allow. Those who have a vested monetary interest in information, need to understand that it is in their interest to not punish the very people they wish to sell that information too. No amount of legislation, except destruction of the very network itself, will change this fact.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/yes, grammar be damned</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point , I 'd like to introduce the concept of " infinite reproducibility " ( tm ) .Infinite reproducibility exists on freely distributable information networks .
I claim that the value of all information drops to zero , since it is easily reproduced and distributed beyond the means that modern markets are framed around .
Supply and demand become non-physical variables in the monetary equations of distribution , yet remain intact for supply and demand side holding .
Only the distribution market has changed.Since the computers , and the Internet allow information to be reproduced rapidly , in quantity , and over vast distances , the expectation of any piece of information , Copyrighted , Trademarked , Secret , or other , to hold up to past scrutinies of reproducibility , becomes null .
The threshold for control on a freely distributable information network , will not move away from that which its contributors allow .
Those who have a vested monetary interest in information , need to understand that it is in their interest to not punish the very people they wish to sell that information too .
No amount of legislation , except destruction of the very network itself , will change this fact .
/yes , grammar be damned</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point, I'd like to introduce the concept of "infinite reproducibility"(tm).Infinite reproducibility exists on freely distributable information networks.
I claim that the value of all information drops to zero, since it is easily reproduced and distributed beyond the means that modern markets are framed around.
Supply and demand become non-physical variables in the monetary equations of distribution, yet remain intact for supply and demand side holding.
Only the distribution market has changed.Since the computers, and the Internet allow information to be reproduced rapidly, in quantity, and over vast distances, the expectation of any piece of information, Copyrighted, Trademarked, Secret, or other, to hold up to past scrutinies of reproducibility, becomes null.
The threshold for control on a freely distributable information network, will not move away from that which its contributors allow.
Those who have a vested monetary interest in information, need to understand that it is in their interest to not punish the very people they wish to sell that information too.
No amount of legislation, except destruction of the very network itself, will change this fact.
/yes, grammar be damned</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864598</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect analogy.</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1264160160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure that's against the law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that 's against the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that's against the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865064</id>
	<title>Interesting guess, but not likely...</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1264163880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judge isn't usually worried about defusing the situation, so much as he's worried about (1) what the law is, (2) to the extent that the law is unclear, what law is most consistent with the rationales for existing law, (3) taking into account the countervailing social policy considerations (i.e. recognizing damage to the record companies was greater than costs and approved by the legislature, but that $2M is insane, and that 54K is still a big punishment), and (4) not getting overruled by the court above him.</p><p>Of course judges have their own beliefs that influence their understanding of what the law ought to be and how they interpret it, but for the most part they're just trying to understand the problem and do the right thing under the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge is n't usually worried about defusing the situation , so much as he 's worried about ( 1 ) what the law is , ( 2 ) to the extent that the law is unclear , what law is most consistent with the rationales for existing law , ( 3 ) taking into account the countervailing social policy considerations ( i.e .
recognizing damage to the record companies was greater than costs and approved by the legislature , but that $ 2M is insane , and that 54K is still a big punishment ) , and ( 4 ) not getting overruled by the court above him.Of course judges have their own beliefs that influence their understanding of what the law ought to be and how they interpret it , but for the most part they 're just trying to understand the problem and do the right thing under the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge isn't usually worried about defusing the situation, so much as he's worried about (1) what the law is, (2) to the extent that the law is unclear, what law is most consistent with the rationales for existing law, (3) taking into account the countervailing social policy considerations (i.e.
recognizing damage to the record companies was greater than costs and approved by the legislature, but that $2M is insane, and that 54K is still a big punishment), and (4) not getting overruled by the court above him.Of course judges have their own beliefs that influence their understanding of what the law ought to be and how they interpret it, but for the most part they're just trying to understand the problem and do the right thing under the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865730</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect analogy.</title>
	<author>thechao</author>
	<datestamp>1264168440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None. Copyright should protect against commercial uses -- as was its original intent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None .
Copyright should protect against commercial uses -- as was its original intent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None.
Copyright should protect against commercial uses -- as was its original intent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30889946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30868006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30947384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30871278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30868644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30872476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30880778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30880628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30871422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30872400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30868908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30876362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30889592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30890748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_1939256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867512
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30876362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30871422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867916
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865730
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864510
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865280
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30872476
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30872400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30868908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30868006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30947384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30890748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30871278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30889946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30889592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30880628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30868644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30864698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30880778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30865556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_1939256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30863842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30866678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_1939256.30867274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
