<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_29_0013240</id>
	<title>RIAA Confusion In Tenenbaum &amp; Thomas Cases?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264773720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes <i>"There seems to be a bit of confusion in RIAA-land these days, caused by the only 2 cases that ever went to trial, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset in Minnesota, and SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston. In both cases, <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#7494724431083428345">the RIAA has recently asked for extensions of time</a>. In Thomas-Rasset, they've asked for more time to make up their mind as to whether to accept <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/22/1939256/Judge-Lowers-Jammie-Thomas-Damages-to-54000">the reduced verdict of $54,000</a> the judge has offered them, and in Tenenbaum they've twice asked for more time to prepare their papers opposing Tenenbaum's motion for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittitur">remittitur</a>. What is more, it has been reported that after the reduction of the verdict, the RIAA <a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/34744">offered to settle with Ms. Thomas-Rasset for $25,000</a>, but she turned them down."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " There seems to be a bit of confusion in RIAA-land these days , caused by the only 2 cases that ever went to trial , Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset in Minnesota , and SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum , in Boston .
In both cases , the RIAA has recently asked for extensions of time .
In Thomas-Rasset , they 've asked for more time to make up their mind as to whether to accept the reduced verdict of $ 54,000 the judge has offered them , and in Tenenbaum they 've twice asked for more time to prepare their papers opposing Tenenbaum 's motion for remittitur .
What is more , it has been reported that after the reduction of the verdict , the RIAA offered to settle with Ms. Thomas-Rasset for $ 25,000 , but she turned them down .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "There seems to be a bit of confusion in RIAA-land these days, caused by the only 2 cases that ever went to trial, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset in Minnesota, and SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston.
In both cases, the RIAA has recently asked for extensions of time.
In Thomas-Rasset, they've asked for more time to make up their mind as to whether to accept the reduced verdict of $54,000 the judge has offered them, and in Tenenbaum they've twice asked for more time to prepare their papers opposing Tenenbaum's motion for remittitur.
What is more, it has been reported that after the reduction of the verdict, the RIAA offered to settle with Ms. Thomas-Rasset for $25,000, but she turned them down.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945728</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1264701060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to step in and correct one thing.  I wouldn't say that he's given "legal advice" here at all.  That's a special creature that includes all sorts of ethical duties.  What he has done, though, is provide a great deal of legal information, clarification, and insight.  I would hate for a good deed to turn into a regret by people confusing legal information for advice.  At the very least, he can be appreciated for being a contributing member of the community where most people in his position would not bother.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to step in and correct one thing .
I would n't say that he 's given " legal advice " here at all .
That 's a special creature that includes all sorts of ethical duties .
What he has done , though , is provide a great deal of legal information , clarification , and insight .
I would hate for a good deed to turn into a regret by people confusing legal information for advice .
At the very least , he can be appreciated for being a contributing member of the community where most people in his position would not bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to step in and correct one thing.
I wouldn't say that he's given "legal advice" here at all.
That's a special creature that includes all sorts of ethical duties.
What he has done, though, is provide a great deal of legal information, clarification, and insight.
I would hate for a good deed to turn into a regret by people confusing legal information for advice.
At the very least, he can be appreciated for being a contributing member of the community where most people in his position would not bother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945602</id>
	<title>Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264699440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like Lawyering is expensive.</p><p>If they can bully a person into paying them off they make a profit.  If they can't and don't make a large damage sum they don't make a profit, and if the damages are not large enough it makes people think they can fight their overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like Lawyering is expensive.If they can bully a person into paying them off they make a profit .
If they ca n't and do n't make a large damage sum they do n't make a profit , and if the damages are not large enough it makes people think they can fight their overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like Lawyering is expensive.If they can bully a person into paying them off they make a profit.
If they can't and don't make a large damage sum they don't make a profit, and if the damages are not large enough it makes people think they can fight their overlords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949276</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264780200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I found this very interesting, and not due to the request for extension.  The interest lies in their reason for extension.</p><p>They may have to PROVE their damages.  Good luck with that RIAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I found this very interesting , and not due to the request for extension .
The interest lies in their reason for extension.They may have to PROVE their damages .
Good luck with that RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I found this very interesting, and not due to the request for extension.
The interest lies in their reason for extension.They may have to PROVE their damages.
Good luck with that RIAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947724</id>
	<title>New approach</title>
	<author>TheBobJob</author>
	<datestamp>1264768020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IMO, the real problem lies with the RIAAs approach. People are naturally going to get behind and support the little person here regardless of who is in the right. People like to cheer for the underdog and this is exactly what the RIAA tactics encourage. They will never win the battle against copyright infringement in the long run unless they get the support of the masses and change the current cultural perception that copying/downloading music/movies etc is acceptable.

If the public were to see good artists struggling to survive, then peoples attitudes towards the subject would change. Instead we see mediocre performers living lavish and excessive lifestyles while the rest of the world struggles to just get by.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO , the real problem lies with the RIAAs approach .
People are naturally going to get behind and support the little person here regardless of who is in the right .
People like to cheer for the underdog and this is exactly what the RIAA tactics encourage .
They will never win the battle against copyright infringement in the long run unless they get the support of the masses and change the current cultural perception that copying/downloading music/movies etc is acceptable .
If the public were to see good artists struggling to survive , then peoples attitudes towards the subject would change .
Instead we see mediocre performers living lavish and excessive lifestyles while the rest of the world struggles to just get by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO, the real problem lies with the RIAAs approach.
People are naturally going to get behind and support the little person here regardless of who is in the right.
People like to cheer for the underdog and this is exactly what the RIAA tactics encourage.
They will never win the battle against copyright infringement in the long run unless they get the support of the masses and change the current cultural perception that copying/downloading music/movies etc is acceptable.
If the public were to see good artists struggling to survive, then peoples attitudes towards the subject would change.
Instead we see mediocre performers living lavish and excessive lifestyles while the rest of the world struggles to just get by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428</id>
	<title>Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ...</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1264697340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could sell a couple of thousand NewYorkCountryLawyer action figures.  Especially if you gave him huge action figure muscles like they did for Luke Skywalker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You joke , but I would n't be surprised if you could sell a couple of thousand NewYorkCountryLawyer action figures .
Especially if you gave him huge action figure muscles like they did for Luke Skywalker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could sell a couple of thousand NewYorkCountryLawyer action figures.
Especially if you gave him huge action figure muscles like they did for Luke Skywalker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30953174</id>
	<title>Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ...</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1264794900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you just gave <a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/" title="thinkgeek.com">Thinkgeek</a> [thinkgeek.com] a new product line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you just gave Thinkgeek [ thinkgeek.com ] a new product line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you just gave Thinkgeek [thinkgeek.com] a new product line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945404</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1264697040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$54k is CERTAINLY excessive. As is $25k. This is not a criminal case. The payment is not a fine to discourage crime, it's a payment to cover the damages. She shared 24 songs. At $54k, that's more than $2k per song. And when you can buy those songs for $1 each, that's saying that she was personally and directly responsible for 2,000 people not buying each one of those songs. How is that in any way even possible? A single person sharing a single song will NEVER be directly responsible for \_thousands\_ of lost sales. It just doesn't work that way. And the RIAA has certainly not proven such a loss. And again, this is a civil case. The fine is not a punishment or deterrent, it is pure and simple restitution.</p><p>For a reference:<br><a href="http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor111111" title="rbs2.com">http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor111111</a> [rbs2.com]<br>"In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 54k is CERTAINLY excessive .
As is $ 25k .
This is not a criminal case .
The payment is not a fine to discourage crime , it 's a payment to cover the damages .
She shared 24 songs .
At $ 54k , that 's more than $ 2k per song .
And when you can buy those songs for $ 1 each , that 's saying that she was personally and directly responsible for 2,000 people not buying each one of those songs .
How is that in any way even possible ?
A single person sharing a single song will NEVER be directly responsible for \ _thousands \ _ of lost sales .
It just does n't work that way .
And the RIAA has certainly not proven such a loss .
And again , this is a civil case .
The fine is not a punishment or deterrent , it is pure and simple restitution.For a reference : http : //www.rbs2.com/cc.htm # anchor111111 [ rbs2.com ] " In general , a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant 's behavior .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$54k is CERTAINLY excessive.
As is $25k.
This is not a criminal case.
The payment is not a fine to discourage crime, it's a payment to cover the damages.
She shared 24 songs.
At $54k, that's more than $2k per song.
And when you can buy those songs for $1 each, that's saying that she was personally and directly responsible for 2,000 people not buying each one of those songs.
How is that in any way even possible?
A single person sharing a single song will NEVER be directly responsible for \_thousands\_ of lost sales.
It just doesn't work that way.
And the RIAA has certainly not proven such a loss.
And again, this is a civil case.
The fine is not a punishment or deterrent, it is pure and simple restitution.For a reference:http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor111111 [rbs2.com]"In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30950570</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement losses</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264785420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not about downloading at all.  Actual damages depends on how many times she *uploaded* the songs, not downloaded.  She was not authorized to copy these songs, yet did so as part of the workings of P2P.  You can set files to be unshared once downloaded, but during the initial transfer it was (at the time she is accused of copyright infringement) difficult to configure any P2P software to download parts without uploading parts.</p><p>If she uploaded a song available as a single for $3 to 18,000 people, $54k is perfect.  <b>You're saying that it's impossible for one person to be responsible for thousands of lost sales, but I think it's impossible to support that assertion.</b>  A courtroom is the only place that can be proven, and that's what the RIAA is trying to do.  If I download a song and leave it in my shared folder for 3 years, how many full and complete uploads did I make?  You're saying you have an answer to that, and the answer is less than "thousands".  I'm saying it depends on the evidence.</p><p>The defendant apparently replaced her hard drive, so we don't know how long the files were being shared, and whether they were moved out of the shared folder, because the evidence is gone.  The plaintiff only confirmed that the files were being shared, not that the defendant was uploading full copies.  So IN THIS CASE it will be difficult to prove damages.  You are stating as if in every case it will be impossible to prove damages, which is certainly not true.  Several P2P applications actually keep track of the number of bytes of a song uploaded, and some present the data in a way that you can make a reasonable inference of the number of complete copies uploaded by the client.  Each complete copy is a plain-as-day copyright infringement.</p><p>How do you calculate damages based on the number of uploads?  It would be difficult to argue in a courtroom that you can tell which uploads would have resulted in a sale, had the upload not happened.  It would be *very* difficult to argue that someone else would have uploaded it if the defendant hadn't, and therefore the defendant is not liable, because court cases use actual evidence, not theories.  If the other person had uploaded, the other person would be the defendant.  The only obvious course of action is for the plaintiff to claim that every upload represents a person on the other side who downloaded something they would otherwise have had to pay for.  Regardless of how many studies show p2p basically serving as free advertising, a substitute for payola, and a self-selected sub-population who wouldn't pay for things they couldn't download, you would have to find the identity of each person and prove whether they fit the criteria of being a potential consumer.  That's the only fair way to calculate actual damages.  Even if it weren't too completely ridiculous and onerous to ask a plaintiff to prove this, again the defendant destroyed the evidence needed to prove this.</p><p>If I print 50,000 copies of your latest novel and sell them to people, you wouldn't have to find every person and determine whether they would have bought a copy had I not provided it at significant discount, you'd rely on my records and any other witnesses you could find.   <b>Unfortunately, copyright in the digital age means that uploading a 3MB MP3 file is the same as printing and selling a book.</b>  It might not be right, and there are plenty of arguments against it, but none of that matters in a court trial.  When considering copyright infringement, the commercial gain is one of 4 canonical evaluations, including how much of a work was copied and the intended use.  You can't argue that because she didn't sell the copy, only give it away, that it doesn't qualify as infringement, because she probably did upload the entire work, and the potential audience was every p2p user at the time.  Well you can argue anything you want but it won't get you anywhere.</p><p>Also, keep in mind the defendant was sharing many more songs - the 24 on the list is just the ones the RIAA knows for certain were b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not about downloading at all .
Actual damages depends on how many times she * uploaded * the songs , not downloaded .
She was not authorized to copy these songs , yet did so as part of the workings of P2P .
You can set files to be unshared once downloaded , but during the initial transfer it was ( at the time she is accused of copyright infringement ) difficult to configure any P2P software to download parts without uploading parts.If she uploaded a song available as a single for $ 3 to 18,000 people , $ 54k is perfect .
You 're saying that it 's impossible for one person to be responsible for thousands of lost sales , but I think it 's impossible to support that assertion .
A courtroom is the only place that can be proven , and that 's what the RIAA is trying to do .
If I download a song and leave it in my shared folder for 3 years , how many full and complete uploads did I make ?
You 're saying you have an answer to that , and the answer is less than " thousands " .
I 'm saying it depends on the evidence.The defendant apparently replaced her hard drive , so we do n't know how long the files were being shared , and whether they were moved out of the shared folder , because the evidence is gone .
The plaintiff only confirmed that the files were being shared , not that the defendant was uploading full copies .
So IN THIS CASE it will be difficult to prove damages .
You are stating as if in every case it will be impossible to prove damages , which is certainly not true .
Several P2P applications actually keep track of the number of bytes of a song uploaded , and some present the data in a way that you can make a reasonable inference of the number of complete copies uploaded by the client .
Each complete copy is a plain-as-day copyright infringement.How do you calculate damages based on the number of uploads ?
It would be difficult to argue in a courtroom that you can tell which uploads would have resulted in a sale , had the upload not happened .
It would be * very * difficult to argue that someone else would have uploaded it if the defendant had n't , and therefore the defendant is not liable , because court cases use actual evidence , not theories .
If the other person had uploaded , the other person would be the defendant .
The only obvious course of action is for the plaintiff to claim that every upload represents a person on the other side who downloaded something they would otherwise have had to pay for .
Regardless of how many studies show p2p basically serving as free advertising , a substitute for payola , and a self-selected sub-population who would n't pay for things they could n't download , you would have to find the identity of each person and prove whether they fit the criteria of being a potential consumer .
That 's the only fair way to calculate actual damages .
Even if it were n't too completely ridiculous and onerous to ask a plaintiff to prove this , again the defendant destroyed the evidence needed to prove this.If I print 50,000 copies of your latest novel and sell them to people , you would n't have to find every person and determine whether they would have bought a copy had I not provided it at significant discount , you 'd rely on my records and any other witnesses you could find .
Unfortunately , copyright in the digital age means that uploading a 3MB MP3 file is the same as printing and selling a book .
It might not be right , and there are plenty of arguments against it , but none of that matters in a court trial .
When considering copyright infringement , the commercial gain is one of 4 canonical evaluations , including how much of a work was copied and the intended use .
You ca n't argue that because she did n't sell the copy , only give it away , that it does n't qualify as infringement , because she probably did upload the entire work , and the potential audience was every p2p user at the time .
Well you can argue anything you want but it wo n't get you anywhere.Also , keep in mind the defendant was sharing many more songs - the 24 on the list is just the ones the RIAA knows for certain were b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not about downloading at all.
Actual damages depends on how many times she *uploaded* the songs, not downloaded.
She was not authorized to copy these songs, yet did so as part of the workings of P2P.
You can set files to be unshared once downloaded, but during the initial transfer it was (at the time she is accused of copyright infringement) difficult to configure any P2P software to download parts without uploading parts.If she uploaded a song available as a single for $3 to 18,000 people, $54k is perfect.
You're saying that it's impossible for one person to be responsible for thousands of lost sales, but I think it's impossible to support that assertion.
A courtroom is the only place that can be proven, and that's what the RIAA is trying to do.
If I download a song and leave it in my shared folder for 3 years, how many full and complete uploads did I make?
You're saying you have an answer to that, and the answer is less than "thousands".
I'm saying it depends on the evidence.The defendant apparently replaced her hard drive, so we don't know how long the files were being shared, and whether they were moved out of the shared folder, because the evidence is gone.
The plaintiff only confirmed that the files were being shared, not that the defendant was uploading full copies.
So IN THIS CASE it will be difficult to prove damages.
You are stating as if in every case it will be impossible to prove damages, which is certainly not true.
Several P2P applications actually keep track of the number of bytes of a song uploaded, and some present the data in a way that you can make a reasonable inference of the number of complete copies uploaded by the client.
Each complete copy is a plain-as-day copyright infringement.How do you calculate damages based on the number of uploads?
It would be difficult to argue in a courtroom that you can tell which uploads would have resulted in a sale, had the upload not happened.
It would be *very* difficult to argue that someone else would have uploaded it if the defendant hadn't, and therefore the defendant is not liable, because court cases use actual evidence, not theories.
If the other person had uploaded, the other person would be the defendant.
The only obvious course of action is for the plaintiff to claim that every upload represents a person on the other side who downloaded something they would otherwise have had to pay for.
Regardless of how many studies show p2p basically serving as free advertising, a substitute for payola, and a self-selected sub-population who wouldn't pay for things they couldn't download, you would have to find the identity of each person and prove whether they fit the criteria of being a potential consumer.
That's the only fair way to calculate actual damages.
Even if it weren't too completely ridiculous and onerous to ask a plaintiff to prove this, again the defendant destroyed the evidence needed to prove this.If I print 50,000 copies of your latest novel and sell them to people, you wouldn't have to find every person and determine whether they would have bought a copy had I not provided it at significant discount, you'd rely on my records and any other witnesses you could find.
Unfortunately, copyright in the digital age means that uploading a 3MB MP3 file is the same as printing and selling a book.
It might not be right, and there are plenty of arguments against it, but none of that matters in a court trial.
When considering copyright infringement, the commercial gain is one of 4 canonical evaluations, including how much of a work was copied and the intended use.
You can't argue that because she didn't sell the copy, only give it away, that it doesn't qualify as infringement, because she probably did upload the entire work, and the potential audience was every p2p user at the time.
Well you can argue anything you want but it won't get you anywhere.Also, keep in mind the defendant was sharing many more songs - the 24 on the list is just the ones the RIAA knows for certain were b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</id>
	<title>Settlement</title>
	<author>anagama</author>
	<datestamp>1264691820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect Thomas will rue the day she turned down the $25k settlement.  While whatever millions the jury awarded was obviously excessive, her lawyer's assertion that $1/song is appropriate is also excessive, but in the opposite direction.  If the law's bite was no more than the cost of purchase for what you get caught illegally "sharing", there would be no incentive for people to be honest and pay for their music.  <br> <br>Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt.  Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect Thomas will rue the day she turned down the $ 25k settlement .
While whatever millions the jury awarded was obviously excessive , her lawyer 's assertion that $ 1/song is appropriate is also excessive , but in the opposite direction .
If the law 's bite was no more than the cost of purchase for what you get caught illegally " sharing " , there would be no incentive for people to be honest and pay for their music .
Anyway , $ 25k is not an enormous life ruining debt .
Yes , it is not trivial , but it is surmountable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect Thomas will rue the day she turned down the $25k settlement.
While whatever millions the jury awarded was obviously excessive, her lawyer's assertion that $1/song is appropriate is also excessive, but in the opposite direction.
If the law's bite was no more than the cost of purchase for what you get caught illegally "sharing", there would be no incentive for people to be honest and pay for their music.
Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt.
Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945306</id>
	<title>How fat is too fat?</title>
	<author>groslyunderpaid</author>
	<datestamp>1264695840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm 6-1, 230 pounds. Is that fat? If I was only 180, would that be fat? How about 250? 350? 500? 800?<br> <br>

I don't know exactly where the line is, but I can distance it out a bit and make some definitive marks. At 6-1, Let's say anything under 140 is too skinny, and anything over 300 is fat. Those 2 numbers could probably legitimately slide closer together, but they are true where they are.<br> <br>

It's not that difficult of a concept. $24 is a joke. Just as silly would be anything over, idk, let's just say $3000. In all reality, those numbers should slide toward each other, but I think anyone with an IQ over 100 should be able to see that anything over 3 grand is retarded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 6-1 , 230 pounds .
Is that fat ?
If I was only 180 , would that be fat ?
How about 250 ?
350 ? 500 ?
800 ? I do n't know exactly where the line is , but I can distance it out a bit and make some definitive marks .
At 6-1 , Let 's say anything under 140 is too skinny , and anything over 300 is fat .
Those 2 numbers could probably legitimately slide closer together , but they are true where they are .
It 's not that difficult of a concept .
$ 24 is a joke .
Just as silly would be anything over , idk , let 's just say $ 3000 .
In all reality , those numbers should slide toward each other , but I think anyone with an IQ over 100 should be able to see that anything over 3 grand is retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 6-1, 230 pounds.
Is that fat?
If I was only 180, would that be fat?
How about 250?
350? 500?
800? 

I don't know exactly where the line is, but I can distance it out a bit and make some definitive marks.
At 6-1, Let's say anything under 140 is too skinny, and anything over 300 is fat.
Those 2 numbers could probably legitimately slide closer together, but they are true where they are.
It's not that difficult of a concept.
$24 is a joke.
Just as silly would be anything over, idk, let's just say $3000.
In all reality, those numbers should slide toward each other, but I think anyone with an IQ over 100 should be able to see that anything over 3 grand is retarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164</id>
	<title>Estimated actual damages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264694220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Estimated actual damages</p><p>24 songs with a $.99 retail value. Assume the $.99 is the damage per song that a sale was lost on. (That's not the case actually as the wholesale price is the damage amount.) Assume every song downloaded is an actual lost sale. (Again not true, but simple for this calculation.) Assume a seed ration of 5, so for every song 5 copies were made. (Again not true, 5 is an insanely high ratio on P2P networks as 1:1 is common.) 24*.99.*5 = $118.80 actual losses incurred. 10 times that is the constitutionally recognized limit.</p><p>$1188.0</p><p>That's why RIAA doesn't want the constitutionality of the damages award adjudicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Estimated actual damages24 songs with a $ .99 retail value .
Assume the $ .99 is the damage per song that a sale was lost on .
( That 's not the case actually as the wholesale price is the damage amount .
) Assume every song downloaded is an actual lost sale .
( Again not true , but simple for this calculation .
) Assume a seed ration of 5 , so for every song 5 copies were made .
( Again not true , 5 is an insanely high ratio on P2P networks as 1 : 1 is common .
) 24 * .99 .
* 5 = $ 118.80 actual losses incurred .
10 times that is the constitutionally recognized limit. $ 1188.0That 's why RIAA does n't want the constitutionality of the damages award adjudicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Estimated actual damages24 songs with a $.99 retail value.
Assume the $.99 is the damage per song that a sale was lost on.
(That's not the case actually as the wholesale price is the damage amount.
) Assume every song downloaded is an actual lost sale.
(Again not true, but simple for this calculation.
) Assume a seed ration of 5, so for every song 5 copies were made.
(Again not true, 5 is an insanely high ratio on P2P networks as 1:1 is common.
) 24*.99.
*5 = $118.80 actual losses incurred.
10 times that is the constitutionally recognized limit.$1188.0That's why RIAA doesn't want the constitutionality of the damages award adjudicated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30958872</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264781400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]Imagine if the only punishment if you get caught stealing(stealing real goods, pedants please note) was to just pay up later, everyone would just steal then and pay up later if got caught.[/quote]</p><p>You really are looking at this the wrong way. Show me a single time where I can physically steal something and the person I stole it from still has the exact one I stole.... That isn't physically possible cause it is not the same thing.</p><p>If I could make a 100\% exact copy of your car and drive off with it without depriving you of a single thing and the new one is not registered in your name in any way. How can you say I stole your car when you still have it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] Imagine if the only punishment if you get caught stealing ( stealing real goods , pedants please note ) was to just pay up later , everyone would just steal then and pay up later if got caught .
[ /quote ] You really are looking at this the wrong way .
Show me a single time where I can physically steal something and the person I stole it from still has the exact one I stole.... That is n't physically possible cause it is not the same thing.If I could make a 100 \ % exact copy of your car and drive off with it without depriving you of a single thing and the new one is not registered in your name in any way .
How can you say I stole your car when you still have it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]Imagine if the only punishment if you get caught stealing(stealing real goods, pedants please note) was to just pay up later, everyone would just steal then and pay up later if got caught.
[/quote]You really are looking at this the wrong way.
Show me a single time where I can physically steal something and the person I stole it from still has the exact one I stole.... That isn't physically possible cause it is not the same thing.If I could make a 100\% exact copy of your car and drive off with it without depriving you of a single thing and the new one is not registered in your name in any way.
How can you say I stole your car when you still have it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945692</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when do slashdotters read the article?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when do slashdotters read the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when do slashdotters read the article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945436</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fine SHOULD be no more than the cost of downloading the songs!  Anything more is excessive and outrageous!!  The biggest thing deterring people from paying for music today is the lack of high quality music and th fact that the music is only available in low quality and/or DRMed formats!!!  Even $1.00 per track is too much to pay for music in the presently available low quality DRMed formats.  Give people good quality music in high quality non-DRMed formats at a reasonable price ($0.25 to $0.50 per track) and you will see many more people willing to pay for music downloads!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fine SHOULD be no more than the cost of downloading the songs !
Anything more is excessive and outrageous ! !
The biggest thing deterring people from paying for music today is the lack of high quality music and th fact that the music is only available in low quality and/or DRMed formats ! ! !
Even $ 1.00 per track is too much to pay for music in the presently available low quality DRMed formats .
Give people good quality music in high quality non-DRMed formats at a reasonable price ( $ 0.25 to $ 0.50 per track ) and you will see many more people willing to pay for music downloads !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fine SHOULD be no more than the cost of downloading the songs!
Anything more is excessive and outrageous!!
The biggest thing deterring people from paying for music today is the lack of high quality music and th fact that the music is only available in low quality and/or DRMed formats!!!
Even $1.00 per track is too much to pay for music in the presently available low quality DRMed formats.
Give people good quality music in high quality non-DRMed formats at a reasonable price ($0.25 to $0.50 per track) and you will see many more people willing to pay for music downloads!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945580</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>swimin</author>
	<datestamp>1264699140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One note. No Ads are required by google on blogspot. You may add adwords to your blog easily however though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One note .
No Ads are required by google on blogspot .
You may add adwords to your blog easily however though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One note.
No Ads are required by google on blogspot.
You may add adwords to your blog easily however though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948652</id>
	<title>Fairness? On Slashdot ... ?</title>
	<author>thomst</author>
	<datestamp>1264776780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rules? In a <b>knife</b> fight<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rules ?
In a knife fight ... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rules?
In a knife fight ... ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947136</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That'll ruin a life on a fixed income, or significantly degrade it for someone who can barely get enough food and pay bills. Maybe someone who can't afford to go to the movies or buy a CD anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'll ruin a life on a fixed income , or significantly degrade it for someone who can barely get enough food and pay bills .
Maybe someone who ca n't afford to go to the movies or buy a CD anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'll ruin a life on a fixed income, or significantly degrade it for someone who can barely get enough food and pay bills.
Maybe someone who can't afford to go to the movies or buy a CD anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt. Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.</p></div><p>Considering the damages caused by the crime, $500 would be the high-ball figure for a sane punishment.  Considering the act of downloading and uploading files is at least as common as speeding and done by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans, that should be taken into account -- it's a bad law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , $ 25k is not an enormous life ruining debt .
Yes , it is not trivial , but it is surmountable.Considering the damages caused by the crime , $ 500 would be the high-ball figure for a sane punishment .
Considering the act of downloading and uploading files is at least as common as speeding and done by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans , that should be taken into account -- it 's a bad law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt.
Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.Considering the damages caused by the crime, $500 would be the high-ball figure for a sane punishment.
Considering the act of downloading and uploading files is at least as common as speeding and done by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans, that should be taken into account -- it's a bad law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30954376</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264757160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.</p></div><p>
I think you answered your own question a bit later mate.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The case against her certainly looks strong, but Thomas-Rasset remains defiant.</p></div><p>
You see, here's how I see the whole debacle. I don't mean just Thomas, I mean this entire clusterfuck mess that filesharing has become. When I was young, I got yelled at if I didn't share things with my sister because, well, that was selfish and rude. She underwent the same yelling/punishment if she tried to lord something over me exclusively. Thus, I was raised, at the very least, to share things with my sister. That said, when we both started listening to music, we both shared our cassette tapes with each other. We even made multiple copies of them with our tape recorders. When CDs came out, we could no longer record from CD to CD so we found the best corollary was to upload the music to our family computer and then burn it onto 2 CDs, one for me, one for Sis. Well, of course, our social circles expanded come high school so we also started burning CDs for our friends. Why? Were we stealing from Wal Mart and Sony and EMI? Were we trying to overthrow a system or screw our favorite artists? Nah. We liked the music and wanted to spread it to those we shared interests with. We were in school so we couldn't very well afford to fork over $100 for five copies of the same album. So why not just burn it?
<br> <br>
Well up came the internet so sometimes we also sent songs through e-mails to our friends. Sometimes we transferred a whole album at a time with a thumb drive. This was standard modus operandi. There was no mal intention. There was no vendetta against anyone. We were just enjoying the cultural riches of the music scene. Whenever my groups of friends went to concerts, we paid our fees to get in. Hell, we would drain our piggy banks to get $5 together to go see a local punk band because we enjoyed it and, as I said, we didn't want to screw the artists. If we could, we would buy their $4 demo album at the show but we told the bands we'd just share the CD between us because we couldn't afford better. They never cared.
<br> <br>
Then I went to college. I remember reading the piracy rules regarding internet in the dormitories and was confused. Frankly, sharing music never seemed like a big deal to me but here was an official institution claiming that it would expel students if they were caught sharing music. What kind of neo-facist school did I pick to attend? I thought to myself. As I expressed this concern to others, they slowly started telling me, in my happy little ignorance, that it was actually a big deal nationally. This is how I was first informed about music companies suing their own customers for sharing a product that they had previously bought.
<br> <br>
Needless to say, my response was WTF mate? What kind of horrible douchebaggery does it take to try to sue someone for sharing something? I mean, crap, I don't get sued by Cottonelle when guests use the toilet paper that I purchased for my home right?
<br> <br>
So that was my introduction to the IP wars that are going on in society today. That experience led me to one viable, logical conclusion. The record companies are evil, zealous, cunts that deserve nothing more than to be burned at the stake...or, at least, the bastards in charge of the lawsuit campaigns deserve that. Once I picked up on the fact that, all of the sudden, it was now supposedly morally corrupt to share music with fellow music lovers, I started paying attention. I noticed the public smear campaign that went into convincing the unwashed masses (I tease) that piracy is some moral terror. I watched over the last five years as the general attitude in society went from, "What the hell are people being sued for?" to "What the hell are people downloading and swapping songs for free for?" I have watched a flagrant brainwashing of my fellow man at the hands of a few greedy bastards. For that reason, I despise the record companies.
<br> <br>
So why tell you this? It's simple. Because of that particular perspective that I have (call it what you will, I don't really care), I respect Jamie Thomas for her defiance. Don't get me wrong, it seems she has handled this case in an immature, unplanned, ridiculous manner. But she is going down fighting. For that I respect her. For that I support her. She may have made herself look stupid. She may have lied. She may have gotten scared and fumbled on the stand for all I know. What I do know, however, is that she said:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, &ldquo;Here&rsquo;s what I&rsquo;m telling them,&rdquo; says Jammie.
<br> <br>
&ldquo;You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages.
<br> <br>
&ldquo;You&rsquo;re going to be lucky to prove more than $24 &rdquo;</p></div><p>
Which translates to me as, "I don't care what you've convinced the public of. I don't care if you have some abstracted moral argument for your coalition's actions. I don't care what you say or do. The way you (the RIAA) are treating society is wrong. I am going to make you work for every inch of your supposed right to do so."
<br> <br>
That's something I can respect. It will be too bad if Thomas loses. It will be sad if this case takes some horrible turn for the worse and ends up helping the RIAA. But at least Thomas is taking a stand for something she believes in. At least she has the balls to not compromise with greedy assholes (a lot more than a lot of folk in society can claim today). She shows spirit. She shows defiance in the face of adversity. She shows rebellion. Those are all dying virtues in society today. For that I respect her. I don't care if the RIAA sues her to the gates of Hell and back. I, for one, support this young lady fully.
<br> <br>
Your opinions may, of course, differ.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman .
I think you answered your own question a bit later mate.The case against her certainly looks strong , but Thomas-Rasset remains defiant .
You see , here 's how I see the whole debacle .
I do n't mean just Thomas , I mean this entire clusterfuck mess that filesharing has become .
When I was young , I got yelled at if I did n't share things with my sister because , well , that was selfish and rude .
She underwent the same yelling/punishment if she tried to lord something over me exclusively .
Thus , I was raised , at the very least , to share things with my sister .
That said , when we both started listening to music , we both shared our cassette tapes with each other .
We even made multiple copies of them with our tape recorders .
When CDs came out , we could no longer record from CD to CD so we found the best corollary was to upload the music to our family computer and then burn it onto 2 CDs , one for me , one for Sis .
Well , of course , our social circles expanded come high school so we also started burning CDs for our friends .
Why ? Were we stealing from Wal Mart and Sony and EMI ?
Were we trying to overthrow a system or screw our favorite artists ?
Nah. We liked the music and wanted to spread it to those we shared interests with .
We were in school so we could n't very well afford to fork over $ 100 for five copies of the same album .
So why not just burn it ?
Well up came the internet so sometimes we also sent songs through e-mails to our friends .
Sometimes we transferred a whole album at a time with a thumb drive .
This was standard modus operandi .
There was no mal intention .
There was no vendetta against anyone .
We were just enjoying the cultural riches of the music scene .
Whenever my groups of friends went to concerts , we paid our fees to get in .
Hell , we would drain our piggy banks to get $ 5 together to go see a local punk band because we enjoyed it and , as I said , we did n't want to screw the artists .
If we could , we would buy their $ 4 demo album at the show but we told the bands we 'd just share the CD between us because we could n't afford better .
They never cared .
Then I went to college .
I remember reading the piracy rules regarding internet in the dormitories and was confused .
Frankly , sharing music never seemed like a big deal to me but here was an official institution claiming that it would expel students if they were caught sharing music .
What kind of neo-facist school did I pick to attend ?
I thought to myself .
As I expressed this concern to others , they slowly started telling me , in my happy little ignorance , that it was actually a big deal nationally .
This is how I was first informed about music companies suing their own customers for sharing a product that they had previously bought .
Needless to say , my response was WTF mate ?
What kind of horrible douchebaggery does it take to try to sue someone for sharing something ?
I mean , crap , I do n't get sued by Cottonelle when guests use the toilet paper that I purchased for my home right ?
So that was my introduction to the IP wars that are going on in society today .
That experience led me to one viable , logical conclusion .
The record companies are evil , zealous , cunts that deserve nothing more than to be burned at the stake...or , at least , the bastards in charge of the lawsuit campaigns deserve that .
Once I picked up on the fact that , all of the sudden , it was now supposedly morally corrupt to share music with fellow music lovers , I started paying attention .
I noticed the public smear campaign that went into convincing the unwashed masses ( I tease ) that piracy is some moral terror .
I watched over the last five years as the general attitude in society went from , " What the hell are people being sued for ?
" to " What the hell are people downloading and swapping songs for free for ?
" I have watched a flagrant brainwashing of my fellow man at the hands of a few greedy bastards .
For that reason , I despise the record companies .
So why tell you this ?
It 's simple .
Because of that particular perspective that I have ( call it what you will , I do n't really care ) , I respect Jamie Thomas for her defiance .
Do n't get me wrong , it seems she has handled this case in an immature , unplanned , ridiculous manner .
But she is going down fighting .
For that I respect her .
For that I support her .
She may have made herself look stupid .
She may have lied .
She may have gotten scared and fumbled on the stand for all I know .
What I do know , however , is that she said : Now ,    Here    s what I    m telling them ,    says Jammie .
   You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages .
   You    re going to be lucky to prove more than $ 24    Which translates to me as , " I do n't care what you 've convinced the public of .
I do n't care if you have some abstracted moral argument for your coalition 's actions .
I do n't care what you say or do .
The way you ( the RIAA ) are treating society is wrong .
I am going to make you work for every inch of your supposed right to do so .
" That 's something I can respect .
It will be too bad if Thomas loses .
It will be sad if this case takes some horrible turn for the worse and ends up helping the RIAA .
But at least Thomas is taking a stand for something she believes in .
At least she has the balls to not compromise with greedy assholes ( a lot more than a lot of folk in society can claim today ) .
She shows spirit .
She shows defiance in the face of adversity .
She shows rebellion .
Those are all dying virtues in society today .
For that I respect her .
I do n't care if the RIAA sues her to the gates of Hell and back .
I , for one , support this young lady fully .
Your opinions may , of course , differ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.
I think you answered your own question a bit later mate.The case against her certainly looks strong, but Thomas-Rasset remains defiant.
You see, here's how I see the whole debacle.
I don't mean just Thomas, I mean this entire clusterfuck mess that filesharing has become.
When I was young, I got yelled at if I didn't share things with my sister because, well, that was selfish and rude.
She underwent the same yelling/punishment if she tried to lord something over me exclusively.
Thus, I was raised, at the very least, to share things with my sister.
That said, when we both started listening to music, we both shared our cassette tapes with each other.
We even made multiple copies of them with our tape recorders.
When CDs came out, we could no longer record from CD to CD so we found the best corollary was to upload the music to our family computer and then burn it onto 2 CDs, one for me, one for Sis.
Well, of course, our social circles expanded come high school so we also started burning CDs for our friends.
Why? Were we stealing from Wal Mart and Sony and EMI?
Were we trying to overthrow a system or screw our favorite artists?
Nah. We liked the music and wanted to spread it to those we shared interests with.
We were in school so we couldn't very well afford to fork over $100 for five copies of the same album.
So why not just burn it?
Well up came the internet so sometimes we also sent songs through e-mails to our friends.
Sometimes we transferred a whole album at a time with a thumb drive.
This was standard modus operandi.
There was no mal intention.
There was no vendetta against anyone.
We were just enjoying the cultural riches of the music scene.
Whenever my groups of friends went to concerts, we paid our fees to get in.
Hell, we would drain our piggy banks to get $5 together to go see a local punk band because we enjoyed it and, as I said, we didn't want to screw the artists.
If we could, we would buy their $4 demo album at the show but we told the bands we'd just share the CD between us because we couldn't afford better.
They never cared.
Then I went to college.
I remember reading the piracy rules regarding internet in the dormitories and was confused.
Frankly, sharing music never seemed like a big deal to me but here was an official institution claiming that it would expel students if they were caught sharing music.
What kind of neo-facist school did I pick to attend?
I thought to myself.
As I expressed this concern to others, they slowly started telling me, in my happy little ignorance, that it was actually a big deal nationally.
This is how I was first informed about music companies suing their own customers for sharing a product that they had previously bought.
Needless to say, my response was WTF mate?
What kind of horrible douchebaggery does it take to try to sue someone for sharing something?
I mean, crap, I don't get sued by Cottonelle when guests use the toilet paper that I purchased for my home right?
So that was my introduction to the IP wars that are going on in society today.
That experience led me to one viable, logical conclusion.
The record companies are evil, zealous, cunts that deserve nothing more than to be burned at the stake...or, at least, the bastards in charge of the lawsuit campaigns deserve that.
Once I picked up on the fact that, all of the sudden, it was now supposedly morally corrupt to share music with fellow music lovers, I started paying attention.
I noticed the public smear campaign that went into convincing the unwashed masses (I tease) that piracy is some moral terror.
I watched over the last five years as the general attitude in society went from, "What the hell are people being sued for?
" to "What the hell are people downloading and swapping songs for free for?
" I have watched a flagrant brainwashing of my fellow man at the hands of a few greedy bastards.
For that reason, I despise the record companies.
So why tell you this?
It's simple.
Because of that particular perspective that I have (call it what you will, I don't really care), I respect Jamie Thomas for her defiance.
Don't get me wrong, it seems she has handled this case in an immature, unplanned, ridiculous manner.
But she is going down fighting.
For that I respect her.
For that I support her.
She may have made herself look stupid.
She may have lied.
She may have gotten scared and fumbled on the stand for all I know.
What I do know, however, is that she said:Now, “Here’s what I’m telling them,” says Jammie.
“You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages.
“You’re going to be lucky to prove more than $24 ”
Which translates to me as, "I don't care what you've convinced the public of.
I don't care if you have some abstracted moral argument for your coalition's actions.
I don't care what you say or do.
The way you (the RIAA) are treating society is wrong.
I am going to make you work for every inch of your supposed right to do so.
"
 
That's something I can respect.
It will be too bad if Thomas loses.
It will be sad if this case takes some horrible turn for the worse and ends up helping the RIAA.
But at least Thomas is taking a stand for something she believes in.
At least she has the balls to not compromise with greedy assholes (a lot more than a lot of folk in society can claim today).
She shows spirit.
She shows defiance in the face of adversity.
She shows rebellion.
Those are all dying virtues in society today.
For that I respect her.
I don't care if the RIAA sues her to the gates of Hell and back.
I, for one, support this young lady fully.
Your opinions may, of course, differ.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945338</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1264696260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support her cause because they cannot prove any damages at all. Them downloading a song
does not actually cause them any damage.

</p><p>I also support her cause because, even if they could prove that her sharing resulted in X copies
of the song being distributed illegally in a way which caused a loss of sale, then the actual damages
to them would be something between X/10 and X dollars. Suppose X=25. Asking for $250 and the
attorney  fees would be just. Asking for $2500 would be an overkill, but they think they should get
at least $25000 = 1000 times the damages, and that without ever proving the loss of a single sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support her cause because they can not prove any damages at all .
Them downloading a song does not actually cause them any damage .
I also support her cause because , even if they could prove that her sharing resulted in X copies of the song being distributed illegally in a way which caused a loss of sale , then the actual damages to them would be something between X/10 and X dollars .
Suppose X = 25 .
Asking for $ 250 and the attorney fees would be just .
Asking for $ 2500 would be an overkill , but they think they should get at least $ 25000 = 1000 times the damages , and that without ever proving the loss of a single sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support her cause because they cannot prove any damages at all.
Them downloading a song
does not actually cause them any damage.
I also support her cause because, even if they could prove that her sharing resulted in X copies
of the song being distributed illegally in a way which caused a loss of sale, then the actual damages
to them would be something between X/10 and X dollars.
Suppose X=25.
Asking for $250 and the
attorney  fees would be just.
Asking for $2500 would be an overkill, but they think they should get
at least $25000 = 1000 times the damages, and that without ever proving the loss of a single sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946122</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264704600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman."</i></p><p>Because being a dumbass or even an embarrassment doesn't make the law any less unjust.</p><blockquote><div><p>During the proceedings, Flynt reportedly shouted "Fuck this court!" and called the justices "nothing but eight assholes and a token cunt" (referring to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... he wore an American flag as a diaper and was jailed for six months for desecration of the flag."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman .
" Because being a dumbass or even an embarrassment does n't make the law any less unjust.During the proceedings , Flynt reportedly shouted " Fuck this court !
" and called the justices " nothing but eight assholes and a token cunt " ( referring to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ) ... he wore an American flag as a diaper and was jailed for six months for desecration of the flag .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.
"Because being a dumbass or even an embarrassment doesn't make the law any less unjust.During the proceedings, Flynt reportedly shouted "Fuck this court!
" and called the justices "nothing but eight assholes and a token cunt" (referring to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) ... he wore an American flag as a diaper and was jailed for six months for desecration of the flag.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945118</id>
	<title>Let's play this out to the end, shall we?</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1264693860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"></div><p>I would like to see a definitive, ultimate outcome along the lines of the trend I'm seeing here -- reduction of Jammie's fine from the absurdly egregious down to a level she can afford without crippling her family financially for the rest of her life, over a few unlicensed uploads. </p><p>Yes she broke the law, there should be a penalty for the infraction, but all the settlements so far have been unjustly high. And yes, I'd like to see it played out to the point where a precedent will be set and honoured. </p><p>The RIAA are the worst of the world's ambulance chasers.  They shouldn't be allowed to win these huge entitlements, simply because they can afford to make more noise.  </p><p>Justice should be the outcome of rule by law, decent and upstanding law, not simply "rule by the loud".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see a definitive , ultimate outcome along the lines of the trend I 'm seeing here -- reduction of Jammie 's fine from the absurdly egregious down to a level she can afford without crippling her family financially for the rest of her life , over a few unlicensed uploads .
Yes she broke the law , there should be a penalty for the infraction , but all the settlements so far have been unjustly high .
And yes , I 'd like to see it played out to the point where a precedent will be set and honoured .
The RIAA are the worst of the world 's ambulance chasers .
They should n't be allowed to win these huge entitlements , simply because they can afford to make more noise .
Justice should be the outcome of rule by law , decent and upstanding law , not simply " rule by the loud " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see a definitive, ultimate outcome along the lines of the trend I'm seeing here -- reduction of Jammie's fine from the absurdly egregious down to a level she can afford without crippling her family financially for the rest of her life, over a few unlicensed uploads.
Yes she broke the law, there should be a penalty for the infraction, but all the settlements so far have been unjustly high.
And yes, I'd like to see it played out to the point where a precedent will be set and honoured.
The RIAA are the worst of the world's ambulance chasers.
They shouldn't be allowed to win these huge entitlements, simply because they can afford to make more noise.
Justice should be the outcome of rule by law, decent and upstanding law, not simply "rule by the loud".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945350</id>
	<title>Settle and ask online for donations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264696380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't she settle for 25K and then ask for donations online to pay it off? That would show the RIAA what we think of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't she settle for 25K and then ask for donations online to pay it off ?
That would show the RIAA what we think of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't she settle for 25K and then ask for donations online to pay it off?
That would show the RIAA what we think of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948288</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264774380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice over-use of exclamation marks there!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice over-use of exclamation marks there ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice over-use of exclamation marks there!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947448</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264763580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. In the same way that shoplifting doesn't actually cause the store damage. After all, it's only really worth anything to them if somebody buys it. You can't prove that somebody was going to buy that particular item.</p><p>Or eating fruit in a supermarket. I mean, they're surely not going to sell ALL of the produce, they're just going to throw some of it out at the end of the week, so it must be perfectly fine to eat it, knowing that they haven't really lost anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
In the same way that shoplifting does n't actually cause the store damage .
After all , it 's only really worth anything to them if somebody buys it .
You ca n't prove that somebody was going to buy that particular item.Or eating fruit in a supermarket .
I mean , they 're surely not going to sell ALL of the produce , they 're just going to throw some of it out at the end of the week , so it must be perfectly fine to eat it , knowing that they have n't really lost anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
In the same way that shoplifting doesn't actually cause the store damage.
After all, it's only really worth anything to them if somebody buys it.
You can't prove that somebody was going to buy that particular item.Or eating fruit in a supermarket.
I mean, they're surely not going to sell ALL of the produce, they're just going to throw some of it out at the end of the week, so it must be perfectly fine to eat it, knowing that they haven't really lost anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946034</id>
	<title>Re:Estimated actual damages</title>
	<author>Splab</author>
	<datestamp>1264703760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I think $1188 fine would be better for RIAA, headlines with "millions in fine for copyright infrigement" while looking impressive is such a big number most people can't cope with it.</p><p>$1188 fine is something people can releate to, that's the new television they where saving up for, the repair bill for their car or something similiar.</p><p>Personally, if I got a fine for a bazillion dollars I wouldn't care, there is no way it would ever be repaid and they can't kill you, they might make life miserable, but there are ways around that - getting a fine for $1188 would suck hard, you can't justifiable go bankrupt, it doesn't pay to try to bail on it. Basically you would just have to suck it up and pay the damned thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think $ 1188 fine would be better for RIAA , headlines with " millions in fine for copyright infrigement " while looking impressive is such a big number most people ca n't cope with it. $ 1188 fine is something people can releate to , that 's the new television they where saving up for , the repair bill for their car or something similiar.Personally , if I got a fine for a bazillion dollars I would n't care , there is no way it would ever be repaid and they ca n't kill you , they might make life miserable , but there are ways around that - getting a fine for $ 1188 would suck hard , you ca n't justifiable go bankrupt , it does n't pay to try to bail on it .
Basically you would just have to suck it up and pay the damned thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think $1188 fine would be better for RIAA, headlines with "millions in fine for copyright infrigement" while looking impressive is such a big number most people can't cope with it.$1188 fine is something people can releate to, that's the new television they where saving up for, the repair bill for their car or something similiar.Personally, if I got a fine for a bazillion dollars I wouldn't care, there is no way it would ever be repaid and they can't kill you, they might make life miserable, but there are ways around that - getting a fine for $1188 would suck hard, you can't justifiable go bankrupt, it doesn't pay to try to bail on it.
Basically you would just have to suck it up and pay the damned thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945756</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>He's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years</em></p><p>I don't think he would appreciate that claim, actually.  If he's been giving legal advice to essentially anonymous internet posters in a public forum he has almost certainly breached the ethical rules for lawyers.  It would probably also expose him to malpractice liability if anyone relied on the advice.</p><p><em>For the record, Blogspot.com is owned by Google, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service.</em></p><p>As another poster pointed out, those ads are put there at the blog owner's discretion, not Google's.</p><p><em>The insinuation here (and in other replies immediately following) that he simply posts here to drive people to an "ad-laden" site is more than unfair. </em></p><p>I don't think that's the only reason he ever posts.  I think it's the only reason to post this particular non-story.  His other posts are some mixture of relevant news, one-sided commentary, indirect marketing for his law firm, and, yes, driving pageviews.</p><p><em>I, for one, appreciate his updates on these very important cases</em></p><p>Then you can get them directly from his site via the web or an RSS reader.  The occasional posting of major developments on Slashdot is one thing, but the steady stream of legal minutiae is another.</p><p><em>If you disagree with Ray's take on requests for extension, that's certainly your right (and I disagree with you, by the way; I think it's very significant in this case, given the circumstances).</em></p><p>They aren't significant at all.  There's nothing unusual about the timing, the amount of time requested, or the reasons given for the extension.  Parties file for extensions all the time.  Neither you nor Mr. Beckerman have offered an explanation for why they are 'very significant.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's given a lot of free legal advice here over the yearsI do n't think he would appreciate that claim , actually .
If he 's been giving legal advice to essentially anonymous internet posters in a public forum he has almost certainly breached the ethical rules for lawyers .
It would probably also expose him to malpractice liability if anyone relied on the advice.For the record , Blogspot.com is owned by Google , and I would n't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service.As another poster pointed out , those ads are put there at the blog owner 's discretion , not Google 's.The insinuation here ( and in other replies immediately following ) that he simply posts here to drive people to an " ad-laden " site is more than unfair .
I do n't think that 's the only reason he ever posts .
I think it 's the only reason to post this particular non-story .
His other posts are some mixture of relevant news , one-sided commentary , indirect marketing for his law firm , and , yes , driving pageviews.I , for one , appreciate his updates on these very important casesThen you can get them directly from his site via the web or an RSS reader .
The occasional posting of major developments on Slashdot is one thing , but the steady stream of legal minutiae is another.If you disagree with Ray 's take on requests for extension , that 's certainly your right ( and I disagree with you , by the way ; I think it 's very significant in this case , given the circumstances ) .They are n't significant at all .
There 's nothing unusual about the timing , the amount of time requested , or the reasons given for the extension .
Parties file for extensions all the time .
Neither you nor Mr. Beckerman have offered an explanation for why they are 'very significant .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's given a lot of free legal advice here over the yearsI don't think he would appreciate that claim, actually.
If he's been giving legal advice to essentially anonymous internet posters in a public forum he has almost certainly breached the ethical rules for lawyers.
It would probably also expose him to malpractice liability if anyone relied on the advice.For the record, Blogspot.com is owned by Google, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service.As another poster pointed out, those ads are put there at the blog owner's discretion, not Google's.The insinuation here (and in other replies immediately following) that he simply posts here to drive people to an "ad-laden" site is more than unfair.
I don't think that's the only reason he ever posts.
I think it's the only reason to post this particular non-story.
His other posts are some mixture of relevant news, one-sided commentary, indirect marketing for his law firm, and, yes, driving pageviews.I, for one, appreciate his updates on these very important casesThen you can get them directly from his site via the web or an RSS reader.
The occasional posting of major developments on Slashdot is one thing, but the steady stream of legal minutiae is another.If you disagree with Ray's take on requests for extension, that's certainly your right (and I disagree with you, by the way; I think it's very significant in this case, given the circumstances).They aren't significant at all.
There's nothing unusual about the timing, the amount of time requested, or the reasons given for the extension.
Parties file for extensions all the time.
Neither you nor Mr. Beckerman have offered an explanation for why they are 'very significant.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945480</id>
	<title>Re:Estimated actual damages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where does this so-called 'constituitionally recognized limit' come from (citation)?  It is quite common to have statutory fines that are well above that, and as far as I know they have not been ruled unconstitutional.  For instance, the city where I live has parking meters.  It costs $.05 for 15 minutes.  If you don't pay the nickel, you are fined $50.00, 1000 times the so-called 'damages'.  As another example, New York has a bottle law - you must pay a nickel every time you buy a beverage in a bottle or can.  When you are finished with it, you take the bottle to a retailer and get the nickel returned.  If you return a bottle for which no deposit has been payed, you are subject to a civil fine of $100 for each can/bottle, or 2000 times the so-called 'damages'.
</p><p>It should be obvious in all these cases that the purpose of the fines is to deter the behavior in the first place.  If the only consequence of breaking the law is actual damages, there is absolutely no point in obeying the law, so the law may as well not exist.  The same is true if the fine is 10x, and there is less than a 10\% chance of getting caught.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does this so-called 'constituitionally recognized limit ' come from ( citation ) ?
It is quite common to have statutory fines that are well above that , and as far as I know they have not been ruled unconstitutional .
For instance , the city where I live has parking meters .
It costs $ .05 for 15 minutes .
If you do n't pay the nickel , you are fined $ 50.00 , 1000 times the so-called 'damages' .
As another example , New York has a bottle law - you must pay a nickel every time you buy a beverage in a bottle or can .
When you are finished with it , you take the bottle to a retailer and get the nickel returned .
If you return a bottle for which no deposit has been payed , you are subject to a civil fine of $ 100 for each can/bottle , or 2000 times the so-called 'damages' .
It should be obvious in all these cases that the purpose of the fines is to deter the behavior in the first place .
If the only consequence of breaking the law is actual damages , there is absolutely no point in obeying the law , so the law may as well not exist .
The same is true if the fine is 10x , and there is less than a 10 \ % chance of getting caught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does this so-called 'constituitionally recognized limit' come from (citation)?
It is quite common to have statutory fines that are well above that, and as far as I know they have not been ruled unconstitutional.
For instance, the city where I live has parking meters.
It costs $.05 for 15 minutes.
If you don't pay the nickel, you are fined $50.00, 1000 times the so-called 'damages'.
As another example, New York has a bottle law - you must pay a nickel every time you buy a beverage in a bottle or can.
When you are finished with it, you take the bottle to a retailer and get the nickel returned.
If you return a bottle for which no deposit has been payed, you are subject to a civil fine of $100 for each can/bottle, or 2000 times the so-called 'damages'.
It should be obvious in all these cases that the purpose of the fines is to deter the behavior in the first place.
If the only consequence of breaking the law is actual damages, there is absolutely no point in obeying the law, so the law may as well not exist.
The same is true if the fine is 10x, and there is less than a 10\% chance of getting caught.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264697100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The attacks on Ray Beckerman are more than a little unfair, given his solid record over the years here on Slashdot. He's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years, and personally, I appreciate him. For the record, Blogspot.com is owned by Google, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service. The insinuation here (and in other replies immediately following) that he simply posts here to drive people to an "ad-laden" site is more than unfair.
</p><p>
I, for one, appreciate his updates on these very important cases. If you disagree with Ray's take on requests for extension, that's certainly your right (and I disagree with you, by the way; I think it's very significant in this case, given the circumstances).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The attacks on Ray Beckerman are more than a little unfair , given his solid record over the years here on Slashdot .
He 's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years , and personally , I appreciate him .
For the record , Blogspot.com is owned by Google , and I would n't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service .
The insinuation here ( and in other replies immediately following ) that he simply posts here to drive people to an " ad-laden " site is more than unfair .
I , for one , appreciate his updates on these very important cases .
If you disagree with Ray 's take on requests for extension , that 's certainly your right ( and I disagree with you , by the way ; I think it 's very significant in this case , given the circumstances ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The attacks on Ray Beckerman are more than a little unfair, given his solid record over the years here on Slashdot.
He's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years, and personally, I appreciate him.
For the record, Blogspot.com is owned by Google, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service.
The insinuation here (and in other replies immediately following) that he simply posts here to drive people to an "ad-laden" site is more than unfair.
I, for one, appreciate his updates on these very important cases.
If you disagree with Ray's take on requests for extension, that's certainly your right (and I disagree with you, by the way; I think it's very significant in this case, given the circumstances).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947536</id>
	<title>Devil in the details</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1264764960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last line seems to me (as a non-lawyer, mind you) more fascinating than the headline. Offering a settlement looks like betting on a stock price: The RIAA was willing to sell its $54,000 judgement for less than HALF that amount. They must expect to ultimately get less than that.</p><p>And Ms. Thomas-Rasset (or rather her lawyer, since nobody would make a decision like that against their lawyer's advice) seems to share that view, since she refused the settlement. They must be confident that they'll pay less than $25,000, or even nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last line seems to me ( as a non-lawyer , mind you ) more fascinating than the headline .
Offering a settlement looks like betting on a stock price : The RIAA was willing to sell its $ 54,000 judgement for less than HALF that amount .
They must expect to ultimately get less than that.And Ms. Thomas-Rasset ( or rather her lawyer , since nobody would make a decision like that against their lawyer 's advice ) seems to share that view , since she refused the settlement .
They must be confident that they 'll pay less than $ 25,000 , or even nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last line seems to me (as a non-lawyer, mind you) more fascinating than the headline.
Offering a settlement looks like betting on a stock price: The RIAA was willing to sell its $54,000 judgement for less than HALF that amount.
They must expect to ultimately get less than that.And Ms. Thomas-Rasset (or rather her lawyer, since nobody would make a decision like that against their lawyer's advice) seems to share that view, since she refused the settlement.
They must be confident that they'll pay less than $25,000, or even nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946928</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>ShadowFalls</author>
	<datestamp>1264756260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is exactly my thoughts as well. They simply can not "prove" damages at all. There seems to be some kind of assumption that everything shared was downloaded thousands of times just because it was there. As a person who has served on a jury, you have to prove your case. The RIAA just hasn't proved it one bit. What if a computer was compromised? You'd be amazed what can happen when someone gets infected with a trojan. That is just an example of a possibility. So other than MediaSentry downloading the files, there is no proof of those files ever being downloaded by anyone else. The issue I guess is with ignorant people they get for some juries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is exactly my thoughts as well .
They simply can not " prove " damages at all .
There seems to be some kind of assumption that everything shared was downloaded thousands of times just because it was there .
As a person who has served on a jury , you have to prove your case .
The RIAA just has n't proved it one bit .
What if a computer was compromised ?
You 'd be amazed what can happen when someone gets infected with a trojan .
That is just an example of a possibility .
So other than MediaSentry downloading the files , there is no proof of those files ever being downloaded by anyone else .
The issue I guess is with ignorant people they get for some juries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is exactly my thoughts as well.
They simply can not "prove" damages at all.
There seems to be some kind of assumption that everything shared was downloaded thousands of times just because it was there.
As a person who has served on a jury, you have to prove your case.
The RIAA just hasn't proved it one bit.
What if a computer was compromised?
You'd be amazed what can happen when someone gets infected with a trojan.
That is just an example of a possibility.
So other than MediaSentry downloading the files, there is no proof of those files ever being downloaded by anyone else.
The issue I guess is with ignorant people they get for some juries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947120</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1264758900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We support her because even if - especially if - she is a scumbag, her losing the case to these insane damages would set a precedent <b>that the RIAA would then use to hammer down less easy targets</b>.</p><p>That's Business Goes To Court 101 - you hit an easy target first to establish the precedent you need to go after the real targets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We support her because even if - especially if - she is a scumbag , her losing the case to these insane damages would set a precedent that the RIAA would then use to hammer down less easy targets.That 's Business Goes To Court 101 - you hit an easy target first to establish the precedent you need to go after the real targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We support her because even if - especially if - she is a scumbag, her losing the case to these insane damages would set a precedent that the RIAA would then use to hammer down less easy targets.That's Business Goes To Court 101 - you hit an easy target first to establish the precedent you need to go after the real targets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949752</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>bmetzler</author>
	<datestamp>1264782300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But, if I profited just one penny on each copy, then I would be in violation.</i>

<p>So, say you had a shop, and one night I came in and stole your inventory.  If I give away your inventory for free, I'm ok, no harm done.  However, if I sold your inventory for even just a penny, then I should be guilty??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , if I profited just one penny on each copy , then I would be in violation .
So , say you had a shop , and one night I came in and stole your inventory .
If I give away your inventory for free , I 'm ok , no harm done .
However , if I sold your inventory for even just a penny , then I should be guilty ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, if I profited just one penny on each copy, then I would be in violation.
So, say you had a shop, and one night I came in and stole your inventory.
If I give away your inventory for free, I'm ok, no harm done.
However, if I sold your inventory for even just a penny, then I should be guilty?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946262</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1264706160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking $50 or $100 per song would be a "reasonable" fine so that would be about $1,200 to $2,400.  (tho you could make an arguement for $50 / $100 per "album" if all the songs were from the same album).</p><p>I think people forget that they are breaking the law and get themselves into trouble.</p><p>While copyright has been perverted, even the original terms gave 28 years of protection.  Without a reasonable but stiff fine, you don't have the original 28 years of protection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking $ 50 or $ 100 per song would be a " reasonable " fine so that would be about $ 1,200 to $ 2,400 .
( tho you could make an arguement for $ 50 / $ 100 per " album " if all the songs were from the same album ) .I think people forget that they are breaking the law and get themselves into trouble.While copyright has been perverted , even the original terms gave 28 years of protection .
Without a reasonable but stiff fine , you do n't have the original 28 years of protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking $50 or $100 per song would be a "reasonable" fine so that would be about $1,200 to $2,400.
(tho you could make an arguement for $50 / $100 per "album" if all the songs were from the same album).I think people forget that they are breaking the law and get themselves into trouble.While copyright has been perverted, even the original terms gave 28 years of protection.
Without a reasonable but stiff fine, you don't have the original 28 years of protection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30952816</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Toze</author>
	<datestamp>1264793400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I went to a foreign country where speeding was punishable by a million-dollar fine, I am pretty sure that the instant someone sent me a letter saying "I caught you speeding, expect a bill shortly," I would be willing to lie, cheat, and steal to escape accusation. Not, mind you, because I am by nature someone who likes to lie, cheat, and steal (or so I hope), but because, faced with a million-dollar ticket my options would be criminal enterprise or jail anyway. I would get my plates changed and paint my car. And if someone came up to me and said "Hey, is this your car? We're pretty sure we caught you speeding," I would bald-facedly answer "nope, couldn't have been me, man."</p><p>
Besides the "nothing left to lose" element of things at that point, I would not feel guilty about trying to escape an unjust law. If I knew the million-dollar ticket existed because a powerful speed-gun manufacturing lobby had bought the law from congress, I would have no moral compunctions about breaking the law, or about doing otherwise innocent things to escape the law.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I went to a foreign country where speeding was punishable by a million-dollar fine , I am pretty sure that the instant someone sent me a letter saying " I caught you speeding , expect a bill shortly , " I would be willing to lie , cheat , and steal to escape accusation .
Not , mind you , because I am by nature someone who likes to lie , cheat , and steal ( or so I hope ) , but because , faced with a million-dollar ticket my options would be criminal enterprise or jail anyway .
I would get my plates changed and paint my car .
And if someone came up to me and said " Hey , is this your car ?
We 're pretty sure we caught you speeding , " I would bald-facedly answer " nope , could n't have been me , man .
" Besides the " nothing left to lose " element of things at that point , I would not feel guilty about trying to escape an unjust law .
If I knew the million-dollar ticket existed because a powerful speed-gun manufacturing lobby had bought the law from congress , I would have no moral compunctions about breaking the law , or about doing otherwise innocent things to escape the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I went to a foreign country where speeding was punishable by a million-dollar fine, I am pretty sure that the instant someone sent me a letter saying "I caught you speeding, expect a bill shortly," I would be willing to lie, cheat, and steal to escape accusation.
Not, mind you, because I am by nature someone who likes to lie, cheat, and steal (or so I hope), but because, faced with a million-dollar ticket my options would be criminal enterprise or jail anyway.
I would get my plates changed and paint my car.
And if someone came up to me and said "Hey, is this your car?
We're pretty sure we caught you speeding," I would bald-facedly answer "nope, couldn't have been me, man.
"
Besides the "nothing left to lose" element of things at that point, I would not feel guilty about trying to escape an unjust law.
If I knew the million-dollar ticket existed because a powerful speed-gun manufacturing lobby had bought the law from congress, I would have no moral compunctions about breaking the law, or about doing otherwise innocent things to escape the law.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778</id>
	<title>Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ...</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1264690920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Lawyering is <b>hard</b>!"  <br> <br>

Push the button on his back down to make him raise his hand to object!  Push the same button up and he slides an affidavit full of unmarked bills across the judge's desk!  Just like in real life!  <br> <br>

Judge'sDeskAndNewYorkCountryLawyerVillainSoldSeparately.  RIAADollVoidOutsideOfDesignatedUseAreasAndMayCausePermanentInjuryOr BankruptcyUponMissedPaymentInstallments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lawyering is hard !
" Push the button on his back down to make him raise his hand to object !
Push the same button up and he slides an affidavit full of unmarked bills across the judge 's desk !
Just like in real life !
Judge'sDeskAndNewYorkCountryLawyerVillainSoldSeparately. RIAADollVoidOutsideOfDesignatedUseAreasAndMayCausePermanentInjuryOr BankruptcyUponMissedPaymentInstallments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lawyering is hard!
"   

Push the button on his back down to make him raise his hand to object!
Push the same button up and he slides an affidavit full of unmarked bills across the judge's desk!
Just like in real life!
Judge'sDeskAndNewYorkCountryLawyerVillainSoldSeparately.  RIAADollVoidOutsideOfDesignatedUseAreasAndMayCausePermanentInjuryOr BankruptcyUponMissedPaymentInstallments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945886</id>
	<title>Re:Estimated actual damages</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1264702500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least it's good that you count the damages due to distributing, rather than just the initial downloading (as NewYorkLawyer insists on doing!)</p><p>Your 1:1 ratio is talking about number of bytes transferred. Your calculation then presupposes that the penalty for copying half a work be half as much as the penalty for copying a full work. I don't believe that's right. So I'd take the average number of peers that you upload to, which from what I've seen is usually closer to 50. So, $11,000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least it 's good that you count the damages due to distributing , rather than just the initial downloading ( as NewYorkLawyer insists on doing !
) Your 1 : 1 ratio is talking about number of bytes transferred .
Your calculation then presupposes that the penalty for copying half a work be half as much as the penalty for copying a full work .
I do n't believe that 's right .
So I 'd take the average number of peers that you upload to , which from what I 've seen is usually closer to 50 .
So , $ 11,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least it's good that you count the damages due to distributing, rather than just the initial downloading (as NewYorkLawyer insists on doing!
)Your 1:1 ratio is talking about number of bytes transferred.
Your calculation then presupposes that the penalty for copying half a work be half as much as the penalty for copying a full work.
I don't believe that's right.
So I'd take the average number of peers that you upload to, which from what I've seen is usually closer to 50.
So, $11,000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945200</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264694460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a lot more than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot more than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot more than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945976</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>anagama</author>
	<datestamp>1264703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always check Emusic before buying from iTunes and for what I like, I probably find it on Emusic 50-60\% of the time.  I pay 33.3 cents per track, i.e. $10/mo for 30 tracks.  No DRM -- plain jane MP3s.  So why isn't Emusic radically famous?  Apparently, price isn't everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always check Emusic before buying from iTunes and for what I like , I probably find it on Emusic 50-60 \ % of the time .
I pay 33.3 cents per track , i.e .
$ 10/mo for 30 tracks .
No DRM -- plain jane MP3s .
So why is n't Emusic radically famous ?
Apparently , price is n't everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always check Emusic before buying from iTunes and for what I like, I probably find it on Emusic 50-60\% of the time.
I pay 33.3 cents per track, i.e.
$10/mo for 30 tracks.
No DRM -- plain jane MP3s.
So why isn't Emusic radically famous?
Apparently, price isn't everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944850</id>
	<title>OK, I'm dense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264691400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm feeling pretty dense because I don't get why the headline says the RIAA is confusing these cases nor does it seem like the RIAA is confused about what to do -- indecisive maybe, but that is not the same thing as confusion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm feeling pretty dense because I do n't get why the headline says the RIAA is confusing these cases nor does it seem like the RIAA is confused about what to do -- indecisive maybe , but that is not the same thing as confusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm feeling pretty dense because I don't get why the headline says the RIAA is confusing these cases nor does it seem like the RIAA is confused about what to do -- indecisive maybe, but that is not the same thing as confusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946306</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264706640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's probably relatively close to a fair number</p></div><p>I think you meant to say that it's relatively closer than 2 million dollars?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably relatively close to a fair numberI think you meant to say that it 's relatively closer than 2 million dollars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably relatively close to a fair numberI think you meant to say that it's relatively closer than 2 million dollars?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30951000</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>themusicgod1</author>
	<datestamp>1264786920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, turn down the volume a little dude, we're all passionate about this but really there's no need for your caps-lock words.</p><p>Second, while everything you said was true, there were other dimensions, other 'spirits' that eventually worked their way into copyright law, of which corporate-feudalism is one of the more recent.  There are two huge schools of thought on copyright, and everything you just said is way more true in the american-british school than the european one(which is more concerned with the 'moral right' of the artist to control the nature, not the profit, but the nature of their work.  The goal here is to make sure the work remains pure, so that the artist has maximum ability to make sure that the art which he creates is received in the way that he intends it to be).
</p><p>In fact in US law, from what I understand(and IANAL or an american), the non-commercial nature of use of a work is one of the core ways of determining if a use is fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , turn down the volume a little dude , we 're all passionate about this but really there 's no need for your caps-lock words.Second , while everything you said was true , there were other dimensions , other 'spirits ' that eventually worked their way into copyright law , of which corporate-feudalism is one of the more recent .
There are two huge schools of thought on copyright , and everything you just said is way more true in the american-british school than the european one ( which is more concerned with the 'moral right ' of the artist to control the nature , not the profit , but the nature of their work .
The goal here is to make sure the work remains pure , so that the artist has maximum ability to make sure that the art which he creates is received in the way that he intends it to be ) .
In fact in US law , from what I understand ( and IANAL or an american ) , the non-commercial nature of use of a work is one of the core ways of determining if a use is fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, turn down the volume a little dude, we're all passionate about this but really there's no need for your caps-lock words.Second, while everything you said was true, there were other dimensions, other 'spirits' that eventually worked their way into copyright law, of which corporate-feudalism is one of the more recent.
There are two huge schools of thought on copyright, and everything you just said is way more true in the american-british school than the european one(which is more concerned with the 'moral right' of the artist to control the nature, not the profit, but the nature of their work.
The goal here is to make sure the work remains pure, so that the artist has maximum ability to make sure that the art which he creates is received in the way that he intends it to be).
In fact in US law, from what I understand(and IANAL or an american), the non-commercial nature of use of a work is one of the core ways of determining if a use is fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945512</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was doing moderation - but I must reply here.</p><p>COPYRIGHT law was never meant to apply to little people sharing and making personal copies.  From it's earliest conception, copyright law was meant to apply to BUSINESS COMPETITION.  In effect, if there was a dollar to be made from an idea, a song, a writing, then the AUTHOR should make that dollar.</p><p>When no financial gain is at stake, it's a whole different world.  If I made a thousand copies of each of my songs/movies/softwares, and GAVE THEM AWAY, I would not be in violation of the SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT LAW.  But, if I profited just one penny on each copy, then I would be in violation.</p><p>Copyright law was, and should be, aimed at for-profit businesses, large or small.  Producing copies of the Household Mover's Guide, and selling them for $20 at a truckstop late at night is a clear violation of copyright law.  The motive is profit.</p><p>Setting up a site where Joe Sixpack can download music for ten cents or ten dollars per month is also profit driven.</p><p>Sharing a few songs via P2P is NOT PROFIT DRIVEN, and shouldn't even be in court as a copyright violation.</p><p>My two cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was doing moderation - but I must reply here.COPYRIGHT law was never meant to apply to little people sharing and making personal copies .
From it 's earliest conception , copyright law was meant to apply to BUSINESS COMPETITION .
In effect , if there was a dollar to be made from an idea , a song , a writing , then the AUTHOR should make that dollar.When no financial gain is at stake , it 's a whole different world .
If I made a thousand copies of each of my songs/movies/softwares , and GAVE THEM AWAY , I would not be in violation of the SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT LAW .
But , if I profited just one penny on each copy , then I would be in violation.Copyright law was , and should be , aimed at for-profit businesses , large or small .
Producing copies of the Household Mover 's Guide , and selling them for $ 20 at a truckstop late at night is a clear violation of copyright law .
The motive is profit.Setting up a site where Joe Sixpack can download music for ten cents or ten dollars per month is also profit driven.Sharing a few songs via P2P is NOT PROFIT DRIVEN , and should n't even be in court as a copyright violation.My two cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was doing moderation - but I must reply here.COPYRIGHT law was never meant to apply to little people sharing and making personal copies.
From it's earliest conception, copyright law was meant to apply to BUSINESS COMPETITION.
In effect, if there was a dollar to be made from an idea, a song, a writing, then the AUTHOR should make that dollar.When no financial gain is at stake, it's a whole different world.
If I made a thousand copies of each of my songs/movies/softwares, and GAVE THEM AWAY, I would not be in violation of the SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT LAW.
But, if I profited just one penny on each copy, then I would be in violation.Copyright law was, and should be, aimed at for-profit businesses, large or small.
Producing copies of the Household Mover's Guide, and selling them for $20 at a truckstop late at night is a clear violation of copyright law.
The motive is profit.Setting up a site where Joe Sixpack can download music for ten cents or ten dollars per month is also profit driven.Sharing a few songs via P2P is NOT PROFIT DRIVEN, and shouldn't even be in court as a copyright violation.My two cents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947914</id>
	<title>Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ...</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1264770780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with Rasperin.  Make it in the Objection! position, or possible to put in that position, and I'm game for one.  Weird hairstyle is optional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with Rasperin .
Make it in the Objection !
position , or possible to put in that position , and I 'm game for one .
Weird hairstyle is optional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with Rasperin.
Make it in the Objection!
position, or possible to put in that position, and I'm game for one.
Weird hairstyle is optional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30959846</id>
	<title>Re:Estimated actual damages</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1264792440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Setting aside the psychological effects of a smaller fine, you're leaving out one very important detail: it is not profitable for the RIAA to sue everyone once the damages drop below a certain point. At $1000 per downloader, they would have to sue far more people, which would be extremely costly. Suing people simply wouldn't be profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Setting aside the psychological effects of a smaller fine , you 're leaving out one very important detail : it is not profitable for the RIAA to sue everyone once the damages drop below a certain point .
At $ 1000 per downloader , they would have to sue far more people , which would be extremely costly .
Suing people simply would n't be profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Setting aside the psychological effects of a smaller fine, you're leaving out one very important detail: it is not profitable for the RIAA to sue everyone once the damages drop below a certain point.
At $1000 per downloader, they would have to sue far more people, which would be extremely costly.
Suing people simply wouldn't be profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945092</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless I am mistaken, I seem to recall that she owes tens of thousands of dollars to her original lawyer and if she winds up paying nothing to the RIAA, she is still effectively bankrupted by this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I am mistaken , I seem to recall that she owes tens of thousands of dollars to her original lawyer and if she winds up paying nothing to the RIAA , she is still effectively bankrupted by this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I am mistaken, I seem to recall that she owes tens of thousands of dollars to her original lawyer and if she winds up paying nothing to the RIAA, she is still effectively bankrupted by this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947162</id>
	<title>Reduction in fines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this anyway linked to Canada where the music industry has been underpaying artists for the last 20 some yrs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this anyway linked to Canada where the music industry has been underpaying artists for the last 20 some yrs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this anyway linked to Canada where the music industry has been underpaying artists for the last 20 some yrs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30951210</id>
	<title>Re:Estimated actual damages</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1264787700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt the RIAA would bother suing for $1188. But if their strategy of hammering<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0001\% of illegal downloaders fails, you can be sure they will propose legislation to require ISP monitoring with government enforcement of fines, so that 10s or 100s of millions of $1188 fines can be brought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt the RIAA would bother suing for $ 1188 .
But if their strategy of hammering .0001 \ % of illegal downloaders fails , you can be sure they will propose legislation to require ISP monitoring with government enforcement of fines , so that 10s or 100s of millions of $ 1188 fines can be brought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt the RIAA would bother suing for $1188.
But if their strategy of hammering .0001\% of illegal downloaders fails, you can be sure they will propose legislation to require ISP monitoring with government enforcement of fines, so that 10s or 100s of millions of $1188 fines can be brought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30952166</id>
	<title>Re:The courts are increasingly unfriendly to RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264790880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps... but as long as juries are still hand-picked, and swayed with tons of fancy words and claims (or just outright bought, if a company is evil enough)... with the right conversation, they can definitely be swayed to believe that Suzy Homemaker or Johnny College caused tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps... but as long as juries are still hand-picked , and swayed with tons of fancy words and claims ( or just outright bought , if a company is evil enough ) ... with the right conversation , they can definitely be swayed to believe that Suzy Homemaker or Johnny College caused tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps... but as long as juries are still hand-picked, and swayed with tons of fancy words and claims (or just outright bought, if a company is evil enough)... with the right conversation, they can definitely be swayed to believe that Suzy Homemaker or Johnny College caused tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946570</id>
	<title>Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ...</title>
	<author>Rasperin</author>
	<datestamp>1264795680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He would also have to be in the pheonix wright objection position. When the arm becomes fully extended the action figure emotes "Objection!".</htmltext>
<tokenext>He would also have to be in the pheonix wright objection position .
When the arm becomes fully extended the action figure emotes " Objection !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He would also have to be in the pheonix wright objection position.
When the arm becomes fully extended the action figure emotes "Objection!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944878</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264691580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And he has a think geek link to encourage<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. to run the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And he has a think geek link to encourage / .
to run the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And he has a think geek link to encourage /.
to run the story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944826</id>
	<title>Different cases, different tactics</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1264691280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or do you suggest that you should be put out to pasture because every case is the same?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or do you suggest that you should be put out to pasture because every case is the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or do you suggest that you should be put out to pasture because every case is the same?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>mystikkman</author>
	<datestamp>1264693620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, she makes the RIAA guys look like the good folks.. and that's hard.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, &ldquo;Here&rsquo;s what I&rsquo;m telling them,&rdquo; says Jammie.</p><p>&ldquo;You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages.</p><p>&ldquo;You&rsquo;re going to be lucky to prove more than $24  &rdquo;</p></div><p>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.<br>Some background from the Wiki and <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars</a> [arstechnica.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The RIAA first warned Thomas with a cease-and-desist letter and settlement offer.[when?] Thomas refused to settle, and was then sued on April 19, 2006, by several major record labels for copyright infringement.<br>In the trial, the plaintiffs alleged that on February 21, 2005, Jammie Thomas shared a total of 1,702 tracks online. The plaintiffs, however, sought relief for only 24 of these.</p><p>Two weeks after MediaSentry noted the infringement of "tereastarr@KaZaA" (and notified the user via KaZaA instant message that he or she had been caught sharing files) back in February 2005, Thomas-Rasset hauled her Compaq Presario down to the local Best Buy. There was a problem with the hard drive, so Best Buy replaced it under warranty.</p><p>That might sound like no big deal until you realize that Thomas-Rasset later provided this new hard drive&mdash;and not the one in the machine during the alleged February infringement&mdash;to investigators and to her own expert witness. It becomes an even bigger deal when you realize that <b>she swore under oath&mdash;twice&mdash;that she had replaced the hard drive in 2004 (a full year earlier) and that it had not been changed again since.</b></p><p><b><b>Next up was Eric Stanley, who had been hired by Thomas-Rasset before her first trial to examine the same hard drive that was turned over to recording industry investigators. Thomas-Rasset at first told Stanley that the drive had been replaced in 2004, well before the alleged infringement, so this evidence looked like it would be great for Thomas-Rasset... until recording industry lawyers deposed Stanley and Thomas-Rasset on the same day. At some point during that day, Stanley heard something that led him to examine the physical drive once more during a break. <b>It was then he found the sticker with a manufacturing date&mdash;of early 2005.</b></b></b></p><p><b><b><b>Stanley realized he was looking at a drive that had likely not even been in the machine when the alleged infringement took place.</b></b></b></p><p><b><b>So she refused a settlement offer at the very beginning even before being represented by a lawyer, then repeatedly lied under oath to judge and jury(no wonder the damages were soooooo high, juries hate being blatantly lied to and want to teach such people a lesson) and now is still being...well... a dick. Imagine if the only punishment if you get caught stealing(stealing real goods, pedants please note) was to just pay up later, everyone would just steal then and pay up later if got caught. On top of that, the $1/song is for downloading the songs, not <b>uploading</b> which has a bigger punishment under law since the plaintiffs potentially lost revenue. I am sure this distinction will be lost on most of the posters here again who will repeatedly say the actual damages are just $24.</b></b></p><p><b><b>Anyway this was one of the worst cases that should have gone to court against the RIAA. They sued wrongly lots of times but this one case should've been settled long ago by Thomas, she knew she was in the wrong and tried to weasel her way out of it by lying.</b></b></p><p><b><b>More, if you want to read:</b></b></p><div class="quote"><p><b><b>Why was Thomas-Rasset's password-protected computer running KaZaA in February 2005, and with the "tereastarr" name, if she had not set up the software? And since no one else had the password, and since her kids were young and had a computer account of their own anyway, who might possibly have used a machine in her bedroom to share thousands of songs without her knowledge?</b></b></p><p><b><b>But those are questions for tomorrow. After Thomas-Rasset makes her best case, expect the recording industry lawyers to really bore in on the inconsistencies in her testimony in a way they did not today.</b></b></p><p><b><b>The case against her certainly looks strong, but Thomas-Rasset remains defiant. When asked point-blank today if the KaZaA share folder seen by MediaSentry was hers, she said clearly, "It is not mine."</b></b></p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , she makes the RIAA guys look like the good folks.. and that 's hard.Now ,    Here    s what I    m telling them ,    says Jammie.    You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages.    You    re going to be lucky to prove more than $ 24    I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.Some background from the Wiki and http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars [ arstechnica.com ] The RIAA first warned Thomas with a cease-and-desist letter and settlement offer. [ when ?
] Thomas refused to settle , and was then sued on April 19 , 2006 , by several major record labels for copyright infringement.In the trial , the plaintiffs alleged that on February 21 , 2005 , Jammie Thomas shared a total of 1,702 tracks online .
The plaintiffs , however , sought relief for only 24 of these.Two weeks after MediaSentry noted the infringement of " tereastarr @ KaZaA " ( and notified the user via KaZaA instant message that he or she had been caught sharing files ) back in February 2005 , Thomas-Rasset hauled her Compaq Presario down to the local Best Buy .
There was a problem with the hard drive , so Best Buy replaced it under warranty.That might sound like no big deal until you realize that Thomas-Rasset later provided this new hard drive    and not the one in the machine during the alleged February infringement    to investigators and to her own expert witness .
It becomes an even bigger deal when you realize that she swore under oath    twice    that she had replaced the hard drive in 2004 ( a full year earlier ) and that it had not been changed again since.Next up was Eric Stanley , who had been hired by Thomas-Rasset before her first trial to examine the same hard drive that was turned over to recording industry investigators .
Thomas-Rasset at first told Stanley that the drive had been replaced in 2004 , well before the alleged infringement , so this evidence looked like it would be great for Thomas-Rasset... until recording industry lawyers deposed Stanley and Thomas-Rasset on the same day .
At some point during that day , Stanley heard something that led him to examine the physical drive once more during a break .
It was then he found the sticker with a manufacturing date    of early 2005.Stanley realized he was looking at a drive that had likely not even been in the machine when the alleged infringement took place.So she refused a settlement offer at the very beginning even before being represented by a lawyer , then repeatedly lied under oath to judge and jury ( no wonder the damages were soooooo high , juries hate being blatantly lied to and want to teach such people a lesson ) and now is still being...well... a dick .
Imagine if the only punishment if you get caught stealing ( stealing real goods , pedants please note ) was to just pay up later , everyone would just steal then and pay up later if got caught .
On top of that , the $ 1/song is for downloading the songs , not uploading which has a bigger punishment under law since the plaintiffs potentially lost revenue .
I am sure this distinction will be lost on most of the posters here again who will repeatedly say the actual damages are just $ 24.Anyway this was one of the worst cases that should have gone to court against the RIAA .
They sued wrongly lots of times but this one case should 've been settled long ago by Thomas , she knew she was in the wrong and tried to weasel her way out of it by lying.More , if you want to read : Why was Thomas-Rasset 's password-protected computer running KaZaA in February 2005 , and with the " tereastarr " name , if she had not set up the software ?
And since no one else had the password , and since her kids were young and had a computer account of their own anyway , who might possibly have used a machine in her bedroom to share thousands of songs without her knowledge ? But those are questions for tomorrow .
After Thomas-Rasset makes her best case , expect the recording industry lawyers to really bore in on the inconsistencies in her testimony in a way they did not today.The case against her certainly looks strong , but Thomas-Rasset remains defiant .
When asked point-blank today if the KaZaA share folder seen by MediaSentry was hers , she said clearly , " It is not mine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, she makes the RIAA guys look like the good folks.. and that's hard.Now, “Here’s what I’m telling them,” says Jammie.“You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages.“You’re going to be lucky to prove more than $24  ”I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.Some background from the Wiki and http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars [arstechnica.com] The RIAA first warned Thomas with a cease-and-desist letter and settlement offer.[when?
] Thomas refused to settle, and was then sued on April 19, 2006, by several major record labels for copyright infringement.In the trial, the plaintiffs alleged that on February 21, 2005, Jammie Thomas shared a total of 1,702 tracks online.
The plaintiffs, however, sought relief for only 24 of these.Two weeks after MediaSentry noted the infringement of "tereastarr@KaZaA" (and notified the user via KaZaA instant message that he or she had been caught sharing files) back in February 2005, Thomas-Rasset hauled her Compaq Presario down to the local Best Buy.
There was a problem with the hard drive, so Best Buy replaced it under warranty.That might sound like no big deal until you realize that Thomas-Rasset later provided this new hard drive—and not the one in the machine during the alleged February infringement—to investigators and to her own expert witness.
It becomes an even bigger deal when you realize that she swore under oath—twice—that she had replaced the hard drive in 2004 (a full year earlier) and that it had not been changed again since.Next up was Eric Stanley, who had been hired by Thomas-Rasset before her first trial to examine the same hard drive that was turned over to recording industry investigators.
Thomas-Rasset at first told Stanley that the drive had been replaced in 2004, well before the alleged infringement, so this evidence looked like it would be great for Thomas-Rasset... until recording industry lawyers deposed Stanley and Thomas-Rasset on the same day.
At some point during that day, Stanley heard something that led him to examine the physical drive once more during a break.
It was then he found the sticker with a manufacturing date—of early 2005.Stanley realized he was looking at a drive that had likely not even been in the machine when the alleged infringement took place.So she refused a settlement offer at the very beginning even before being represented by a lawyer, then repeatedly lied under oath to judge and jury(no wonder the damages were soooooo high, juries hate being blatantly lied to and want to teach such people a lesson) and now is still being...well... a dick.
Imagine if the only punishment if you get caught stealing(stealing real goods, pedants please note) was to just pay up later, everyone would just steal then and pay up later if got caught.
On top of that, the $1/song is for downloading the songs, not uploading which has a bigger punishment under law since the plaintiffs potentially lost revenue.
I am sure this distinction will be lost on most of the posters here again who will repeatedly say the actual damages are just $24.Anyway this was one of the worst cases that should have gone to court against the RIAA.
They sued wrongly lots of times but this one case should've been settled long ago by Thomas, she knew she was in the wrong and tried to weasel her way out of it by lying.More, if you want to read:Why was Thomas-Rasset's password-protected computer running KaZaA in February 2005, and with the "tereastarr" name, if she had not set up the software?
And since no one else had the password, and since her kids were young and had a computer account of their own anyway, who might possibly have used a machine in her bedroom to share thousands of songs without her knowledge?But those are questions for tomorrow.
After Thomas-Rasset makes her best case, expect the recording industry lawyers to really bore in on the inconsistencies in her testimony in a way they did not today.The case against her certainly looks strong, but Thomas-Rasset remains defiant.
When asked point-blank today if the KaZaA share folder seen by MediaSentry was hers, she said clearly, "It is not mine.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948968</id>
	<title>bad analogy</title>
	<author>1800maxim</author>
	<datestamp>1264778640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some speeding is tolerated, but not much. 65 mph in a 60 zone, no one will pull you over. Try going 70 or 75, and it'll be much different.<br> <br>

One of the purposes of the speeding fine is to act as a deterrent against future speeding. If you set the fine at $20 because no actual damages were done, and it cost the officer 10 minutes of his time, this will not discourage speeding.<br> <br>

Likewise, setting damages for downloading at $500 is not a deterrent against illegal downloading. And face it, it is illegal. RIAA is interested not just in recovering lost sales, they are interested in recovering their litigation costs, AS WELL AS set a deterrent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some speeding is tolerated , but not much .
65 mph in a 60 zone , no one will pull you over .
Try going 70 or 75 , and it 'll be much different .
One of the purposes of the speeding fine is to act as a deterrent against future speeding .
If you set the fine at $ 20 because no actual damages were done , and it cost the officer 10 minutes of his time , this will not discourage speeding .
Likewise , setting damages for downloading at $ 500 is not a deterrent against illegal downloading .
And face it , it is illegal .
RIAA is interested not just in recovering lost sales , they are interested in recovering their litigation costs , AS WELL AS set a deterrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some speeding is tolerated, but not much.
65 mph in a 60 zone, no one will pull you over.
Try going 70 or 75, and it'll be much different.
One of the purposes of the speeding fine is to act as a deterrent against future speeding.
If you set the fine at $20 because no actual damages were done, and it cost the officer 10 minutes of his time, this will not discourage speeding.
Likewise, setting damages for downloading at $500 is not a deterrent against illegal downloading.
And face it, it is illegal.
RIAA is interested not just in recovering lost sales, they are interested in recovering their litigation costs, AS WELL AS set a deterrent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947998</id>
	<title>Re:NYCL Action Figure!!</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1264771680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want one!</p><p>Forget Luke. He'd go next to my Jung figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want one ! Forget Luke .
He 'd go next to my Jung figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want one!Forget Luke.
He'd go next to my Jung figure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945464</id>
	<title>The courts are increasingly unfriendly to RIAA</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1264697760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooner or later everyone in the world will have heard music that they weren't entitled to hear, or seem movies that they weren't entitled to see, or read books that they weren't entitled to read.</p><p>At that point, it's going to be hard to convince a jury people that a multimillion dollar corporation should be able to bankrupt a single mother with children because they liked music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooner or later everyone in the world will have heard music that they were n't entitled to hear , or seem movies that they were n't entitled to see , or read books that they were n't entitled to read.At that point , it 's going to be hard to convince a jury people that a multimillion dollar corporation should be able to bankrupt a single mother with children because they liked music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooner or later everyone in the world will have heard music that they weren't entitled to hear, or seem movies that they weren't entitled to see, or read books that they weren't entitled to read.At that point, it's going to be hard to convince a jury people that a multimillion dollar corporation should be able to bankrupt a single mother with children because they liked music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30954000</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264755720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>his is not a criminal case. The payment is not a fine to discourage crime, it's a payment to cover the damages.</p> </div><p>IANAL, but I thought 54k was the amount that the judge decided on after the $1.x million in punitive damages awarded by the jury.  This doesn't sound like the 54k is for actual damages at all, but rather is constrained (to some degree) to have some basis in those potential actual damages; but as such remains as punitive damages.
</p><p>
Assuming this is so, the point of punitive awards is <i>specifically</i> to discourage the offending behavior (even if not criminal), isn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>his is not a criminal case .
The payment is not a fine to discourage crime , it 's a payment to cover the damages .
IANAL , but I thought 54k was the amount that the judge decided on after the $ 1.x million in punitive damages awarded by the jury .
This does n't sound like the 54k is for actual damages at all , but rather is constrained ( to some degree ) to have some basis in those potential actual damages ; but as such remains as punitive damages .
Assuming this is so , the point of punitive awards is specifically to discourage the offending behavior ( even if not criminal ) , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>his is not a criminal case.
The payment is not a fine to discourage crime, it's a payment to cover the damages.
IANAL, but I thought 54k was the amount that the judge decided on after the $1.x million in punitive damages awarded by the jury.
This doesn't sound like the 54k is for actual damages at all, but rather is constrained (to some degree) to have some basis in those potential actual damages; but as such remains as punitive damages.
Assuming this is so, the point of punitive awards is specifically to discourage the offending behavior (even if not criminal), isn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944848</id>
	<title>Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264691400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Valued Content Thief......Pirate....Customer,</p><p>How much are these Real Life Action Lawyer Dolls, and how can we use them to expand pointless litigation at a reduced cost.</p><p>Regards,<br>RIAA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Valued Content Thief......Pirate....Customer,How much are these Real Life Action Lawyer Dolls , and how can we use them to expand pointless litigation at a reduced cost.Regards,RIAA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Valued Content Thief......Pirate....Customer,How much are these Real Life Action Lawyer Dolls, and how can we use them to expand pointless litigation at a reduced cost.Regards,RIAA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946128</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Maestro4k</author>
	<datestamp>1264704720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.</p></div><p>While I find her unsympathetic at best, and am somewhat inclined to not support her going to trial a third time, that's offset by the RIAA's willingness to go for a third trial simply because they don't want the reduced award of $54,000 to be made official.  I'm kinda having trouble liking either side here, but since the RIAA (in court anyway) finds $54,000 to be too <em>little</em> an award for sharing some 24 odd songs, I find Thomas slightly more sympathetic.</p><p>Basically both sides are idiots and jerks, but the RIAA's the bigger jerk, so I'm supporting the lesser one.  That said, I don't think she's really doing anyone any favors here, unless you count her costing the RIAA more money on legal fees as helping stick it to the RIAA.  And I suppose her helping show the RIAA's unwillingness to accept something approaching a realistic award in a file-sharing case is beneficial in making the RIAA look like the giant assholes they really are.  But it's hard to understand how she can possibly think she'll win, ever.  They had the goods on her, unlike many other cases, and her own testimony was probably <em>MORE</em> damning than the RIAA's evidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.While I find her unsympathetic at best , and am somewhat inclined to not support her going to trial a third time , that 's offset by the RIAA 's willingness to go for a third trial simply because they do n't want the reduced award of $ 54,000 to be made official .
I 'm kinda having trouble liking either side here , but since the RIAA ( in court anyway ) finds $ 54,000 to be too little an award for sharing some 24 odd songs , I find Thomas slightly more sympathetic.Basically both sides are idiots and jerks , but the RIAA 's the bigger jerk , so I 'm supporting the lesser one .
That said , I do n't think she 's really doing anyone any favors here , unless you count her costing the RIAA more money on legal fees as helping stick it to the RIAA .
And I suppose her helping show the RIAA 's unwillingness to accept something approaching a realistic award in a file-sharing case is beneficial in making the RIAA look like the giant assholes they really are .
But it 's hard to understand how she can possibly think she 'll win , ever .
They had the goods on her , unlike many other cases , and her own testimony was probably MORE damning than the RIAA 's evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.While I find her unsympathetic at best, and am somewhat inclined to not support her going to trial a third time, that's offset by the RIAA's willingness to go for a third trial simply because they don't want the reduced award of $54,000 to be made official.
I'm kinda having trouble liking either side here, but since the RIAA (in court anyway) finds $54,000 to be too little an award for sharing some 24 odd songs, I find Thomas slightly more sympathetic.Basically both sides are idiots and jerks, but the RIAA's the bigger jerk, so I'm supporting the lesser one.
That said, I don't think she's really doing anyone any favors here, unless you count her costing the RIAA more money on legal fees as helping stick it to the RIAA.
And I suppose her helping show the RIAA's unwillingness to accept something approaching a realistic award in a file-sharing case is beneficial in making the RIAA look like the giant assholes they really are.
But it's hard to understand how she can possibly think she'll win, ever.
They had the goods on her, unlike many other cases, and her own testimony was probably MORE damning than the RIAA's evidence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947290</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264761060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's hard to not be on the side of someone who has to pay thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for merely downloading 24 songs, when in fact I (allegedly) may have downloaded many more songs than that.  So have most other people here on slashdot, I would imagine.  The only difference between her situation and my situation is that she got unlucky, and I didn't.  So even though I like to support artists (now that I've graduated from school and actually have money) and I favor reasonable copyright, I don't think it's fair for her to be in that situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard to not be on the side of someone who has to pay thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for merely downloading 24 songs , when in fact I ( allegedly ) may have downloaded many more songs than that .
So have most other people here on slashdot , I would imagine .
The only difference between her situation and my situation is that she got unlucky , and I did n't .
So even though I like to support artists ( now that I 've graduated from school and actually have money ) and I favor reasonable copyright , I do n't think it 's fair for her to be in that situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard to not be on the side of someone who has to pay thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for merely downloading 24 songs, when in fact I (allegedly) may have downloaded many more songs than that.
So have most other people here on slashdot, I would imagine.
The only difference between her situation and my situation is that she got unlucky, and I didn't.
So even though I like to support artists (now that I've graduated from school and actually have money) and I favor reasonable copyright, I don't think it's fair for her to be in that situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945122</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>Afforess</author>
	<datestamp>1264693920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>By ad-laden, I assume you mean the very small ads that are at the very bottom of his site, and are barely noticeable? Google has more ads than his site, IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By ad-laden , I assume you mean the very small ads that are at the very bottom of his site , and are barely noticeable ?
Google has more ads than his site , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By ad-laden, I assume you mean the very small ads that are at the very bottom of his site, and are barely noticeable?
Google has more ads than his site, IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946686</id>
	<title>Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ...</title>
	<author>SpaceLifeForm</author>
	<datestamp>1264797060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is prior art of such an action figure that
performed when his buttons were pushed.
<p>
<a href="http://quotations.about.com/od/georgewbush/a/BushHardWork.htm" title="about.com">Link
</a> [about.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is prior art of such an action figure that performed when his buttons were pushed .
Link [ about.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is prior art of such an action figure that
performed when his buttons were pushed.
Link
 [about.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948176</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264773060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So remember kids, instead of downloading that song, movie, or game, just steal it from the store, the penalties are a LOT lighter for shoplifting than copying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So remember kids , instead of downloading that song , movie , or game , just steal it from the store , the penalties are a LOT lighter for shoplifting than copying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So remember kids, instead of downloading that song, movie, or game, just steal it from the store, the penalties are a LOT lighter for shoplifting than copying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30955902</id>
	<title>Re:Estimated actual damages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264763340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$1188 is fair, and it would be wise for the RIAA to hold up a real number rather than an irrational number, as far as the deterrent factor.   If someone sued me for a gorzillion dollars, I'd laugh, as I will never have a gorzillion dollars and would look into bankruptcy or some other way to escape the debt.  $1188 I'd pay to be done with it.<br>Problem is, RIAA would lose cash on $1188, as that is about 1-6 hours of lawyer time.  If you brought it into court in your corner of the world, the cost of the lawyer would not make it worthwhile for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 1188 is fair , and it would be wise for the RIAA to hold up a real number rather than an irrational number , as far as the deterrent factor .
If someone sued me for a gorzillion dollars , I 'd laugh , as I will never have a gorzillion dollars and would look into bankruptcy or some other way to escape the debt .
$ 1188 I 'd pay to be done with it.Problem is , RIAA would lose cash on $ 1188 , as that is about 1-6 hours of lawyer time .
If you brought it into court in your corner of the world , the cost of the lawyer would not make it worthwhile for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$1188 is fair, and it would be wise for the RIAA to hold up a real number rather than an irrational number, as far as the deterrent factor.
If someone sued me for a gorzillion dollars, I'd laugh, as I will never have a gorzillion dollars and would look into bankruptcy or some other way to escape the debt.
$1188 I'd pay to be done with it.Problem is, RIAA would lose cash on $1188, as that is about 1-6 hours of lawyer time.
If you brought it into court in your corner of the world, the cost of the lawyer would not make it worthwhile for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944988</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264692600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>she also turned down a $5000 settlement.  Of course, that was before she was caught destroying evidence and lying about it. In court.    wah!  I don't have any money!  That's why I racked up $200,000 in legal bills pretending I didn't do it instead of settling up front!  Fucking cunt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>she also turned down a $ 5000 settlement .
Of course , that was before she was caught destroying evidence and lying about it .
In court .
wah ! I do n't have any money !
That 's why I racked up $ 200,000 in legal bills pretending I did n't do it instead of settling up front !
Fucking cunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>she also turned down a $5000 settlement.
Of course, that was before she was caught destroying evidence and lying about it.
In court.
wah!  I don't have any money!
That's why I racked up $200,000 in legal bills pretending I didn't do it instead of settling up front!
Fucking cunt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838</id>
	<title>Total non-story</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1264691340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Requests for extension of time are very common, and there's nothing unusual about the reasons given by the RIAA lawyers in the motions or for the length of extension requested.  This seems like little more than an attempt to drive more pageviews to Mr. Beckerman's ad-laden site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Requests for extension of time are very common , and there 's nothing unusual about the reasons given by the RIAA lawyers in the motions or for the length of extension requested .
This seems like little more than an attempt to drive more pageviews to Mr. Beckerman 's ad-laden site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Requests for extension of time are very common, and there's nothing unusual about the reasons given by the RIAA lawyers in the motions or for the length of extension requested.
This seems like little more than an attempt to drive more pageviews to Mr. Beckerman's ad-laden site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945022</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1264692900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about what her lawyer asserted, it's about what the judge ruled.</p><p>She's actually very clever to not take the settlement. Aside from the fact that there may well be someone behind her bankrolling that 25 grand difference anyway, she's more likely than not to end up paying nothing other than court costs.</p><p>The RIAA really doesn't want that 54k verdict to become official. It would set a legal precedent, one which would more likely than not be referred to, even in other jurisdictions. It's probably relatively close to a fair number(I can't recall the details of the case at the moment), but that's really not the point. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the RIAA ends up dropping the Thomas case. It'll cost them to do so, but it will severly limit their ability to extort and intimidate future defendents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about what her lawyer asserted , it 's about what the judge ruled.She 's actually very clever to not take the settlement .
Aside from the fact that there may well be someone behind her bankrolling that 25 grand difference anyway , she 's more likely than not to end up paying nothing other than court costs.The RIAA really does n't want that 54k verdict to become official .
It would set a legal precedent , one which would more likely than not be referred to , even in other jurisdictions .
It 's probably relatively close to a fair number ( I ca n't recall the details of the case at the moment ) , but that 's really not the point .
I would n't be at all surprised if the RIAA ends up dropping the Thomas case .
It 'll cost them to do so , but it will severly limit their ability to extort and intimidate future defendents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about what her lawyer asserted, it's about what the judge ruled.She's actually very clever to not take the settlement.
Aside from the fact that there may well be someone behind her bankrolling that 25 grand difference anyway, she's more likely than not to end up paying nothing other than court costs.The RIAA really doesn't want that 54k verdict to become official.
It would set a legal precedent, one which would more likely than not be referred to, even in other jurisdictions.
It's probably relatively close to a fair number(I can't recall the details of the case at the moment), but that's really not the point.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the RIAA ends up dropping the Thomas case.
It'll cost them to do so, but it will severly limit their ability to extort and intimidate future defendents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30960396</id>
	<title>Jamie Thomas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264842420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They asked for a billion in fines...

Retrial.

Got $54,000 in fines.

Offered $26,000.

Thomas said No.


I would have offered 2c a track and I would have asked them to pay me 10 X my legal bill.

Fuck the RIAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They asked for a billion in fines.. . Retrial . Got $ 54,000 in fines .
Offered $ 26,000 .
Thomas said No .
I would have offered 2c a track and I would have asked them to pay me 10 X my legal bill .
Fuck the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They asked for a billion in fines...

Retrial.

Got $54,000 in fines.
Offered $26,000.
Thomas said No.
I would have offered 2c a track and I would have asked them to pay me 10 X my legal bill.
Fuck the RIAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949328</id>
	<title>Re:Let's play this out to the end, shall we?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1264780440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes she broke the law, there should be a penalty for the infraction, but all the settlements so far have been unjustly high. And yes, I'd like to see it played out to the point where a precedent will be set and honoured.</p></div><p>No there shouldn't be a penalty for the infraction, the law should be changed.  That is another purpose of the courts that people forget.<br>
<br>
Some politicians write a horrible law and it is applied to an unintended group, it goes to court, the court rules that it doesn't apply to said group a precedent is set and it no longer applies to that group.<br>
<br>
In this case individuals sharing music aren't the intended target of copyrights, other distributors selling works they don't own were the intended target.  Other performers claiming the works of others as there own was the intended target.  An individual humming a few bars of a song or sharing something they like with their friends spreading the word about a band to get them more fans was not the people Copyright laws were designed to deter.  So I'd like to see the case get thrown out.  Anything less is unjust.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes she broke the law , there should be a penalty for the infraction , but all the settlements so far have been unjustly high .
And yes , I 'd like to see it played out to the point where a precedent will be set and honoured.No there should n't be a penalty for the infraction , the law should be changed .
That is another purpose of the courts that people forget .
Some politicians write a horrible law and it is applied to an unintended group , it goes to court , the court rules that it does n't apply to said group a precedent is set and it no longer applies to that group .
In this case individuals sharing music are n't the intended target of copyrights , other distributors selling works they do n't own were the intended target .
Other performers claiming the works of others as there own was the intended target .
An individual humming a few bars of a song or sharing something they like with their friends spreading the word about a band to get them more fans was not the people Copyright laws were designed to deter .
So I 'd like to see the case get thrown out .
Anything less is unjust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes she broke the law, there should be a penalty for the infraction, but all the settlements so far have been unjustly high.
And yes, I'd like to see it played out to the point where a precedent will be set and honoured.No there shouldn't be a penalty for the infraction, the law should be changed.
That is another purpose of the courts that people forget.
Some politicians write a horrible law and it is applied to an unintended group, it goes to court, the court rules that it doesn't apply to said group a precedent is set and it no longer applies to that group.
In this case individuals sharing music aren't the intended target of copyrights, other distributors selling works they don't own were the intended target.
Other performers claiming the works of others as there own was the intended target.
An individual humming a few bars of a song or sharing something they like with their friends spreading the word about a band to get them more fans was not the people Copyright laws were designed to deter.
So I'd like to see the case get thrown out.
Anything less is unjust.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947028</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264757640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Considering the damages caused by the crime, $500 would be the high-ball figure for a sane punishment. Considering the act of downloading and uploading files is at least as common as speeding and done by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans, that should be taken into account -- it's a bad law.</p></div></blockquote><p>
It's a good law, it's just being mis-applied.  The copyright statutes were written with "piracy" meaning someone bootlegging your CD, stamping out thousands of copies, and selling them on the street corner.  Because you can make a substantial amount of money doing that, the penalties for copyright infringement had to have equally substantial penalties to be successful as a deterrent.
<br> <br>
Fast forward to the Internet age, and the content industry is taking laws meant to punish people making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars off of infringement, and using them to punish people trying to get a few songs for free.  The penalties are <i>grossly</i> disproportionate to the violation.  What we need are new laws and fines governing not-for-profit copyright infringement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the damages caused by the crime , $ 500 would be the high-ball figure for a sane punishment .
Considering the act of downloading and uploading files is at least as common as speeding and done by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans , that should be taken into account -- it 's a bad law .
It 's a good law , it 's just being mis-applied .
The copyright statutes were written with " piracy " meaning someone bootlegging your CD , stamping out thousands of copies , and selling them on the street corner .
Because you can make a substantial amount of money doing that , the penalties for copyright infringement had to have equally substantial penalties to be successful as a deterrent .
Fast forward to the Internet age , and the content industry is taking laws meant to punish people making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars off of infringement , and using them to punish people trying to get a few songs for free .
The penalties are grossly disproportionate to the violation .
What we need are new laws and fines governing not-for-profit copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the damages caused by the crime, $500 would be the high-ball figure for a sane punishment.
Considering the act of downloading and uploading files is at least as common as speeding and done by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans, that should be taken into account -- it's a bad law.
It's a good law, it's just being mis-applied.
The copyright statutes were written with "piracy" meaning someone bootlegging your CD, stamping out thousands of copies, and selling them on the street corner.
Because you can make a substantial amount of money doing that, the penalties for copyright infringement had to have equally substantial penalties to be successful as a deterrent.
Fast forward to the Internet age, and the content industry is taking laws meant to punish people making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars off of infringement, and using them to punish people trying to get a few songs for free.
The penalties are grossly disproportionate to the violation.
What we need are new laws and fines governing not-for-profit copyright infringement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945416</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1264697220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone know what the songs she infringed go for on itunes or other online music stores?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know what the songs she infringed go for on itunes or other online music stores ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know what the songs she infringed go for on itunes or other online music stores?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948534</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1264776060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was doing moderation - but I must reply here.

COPYRIGHT law was never meant to apply to little people sharing and making personal copies. From it's earliest conception, copyright law was meant to apply to BUSINESS COMPETITION. In effect, if there was a dollar to be made from an idea, a song, a writing, then the AUTHOR should make that dollar.

When no financial gain is at stake, it's a whole different world. If I made a thousand copies of each of my songs/movies/softwares, and GAVE THEM AWAY, I would not be in violation of the SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT LAW. But, if I profited just one penny on each copy, then I would be in violation.

Copyright law was, and should be, aimed at for-profit businesses, large or small. Producing copies of the Household Mover's Guide, and selling them for $20 at a truckstop late at night is a clear violation of copyright law. The motive is profit.

Setting up a site where Joe Sixpack can download music for ten cents or ten dollars per month is also profit driven.

Sharing a few songs via P2P is NOT PROFIT DRIVEN, and shouldn't even be in court as a copyright violation.

My two cents.</p></div><p>Very insightful. In the old days of copyright law (pre-RIAA madness) you never saw cases against the CONSUMER of the copyrighted material. <br> <br>E.g., if there was a flea market vendor selling unauthorized copies of something, the companies might go after the vendor but would probably go after the flea market, but would NEVER have even thought of suing the people who bought the copies. <br> <br>It took some degenerate record company sociopaths, who'd totally missed out on the meaning of the internet and digitalization, and who were afraid of losing their jobs, to come up with this desperate idea of suing ordinary working people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was doing moderation - but I must reply here .
COPYRIGHT law was never meant to apply to little people sharing and making personal copies .
From it 's earliest conception , copyright law was meant to apply to BUSINESS COMPETITION .
In effect , if there was a dollar to be made from an idea , a song , a writing , then the AUTHOR should make that dollar .
When no financial gain is at stake , it 's a whole different world .
If I made a thousand copies of each of my songs/movies/softwares , and GAVE THEM AWAY , I would not be in violation of the SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT LAW .
But , if I profited just one penny on each copy , then I would be in violation .
Copyright law was , and should be , aimed at for-profit businesses , large or small .
Producing copies of the Household Mover 's Guide , and selling them for $ 20 at a truckstop late at night is a clear violation of copyright law .
The motive is profit .
Setting up a site where Joe Sixpack can download music for ten cents or ten dollars per month is also profit driven .
Sharing a few songs via P2P is NOT PROFIT DRIVEN , and should n't even be in court as a copyright violation .
My two cents.Very insightful .
In the old days of copyright law ( pre-RIAA madness ) you never saw cases against the CONSUMER of the copyrighted material .
E.g. , if there was a flea market vendor selling unauthorized copies of something , the companies might go after the vendor but would probably go after the flea market , but would NEVER have even thought of suing the people who bought the copies .
It took some degenerate record company sociopaths , who 'd totally missed out on the meaning of the internet and digitalization , and who were afraid of losing their jobs , to come up with this desperate idea of suing ordinary working people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was doing moderation - but I must reply here.
COPYRIGHT law was never meant to apply to little people sharing and making personal copies.
From it's earliest conception, copyright law was meant to apply to BUSINESS COMPETITION.
In effect, if there was a dollar to be made from an idea, a song, a writing, then the AUTHOR should make that dollar.
When no financial gain is at stake, it's a whole different world.
If I made a thousand copies of each of my songs/movies/softwares, and GAVE THEM AWAY, I would not be in violation of the SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT LAW.
But, if I profited just one penny on each copy, then I would be in violation.
Copyright law was, and should be, aimed at for-profit businesses, large or small.
Producing copies of the Household Mover's Guide, and selling them for $20 at a truckstop late at night is a clear violation of copyright law.
The motive is profit.
Setting up a site where Joe Sixpack can download music for ten cents or ten dollars per month is also profit driven.
Sharing a few songs via P2P is NOT PROFIT DRIVEN, and shouldn't even be in court as a copyright violation.
My two cents.Very insightful.
In the old days of copyright law (pre-RIAA madness) you never saw cases against the CONSUMER of the copyrighted material.
E.g., if there was a flea market vendor selling unauthorized copies of something, the companies might go after the vendor but would probably go after the flea market, but would NEVER have even thought of suing the people who bought the copies.
It took some degenerate record company sociopaths, who'd totally missed out on the meaning of the internet and digitalization, and who were afraid of losing their jobs, to come up with this desperate idea of suing ordinary working people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948562</id>
	<title>Re:Estimated actual damages</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1264776240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where does this so-called 'constituitionally recognized limit' come from (citation)?</p></div><p>You might want to read <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/05/free-software-foundation-moves-for.html" title="blogspot.com">my brief on the subject</a> [blogspot.com] or <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#3566389518932026026" title="blogspot.com">this article</a> [blogspot.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does this so-called 'constituitionally recognized limit ' come from ( citation ) ? You might want to read my brief on the subject [ blogspot.com ] or this article [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does this so-called 'constituitionally recognized limit' come from (citation)?You might want to read my brief on the subject [blogspot.com] or this article [blogspot.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945054</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1264693260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> there would be no incentive for people to be honest and pay for their music.</p> </div><p>The real world <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In\_rainbows#Reception" title="wikipedia.org">says otherwise</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there would be no incentive for people to be honest and pay for their music .
The real world says otherwise [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> there would be no incentive for people to be honest and pay for their music.
The real world says otherwise [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30950830</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>kwandar</author>
	<datestamp>1264786320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><b>"Now, "Here's what I'm telling them," says Jammie.

"You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages.

"You're going to be lucky to prove more than $24 "

I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman."</b></i>  </p><p>  Well for one, on this point, she is absolutely correct.  When I've had disputes (both ways) damages had to be PROVED.  There are damages here, but the damages don't come close to $2,000 per song.  When was the last time you even paid $10 per song (which I would argue is for than enough for both damages and as a future deterrence).</p><p>  As to why I support her, I'd argue that I don't.  I support this case setting a logical precedent that ends the RIAA campaign of distortion once and for all. </p><p>I'd also like to add that I am extremely thankful that NewYorkCountRyLawyer is providing us all with insight into these cases.  I would only hope that as a domain expert Congress and the Senate would look at him for advise in balancing the rights of consumers, rather than solely looking to RIAA stooges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now , " Here 's what I 'm telling them , " says Jammie .
" You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages .
" You 're going to be lucky to prove more than $ 24 " I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman .
" Well for one , on this point , she is absolutely correct .
When I 've had disputes ( both ways ) damages had to be PROVED .
There are damages here , but the damages do n't come close to $ 2,000 per song .
When was the last time you even paid $ 10 per song ( which I would argue is for than enough for both damages and as a future deterrence ) .
As to why I support her , I 'd argue that I do n't .
I support this case setting a logical precedent that ends the RIAA campaign of distortion once and for all .
I 'd also like to add that I am extremely thankful that NewYorkCountRyLawyer is providing us all with insight into these cases .
I would only hope that as a domain expert Congress and the Senate would look at him for advise in balancing the rights of consumers , rather than solely looking to RIAA stooges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now, "Here's what I'm telling them," says Jammie.
"You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages.
"You're going to be lucky to prove more than $24 "

I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.
"    Well for one, on this point, she is absolutely correct.
When I've had disputes (both ways) damages had to be PROVED.
There are damages here, but the damages don't come close to $2,000 per song.
When was the last time you even paid $10 per song (which I would argue is for than enough for both damages and as a future deterrence).
As to why I support her, I'd argue that I don't.
I support this case setting a logical precedent that ends the RIAA campaign of distortion once and for all.
I'd also like to add that I am extremely thankful that NewYorkCountRyLawyer is providing us all with insight into these cases.
I would only hope that as a domain expert Congress and the Senate would look at him for advise in balancing the rights of consumers, rather than solely looking to RIAA stooges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948590</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1264776420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The attacks on Ray Beckerman are more than a little unfair, given his solid record over the years here on Slashdot. He's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years, and personally, I appreciate him. For the record, Blogspot.com is owned by Google, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service. The insinuation here (and in other replies immediately following) that he simply posts here to drive people to an "ad-laden" site is more than unfair.

I, for one, appreciate his updates on these very important cases. If you disagree with Ray's take on requests for extension, that's certainly your right (and I disagree with you, by the way; I think it's very significant in this case, given the circumstances).</p></div><p>Thank you. I appreciate that. The reality is that I make almost no money from advertising. I just spend so much time blogging and microblogging that I figure if I could make a few bucks to offset some of that time it would be helpful. Hasn't really worked out, however.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The attacks on Ray Beckerman are more than a little unfair , given his solid record over the years here on Slashdot .
He 's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years , and personally , I appreciate him .
For the record , Blogspot.com is owned by Google , and I would n't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service .
The insinuation here ( and in other replies immediately following ) that he simply posts here to drive people to an " ad-laden " site is more than unfair .
I , for one , appreciate his updates on these very important cases .
If you disagree with Ray 's take on requests for extension , that 's certainly your right ( and I disagree with you , by the way ; I think it 's very significant in this case , given the circumstances ) .Thank you .
I appreciate that .
The reality is that I make almost no money from advertising .
I just spend so much time blogging and microblogging that I figure if I could make a few bucks to offset some of that time it would be helpful .
Has n't really worked out , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The attacks on Ray Beckerman are more than a little unfair, given his solid record over the years here on Slashdot.
He's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years, and personally, I appreciate him.
For the record, Blogspot.com is owned by Google, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service.
The insinuation here (and in other replies immediately following) that he simply posts here to drive people to an "ad-laden" site is more than unfair.
I, for one, appreciate his updates on these very important cases.
If you disagree with Ray's take on requests for extension, that's certainly your right (and I disagree with you, by the way; I think it's very significant in this case, given the circumstances).Thank you.
I appreciate that.
The reality is that I make almost no money from advertising.
I just spend so much time blogging and microblogging that I figure if I could make a few bucks to offset some of that time it would be helpful.
Hasn't really worked out, however.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945530</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264698660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because she might be vice-president some day?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.Because she might be vice-president some day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.Because she might be vice-president some day?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30955044</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1264759620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty simple, really. She may be a scumbag and a weaseling, lying oathbreaker, but compared to the RIAA she still looks like Mother Theresa. In other words, she's *our* scumbag. And noone should have to settle for something that will bankrupt them, when the thing shouldn't have been punishable to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty simple , really .
She may be a scumbag and a weaseling , lying oathbreaker , but compared to the RIAA she still looks like Mother Theresa .
In other words , she 's * our * scumbag .
And noone should have to settle for something that will bankrupt them , when the thing should n't have been punishable to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty simple, really.
She may be a scumbag and a weaseling, lying oathbreaker, but compared to the RIAA she still looks like Mother Theresa.
In other words, she's *our* scumbag.
And noone should have to settle for something that will bankrupt them, when the thing shouldn't have been punishable to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30953944</id>
	<title>Re:Settlement</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1264798680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It'll cost them to do so, but it will severly limit their ability to extort and intimidate future defendents.</p></div><p>Which is probably a good reason for them NOT to drop the case. The RIAA is committed now so they might as well follow through to the end. Otherwise, their future threats of lawsuit will seem like bluffs or at least not as credible as they once were. Their business depends upon the power of copyright and the threat of enormous statutory damages; without that threat their existing business model is in even more doubt than it is right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll cost them to do so , but it will severly limit their ability to extort and intimidate future defendents.Which is probably a good reason for them NOT to drop the case .
The RIAA is committed now so they might as well follow through to the end .
Otherwise , their future threats of lawsuit will seem like bluffs or at least not as credible as they once were .
Their business depends upon the power of copyright and the threat of enormous statutory damages ; without that threat their existing business model is in even more doubt than it is right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll cost them to do so, but it will severly limit their ability to extort and intimidate future defendents.Which is probably a good reason for them NOT to drop the case.
The RIAA is committed now so they might as well follow through to the end.
Otherwise, their future threats of lawsuit will seem like bluffs or at least not as credible as they once were.
Their business depends upon the power of copyright and the threat of enormous statutory damages; without that threat their existing business model is in even more doubt than it is right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949630</id>
	<title>Re:Total non-story</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264781760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if you did make money, no one should begrudge what (little, admittedly) you earn by bringing issues of obvious interest to light for those who wish to read.</p><p>And to the masses: I don't check this blog until Slashdot tells me to - it's just not in the front of my brain every day when I have to do things like ensure bills are paid and this thing I like to call "my job"  I still like to keep up to date on the MAFIAA when possible.</p><p>In short, it's a follow-up to an ongoing story.  "Time out" might be par for the course, but it's a course we've been following.  So we follow.  Except for that one whiner Grond (15515), who appears to be a computer scientist and hobbyist paralegal.</p><p>And I'll just leave this here.  Not that you couldn't have clicked them yourself.<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=1729653" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=1729653</a> [slashdot.org]<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/~Grond" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/~Grond</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you did make money , no one should begrudge what ( little , admittedly ) you earn by bringing issues of obvious interest to light for those who wish to read.And to the masses : I do n't check this blog until Slashdot tells me to - it 's just not in the front of my brain every day when I have to do things like ensure bills are paid and this thing I like to call " my job " I still like to keep up to date on the MAFIAA when possible.In short , it 's a follow-up to an ongoing story .
" Time out " might be par for the course , but it 's a course we 've been following .
So we follow .
Except for that one whiner Grond ( 15515 ) , who appears to be a computer scientist and hobbyist paralegal.And I 'll just leave this here .
Not that you could n't have clicked them yourself.http : //slashdot.org/firehose.pl ? op = view&amp;id = 1729653 [ slashdot.org ] http : //slashdot.org/ ~ Grond [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you did make money, no one should begrudge what (little, admittedly) you earn by bringing issues of obvious interest to light for those who wish to read.And to the masses: I don't check this blog until Slashdot tells me to - it's just not in the front of my brain every day when I have to do things like ensure bills are paid and this thing I like to call "my job"  I still like to keep up to date on the MAFIAA when possible.In short, it's a follow-up to an ongoing story.
"Time out" might be par for the course, but it's a course we've been following.
So we follow.
Except for that one whiner Grond (15515), who appears to be a computer scientist and hobbyist paralegal.And I'll just leave this here.
Not that you couldn't have clicked them yourself.http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&amp;id=1729653 [slashdot.org]http://slashdot.org/~Grond [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948590</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30958872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30950830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30953174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30954000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30951000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30950570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30955902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30955044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30951210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30954376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30959846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30952816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30953944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_0013240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30952166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0013240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30952166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0013240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0013240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30953174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0013240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0013240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0013240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30950570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30954000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30951000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30953944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30955044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947448
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30954376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30952816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30950830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30947290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30958872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0013240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30946034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30959846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30951210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30955902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0013240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30944878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30948590
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_0013240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30945118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_0013240.30949328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
