<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_30_0013201</id>
	<title>RIAA To Appeal Thomas-Rasset Ruling</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264853040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>frank\_adrian314159 writes <i>"<a href="http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0110/700436.html">The RIAA  will appeal</a> the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 million fine for file sharing to $54,000. '"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her," said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth.' Joe Sibley, an attorney for Thomas-Rasset, said his client would not settle for the $25,000 that the RIAA has asked for. '"Jammie is not going to agree to pay any amount of money to them," Sibley said, adding that it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.'  In addition, Thomas-Rasset's attorneys say that, win or lose, they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>frank \ _adrian314159 writes " The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset 's $ 1.92 million fine for file sharing to $ 54,000 .
' " It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her , " said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth .
' Joe Sibley , an attorney for Thomas-Rasset , said his client would not settle for the $ 25,000 that the RIAA has asked for .
' " Jammie is not going to agree to pay any amount of money to them , " Sibley said , adding that it does n't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $ 25,000 or $ 1.92 million .
' In addition , Thomas-Rasset 's attorneys say that , win or lose , they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frank\_adrian314159 writes "The RIAA  will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 million fine for file sharing to $54,000.
'"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her," said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth.
' Joe Sibley, an attorney for Thomas-Rasset, said his client would not settle for the $25,000 that the RIAA has asked for.
'"Jammie is not going to agree to pay any amount of money to them," Sibley said, adding that it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.
'  In addition, Thomas-Rasset's attorneys say that, win or lose, they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30960932</id>
	<title>Re:Willful? What Willful</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1264851180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but ignorance of fact is. Copying something not realizing that it's copyrighted is not willful infringement, and the damages are limited. That's why corporations are nice enough to send takedown letters instead of just suing - to inform the defendant and potentially magnify the damages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignorance of the law is not an excuse , but ignorance of fact is .
Copying something not realizing that it 's copyrighted is not willful infringement , and the damages are limited .
That 's why corporations are nice enough to send takedown letters instead of just suing - to inform the defendant and potentially magnify the damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but ignorance of fact is.
Copying something not realizing that it's copyrighted is not willful infringement, and the damages are limited.
That's why corporations are nice enough to send takedown letters instead of just suing - to inform the defendant and potentially magnify the damages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958880</id>
	<title>Re:The real question is, what's the goal here?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1264781520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The real question is what the goal of copyright law is. If the goal is to encourage innovation and ensure property owners get paid when their work is used, then there's no need for huge punitive damages.</p></div></blockquote><p>The goal of copyright law is to allow those who bought the law to have complete control over what the rest of us do with any creative work, ever, no matter what the cost to us.  Given that, the $1.3 million dollar judgement is quite low.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is what the goal of copyright law is .
If the goal is to encourage innovation and ensure property owners get paid when their work is used , then there 's no need for huge punitive damages.The goal of copyright law is to allow those who bought the law to have complete control over what the rest of us do with any creative work , ever , no matter what the cost to us .
Given that , the $ 1.3 million dollar judgement is quite low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is what the goal of copyright law is.
If the goal is to encourage innovation and ensure property owners get paid when their work is used, then there's no need for huge punitive damages.The goal of copyright law is to allow those who bought the law to have complete control over what the rest of us do with any creative work, ever, no matter what the cost to us.
Given that, the $1.3 million dollar judgement is quite low.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959962</id>
	<title>Defense fund?</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1264794120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a defense fund for these cases? Should we start one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a defense fund for these cases ?
Should we start one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a defense fund for these cases?
Should we start one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957904</id>
	<title>Unconstitutional?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264773240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957918</id>
	<title>Re:Mispleling in summory</title>
	<author>Hylandr</author>
	<datestamp>1264773360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you read the rest of the article, you would realize that's a reduction from 1.92 MILLION. later on it properly places the decimal point. <br> <br>

Quote -&gt;  it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.' In addition, Thomas-Rasset's attorneys say that, win or lose, they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine."
<br> <br>

God BLESS this woman.
<br> <br>

- Dan.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the rest of the article , you would realize that 's a reduction from 1.92 MILLION .
later on it properly places the decimal point .
Quote - &gt; it does n't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $ 25,000 or $ 1.92 million .
' In addition , Thomas-Rasset 's attorneys say that , win or lose , they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine .
" God BLESS this woman .
- Dan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the rest of the article, you would realize that's a reduction from 1.92 MILLION.
later on it properly places the decimal point.
Quote -&gt;  it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.
' In addition, Thomas-Rasset's attorneys say that, win or lose, they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine.
"
 

God BLESS this woman.
- Dan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958598</id>
	<title>Re:Mispleling in summory</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1264779000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary? Fair game. Would you rather have GNAA first posts? I for one would, but...<br> <br>

More irksome are otherwise excellent threads being derailed down the line because otherwise excellent highly-technical posts, the kind which make the trolls shut up and listen, have an apostrophe or "their/there" misuse.<br> <br>

I could post "nigger" all day and still be less effective than the horde of grammar nazis who think they're so smart just because they passed English 101. Those kind of fuckers are even worse in a real-life classroom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary ?
Fair game .
Would you rather have GNAA first posts ?
I for one would , but.. . More irksome are otherwise excellent threads being derailed down the line because otherwise excellent highly-technical posts , the kind which make the trolls shut up and listen , have an apostrophe or " their/there " misuse .
I could post " nigger " all day and still be less effective than the horde of grammar nazis who think they 're so smart just because they passed English 101 .
Those kind of fuckers are even worse in a real-life classroom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary?
Fair game.
Would you rather have GNAA first posts?
I for one would, but... 

More irksome are otherwise excellent threads being derailed down the line because otherwise excellent highly-technical posts, the kind which make the trolls shut up and listen, have an apostrophe or "their/there" misuse.
I could post "nigger" all day and still be less effective than the horde of grammar nazis who think they're so smart just because they passed English 101.
Those kind of fuckers are even worse in a real-life classroom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959512</id>
	<title>Re:Appeal the constitutionality?</title>
	<author>SLi</author>
	<datestamp>1264787820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, when they upload the song once, the way Internet currently works, exactly (or at most) one recipient gets it. Surely they should only liable for the copies they made themselves (i.e. the times they uploaded it), and the recipients for the copies they made further?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , when they upload the song once , the way Internet currently works , exactly ( or at most ) one recipient gets it .
Surely they should only liable for the copies they made themselves ( i.e .
the times they uploaded it ) , and the recipients for the copies they made further ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, when they upload the song once, the way Internet currently works, exactly (or at most) one recipient gets it.
Surely they should only liable for the copies they made themselves (i.e.
the times they uploaded it), and the recipients for the copies they made further?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30962472</id>
	<title>The first thing that comes to mind...</title>
	<author>Shadyman</author>
	<datestamp>1264869120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her,"<br> <br> "There are <b>FOUR</b> lights!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her , " " There are FOUR lights !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her,"  "There are FOUR lights!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959086</id>
	<title>54k seems fine</title>
	<author>luther349</author>
	<datestamp>1264783020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>its more then what they asked for in the settlement. and its still plenty to drive most into bankruptcy to remove the debt win win. that's what many don't get when you sue someone for amounts they can never pay in realty. it might sound nice to sue someone for million for a slip and fall on paper but your simply never going to see the money, same for most majer auto accdents my gandma won a case fo a good amount of course she never saw a dime of that money being the lady filed chapter 7. even thow the girl was the at fult driver.and nearly crippled my grandma. suieing for large amounts is just a wast of time for everyone invalved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>its more then what they asked for in the settlement .
and its still plenty to drive most into bankruptcy to remove the debt win win .
that 's what many do n't get when you sue someone for amounts they can never pay in realty .
it might sound nice to sue someone for million for a slip and fall on paper but your simply never going to see the money , same for most majer auto accdents my gandma won a case fo a good amount of course she never saw a dime of that money being the lady filed chapter 7. even thow the girl was the at fult driver.and nearly crippled my grandma .
suieing for large amounts is just a wast of time for everyone invalved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its more then what they asked for in the settlement.
and its still plenty to drive most into bankruptcy to remove the debt win win.
that's what many don't get when you sue someone for amounts they can never pay in realty.
it might sound nice to sue someone for million for a slip and fall on paper but your simply never going to see the money, same for most majer auto accdents my gandma won a case fo a good amount of course she never saw a dime of that money being the lady filed chapter 7. even thow the girl was the at fult driver.and nearly crippled my grandma.
suieing for large amounts is just a wast of time for everyone invalved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958286</id>
	<title>Re:Willful? What Willful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law.</p></div><p>Except that here it is. If you are ignorant of the law, you still can be convicted. However, the fines for listening to a song from youtube without realizing that you are breaking the law are less than when you intentionally ignore the law in your own benefit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law.Except that here it is .
If you are ignorant of the law , you still can be convicted .
However , the fines for listening to a song from youtube without realizing that you are breaking the law are less than when you intentionally ignore the law in your own benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law.Except that here it is.
If you are ignorant of the law, you still can be convicted.
However, the fines for listening to a song from youtube without realizing that you are breaking the law are less than when you intentionally ignore the law in your own benefit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958994</id>
	<title>Re:Mispleling in summory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264782240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd settle for the 25g's.  The lawyer fees to appeal will be more than that lol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd settle for the 25g 's .
The lawyer fees to appeal will be more than that lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd settle for the 25g's.
The lawyer fees to appeal will be more than that lol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957726</id>
	<title>The real question is, what's the goal here?</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1264772220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is what the goal of copyright law is.  If the goal is to encourage innovation and ensure property owners get paid when their work is used, then there's no need for huge punitive damages.  (You still want some, because the system can't send everybody who breaks the law a bill, since it doesn't know who they are, so it has to discourage people from breaking the law.)  But if we somehow feel that this is a fundamental and huge violation of the copyright rights and that those rights are very highly valued by our society, then an extreme penalty might be justified.  In either case, as the court rightly pointed out, $54K is more than sufficient.  (Especially absent showing of commercialization or massive redistribution.)</p><p>Personally, I'm a fan of a sort of sliding scale of copyright protections--enough to encourage anyone to innovate, but not so much that things don't enter the public domain.  When someone has made the greater of $10M or Cost+100\% on an artistic work, it should either enter the public domain automatically or be licensable for a nominal amount.  (Perhaps the percentage or absolute amount will vary based on the kind of work.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is what the goal of copyright law is .
If the goal is to encourage innovation and ensure property owners get paid when their work is used , then there 's no need for huge punitive damages .
( You still want some , because the system ca n't send everybody who breaks the law a bill , since it does n't know who they are , so it has to discourage people from breaking the law .
) But if we somehow feel that this is a fundamental and huge violation of the copyright rights and that those rights are very highly valued by our society , then an extreme penalty might be justified .
In either case , as the court rightly pointed out , $ 54K is more than sufficient .
( Especially absent showing of commercialization or massive redistribution .
) Personally , I 'm a fan of a sort of sliding scale of copyright protections--enough to encourage anyone to innovate , but not so much that things do n't enter the public domain .
When someone has made the greater of $ 10M or Cost + 100 \ % on an artistic work , it should either enter the public domain automatically or be licensable for a nominal amount .
( Perhaps the percentage or absolute amount will vary based on the kind of work .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is what the goal of copyright law is.
If the goal is to encourage innovation and ensure property owners get paid when their work is used, then there's no need for huge punitive damages.
(You still want some, because the system can't send everybody who breaks the law a bill, since it doesn't know who they are, so it has to discourage people from breaking the law.
)  But if we somehow feel that this is a fundamental and huge violation of the copyright rights and that those rights are very highly valued by our society, then an extreme penalty might be justified.
In either case, as the court rightly pointed out, $54K is more than sufficient.
(Especially absent showing of commercialization or massive redistribution.
)Personally, I'm a fan of a sort of sliding scale of copyright protections--enough to encourage anyone to innovate, but not so much that things don't enter the public domain.
When someone has made the greater of $10M or Cost+100\% on an artistic work, it should either enter the public domain automatically or be licensable for a nominal amount.
(Perhaps the percentage or absolute amount will vary based on the kind of work.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957640</id>
	<title>Re:Mispleling in summory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264771740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with slashdot is that the ADDers see just one typo, which everyone has spotted anyway, and it derails the entire topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with slashdot is that the ADDers see just one typo , which everyone has spotted anyway , and it derails the entire topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with slashdot is that the ADDers see just one typo, which everyone has spotted anyway, and it derails the entire topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957884</id>
	<title>My sentiments exactly</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1264773120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.</i> That's what I've always felt about people suing me... If I'm going to declare bankruptcy to get out of the debt anyway, does it really matter how much they are suing me for? They are going to collect the same amount anyway! (This might not be true in this case, "Intentional Torts" may not be dischargable in bankruptcy, but IANAL so I couldn't tell you whether or not that applies to this case.)<br> <br>As a side note, I once got out of a $500,000 lawsuit by taking the opposing lawyer outside, pointing to my old ragged motorhome, and telling him "That's my only asset; I'm living in it, and I'm pretty sure I owe more on it than it is worth... you're welcome to try to take it away from me, but you're going to have to find it first! Now, how much effort do you really want to put into this case?" Once you convince them their best case scenario will simply drive you into bankruptcy and they will collect nothing anyway, they're not so keen on taking cases on contingency anymore -- especially meritless ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it does n't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $ 25,000 or $ 1.92 million .
That 's what I 've always felt about people suing me... If I 'm going to declare bankruptcy to get out of the debt anyway , does it really matter how much they are suing me for ?
They are going to collect the same amount anyway !
( This might not be true in this case , " Intentional Torts " may not be dischargable in bankruptcy , but IANAL so I could n't tell you whether or not that applies to this case .
) As a side note , I once got out of a $ 500,000 lawsuit by taking the opposing lawyer outside , pointing to my old ragged motorhome , and telling him " That 's my only asset ; I 'm living in it , and I 'm pretty sure I owe more on it than it is worth... you 're welcome to try to take it away from me , but you 're going to have to find it first !
Now , how much effort do you really want to put into this case ?
" Once you convince them their best case scenario will simply drive you into bankruptcy and they will collect nothing anyway , they 're not so keen on taking cases on contingency anymore -- especially meritless ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.
That's what I've always felt about people suing me... If I'm going to declare bankruptcy to get out of the debt anyway, does it really matter how much they are suing me for?
They are going to collect the same amount anyway!
(This might not be true in this case, "Intentional Torts" may not be dischargable in bankruptcy, but IANAL so I couldn't tell you whether or not that applies to this case.
) As a side note, I once got out of a $500,000 lawsuit by taking the opposing lawyer outside, pointing to my old ragged motorhome, and telling him "That's my only asset; I'm living in it, and I'm pretty sure I owe more on it than it is worth... you're welcome to try to take it away from me, but you're going to have to find it first!
Now, how much effort do you really want to put into this case?
" Once you convince them their best case scenario will simply drive you into bankruptcy and they will collect nothing anyway, they're not so keen on taking cases on contingency anymore -- especially meritless ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958100</id>
	<title>Willful? What Willful</title>
	<author>bangzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264774800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article: <i>"Federal law says recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per illegally downloaded song - but a jury may raise that to as much as $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful." </i> <br> <br>
Huh? So it *is* possible to use the "cat walked on my keyboard" defense and win? How can downloading music without adhering to the defined licensing terms not be willful? Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law (no matter if if it is a good or bad law).</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " Federal law says recording companies are entitled to $ 750 to $ 30,000 per illegally downloaded song - but a jury may raise that to as much as $ 150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful .
" Huh ?
So it * is * possible to use the " cat walked on my keyboard " defense and win ?
How can downloading music without adhering to the defined licensing terms not be willful ?
Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law ( no matter if if it is a good or bad law ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "Federal law says recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per illegally downloaded song - but a jury may raise that to as much as $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful.
"   
Huh?
So it *is* possible to use the "cat walked on my keyboard" defense and win?
How can downloading music without adhering to the defined licensing terms not be willful?
Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law (no matter if if it is a good or bad law).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959094</id>
	<title>I think the RIAA are soulless bastards...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264783080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I hate the mechanism of the entire music industry today, but am I alone in being entirely fucking sick of hearing JimmyJimJamJammieJellyJar's constant whining about how she's just an innocent lamb who never ever ever not once did a wrong thing ever in her life? If you're going to pirate shit knowing full well that it's illegal and not give a damn because "everybody's doing it and *they* don't get arrested and it's not like I'm shoplifting and those haxers on Slushdart said I'm just sharing anyway," then you need to man the fuck up and face the music (heh...) when you finally get nailed. Civil disobedience doesn't mean a thing if you try to hide behind the skirt of Lady Justice the moment your hair gets mussed. Either you're a martyr for the cause or you're just some fat cheapskate who wanted free music because it was easy. Pick one, you bloviating sow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I hate the mechanism of the entire music industry today , but am I alone in being entirely fucking sick of hearing JimmyJimJamJammieJellyJar 's constant whining about how she 's just an innocent lamb who never ever ever not once did a wrong thing ever in her life ?
If you 're going to pirate shit knowing full well that it 's illegal and not give a damn because " everybody 's doing it and * they * do n't get arrested and it 's not like I 'm shoplifting and those haxers on Slushdart said I 'm just sharing anyway , " then you need to man the fuck up and face the music ( heh... ) when you finally get nailed .
Civil disobedience does n't mean a thing if you try to hide behind the skirt of Lady Justice the moment your hair gets mussed .
Either you 're a martyr for the cause or you 're just some fat cheapskate who wanted free music because it was easy .
Pick one , you bloviating sow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I hate the mechanism of the entire music industry today, but am I alone in being entirely fucking sick of hearing JimmyJimJamJammieJellyJar's constant whining about how she's just an innocent lamb who never ever ever not once did a wrong thing ever in her life?
If you're going to pirate shit knowing full well that it's illegal and not give a damn because "everybody's doing it and *they* don't get arrested and it's not like I'm shoplifting and those haxers on Slushdart said I'm just sharing anyway," then you need to man the fuck up and face the music (heh...) when you finally get nailed.
Civil disobedience doesn't mean a thing if you try to hide behind the skirt of Lady Justice the moment your hair gets mussed.
Either you're a martyr for the cause or you're just some fat cheapskate who wanted free music because it was easy.
Pick one, you bloviating sow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30961026</id>
	<title>Re:Mispleling in summory</title>
	<author>Anarchduke</author>
	<datestamp>1264852800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be such a subtractor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be such a subtractor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be such a subtractor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959824</id>
	<title>anti-RIAA contest</title>
	<author>spikenerd</author>
	<datestamp>1264792080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The anti-RIAA sentiment is so high these days, I'll bet we could use it against them. How about we start a prize for quality free music. To enter, people would have to release a song under a Creative Commons license. People who are against by the RIAA could chip in to strengthen the prize, and all the entries would help to devalue the junk that they sell. We'd have some celebrities pick a few winning artists, and the artists would actually take home some real money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The anti-RIAA sentiment is so high these days , I 'll bet we could use it against them .
How about we start a prize for quality free music .
To enter , people would have to release a song under a Creative Commons license .
People who are against by the RIAA could chip in to strengthen the prize , and all the entries would help to devalue the junk that they sell .
We 'd have some celebrities pick a few winning artists , and the artists would actually take home some real money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The anti-RIAA sentiment is so high these days, I'll bet we could use it against them.
How about we start a prize for quality free music.
To enter, people would have to release a song under a Creative Commons license.
People who are against by the RIAA could chip in to strengthen the prize, and all the entries would help to devalue the junk that they sell.
We'd have some celebrities pick a few winning artists, and the artists would actually take home some real money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958792</id>
	<title>Re:its not 'greed'.</title>
	<author>Derosian</author>
	<datestamp>1264780800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  <br> <br>No seriously this is very well put, and I would like to hear more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter .
No seriously this is very well put , and I would like to hear more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
No seriously this is very well put, and I would like to hear more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958288</id>
	<title>Re:Appeal the constitutionality?</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1264776180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If a person is caught stealing one song, then the RIAA would get $0.99 USD</p></div><p>What about when they upload the song? As far as I know, the cost of a license from any major label to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of a song goes for considerably more then $0.99. The cost of that kind of license would be much more sensible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a person is caught stealing one song , then the RIAA would get $ 0.99 USDWhat about when they upload the song ?
As far as I know , the cost of a license from any major label to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of a song goes for considerably more then $ 0.99 .
The cost of that kind of license would be much more sensible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If a person is caught stealing one song, then the RIAA would get $0.99 USDWhat about when they upload the song?
As far as I know, the cost of a license from any major label to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of a song goes for considerably more then $0.99.
The cost of that kind of license would be much more sensible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958904</id>
	<title>Re:Mispleling in summory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264781640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>God BLESS this woman.</p></div><p>Huh? God bless Gandhi - he refused to bow down to the 'Evil-Ones' of his situation, but didn't try to lie, cheat, or blame his kids for anything.</p><p>Seriously, blaming your children of something because they can't be persecuted isn't worthy of any admiration. If a kid blames someone else for something she did, I'd spank her.</p><p>Being stubborn in the face of adversity is not admirable when you only do it because all other attempts of squirming away have failed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>God BLESS this woman.Huh ?
God bless Gandhi - he refused to bow down to the 'Evil-Ones ' of his situation , but did n't try to lie , cheat , or blame his kids for anything.Seriously , blaming your children of something because they ca n't be persecuted is n't worthy of any admiration .
If a kid blames someone else for something she did , I 'd spank her.Being stubborn in the face of adversity is not admirable when you only do it because all other attempts of squirming away have failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God BLESS this woman.Huh?
God bless Gandhi - he refused to bow down to the 'Evil-Ones' of his situation, but didn't try to lie, cheat, or blame his kids for anything.Seriously, blaming your children of something because they can't be persecuted isn't worthy of any admiration.
If a kid blames someone else for something she did, I'd spank her.Being stubborn in the face of adversity is not admirable when you only do it because all other attempts of squirming away have failed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957658</id>
	<title>Re:Mispleling in summory</title>
	<author>fatalwall</author>
	<datestamp>1264771800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its not a misspelling. Its forgetting to put million after the first number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its not a misspelling .
Its forgetting to put million after the first number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its not a misspelling.
Its forgetting to put million after the first number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959970</id>
	<title>Re:Willful? What Willful</title>
	<author>chiguy</author>
	<datestamp>1264794240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, ignorance is no defense for breaking the law, UNLESS the law says it is.</p><p>Many laws require "willful" misconduct for prosecution.</p><p>A simple example is that it's illegal to lie under oath, but it's not illegal to be wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , ignorance is no defense for breaking the law , UNLESS the law says it is.Many laws require " willful " misconduct for prosecution.A simple example is that it 's illegal to lie under oath , but it 's not illegal to be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, ignorance is no defense for breaking the law, UNLESS the law says it is.Many laws require "willful" misconduct for prosecution.A simple example is that it's illegal to lie under oath, but it's not illegal to be wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958084</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264774620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "<br>1.92 million dollars for 24 songs downloaded (total price less than $24) is certainly an excessive fine; and considering that most people won't make $2 million total in their lifetimes, is a cruel punishment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Excessive bail shall not be required , nor excessive fines imposed , nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted .
" 1.92 million dollars for 24 songs downloaded ( total price less than $ 24 ) is certainly an excessive fine ; and considering that most people wo n't make $ 2 million total in their lifetimes , is a cruel punishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
"1.92 million dollars for 24 songs downloaded (total price less than $24) is certainly an excessive fine; and considering that most people won't make $2 million total in their lifetimes, is a cruel punishment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959648</id>
	<title>Re:its not 'greed'.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264789380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, you are welcome to create your own music and give it away for free and with that "internet" thing, distribution direct to your listeners is now easier than ever.   Artists CHOOSE to sign on the bottom line because they understand that while it's possible to put up a myspace page with some mp3s and hope for the best, the reality is that just like stephen king could not be expected to be an expert at papermaking, ad-placement, and trucking (all vital skills necessary towards making him as successful as he is, internet or no) labels continue to provide immense value to the artist.  your fucking pathetic rhetoric about 'middle ages' be damned.  If you think there are market inefficiencies to be exploited - as i said, make your own music and set it free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , you are welcome to create your own music and give it away for free and with that " internet " thing , distribution direct to your listeners is now easier than ever .
Artists CHOOSE to sign on the bottom line because they understand that while it 's possible to put up a myspace page with some mp3s and hope for the best , the reality is that just like stephen king could not be expected to be an expert at papermaking , ad-placement , and trucking ( all vital skills necessary towards making him as successful as he is , internet or no ) labels continue to provide immense value to the artist .
your fucking pathetic rhetoric about 'middle ages ' be damned .
If you think there are market inefficiencies to be exploited - as i said , make your own music and set it free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, you are welcome to create your own music and give it away for free and with that "internet" thing, distribution direct to your listeners is now easier than ever.
Artists CHOOSE to sign on the bottom line because they understand that while it's possible to put up a myspace page with some mp3s and hope for the best, the reality is that just like stephen king could not be expected to be an expert at papermaking, ad-placement, and trucking (all vital skills necessary towards making him as successful as he is, internet or no) labels continue to provide immense value to the artist.
your fucking pathetic rhetoric about 'middle ages' be damned.
If you think there are market inefficiencies to be exploited - as i said, make your own music and set it free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959750</id>
	<title>Re:Appeal the constitutionality?</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1264790940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once again, $0.99 is not the amount of actual damages. That is the retail price. The clients of the RIAA would only be getting a fraction of that, and they have overhead on top of that. So, let's say roughly they net $0.05 out of a single music sale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , $ 0.99 is not the amount of actual damages .
That is the retail price .
The clients of the RIAA would only be getting a fraction of that , and they have overhead on top of that .
So , let 's say roughly they net $ 0.05 out of a single music sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, $0.99 is not the amount of actual damages.
That is the retail price.
The clients of the RIAA would only be getting a fraction of that, and they have overhead on top of that.
So, let's say roughly they net $0.05 out of a single music sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957942</id>
	<title>Re:The real question is, what's the goal here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264773540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The real question is what the goal of copyright law is.</i> My take would be that one the original artist is dead, further extensions of the copyright on their work do very little to encourage them to produce more. The copyright on Micky Mouse should have died with Walt, not been extended to 75 years.<br> <br>Interesting side question: J.D. Salinger just died after writing profusely (and profanely) for over 50 years. Much of that will now presumably be published. Does the copyright start on the date he finished writing it, or on the date it is originally published? In this case, copyright law has done absolutely nothing to encourage him to produce more... why should his works still be under copyright 50 years from now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is what the goal of copyright law is .
My take would be that one the original artist is dead , further extensions of the copyright on their work do very little to encourage them to produce more .
The copyright on Micky Mouse should have died with Walt , not been extended to 75 years .
Interesting side question : J.D .
Salinger just died after writing profusely ( and profanely ) for over 50 years .
Much of that will now presumably be published .
Does the copyright start on the date he finished writing it , or on the date it is originally published ?
In this case , copyright law has done absolutely nothing to encourage him to produce more... why should his works still be under copyright 50 years from now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is what the goal of copyright law is.
My take would be that one the original artist is dead, further extensions of the copyright on their work do very little to encourage them to produce more.
The copyright on Micky Mouse should have died with Walt, not been extended to 75 years.
Interesting side question: J.D.
Salinger just died after writing profusely (and profanely) for over 50 years.
Much of that will now presumably be published.
Does the copyright start on the date he finished writing it, or on the date it is originally published?
In this case, copyright law has done absolutely nothing to encourage him to produce more... why should his works still be under copyright 50 years from now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957734</id>
	<title>Re:Mispleling in summory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RIAA offered to settle for 25 grand, with some conditions that would make the lawsuit results not apply to other trials, if I understood correctly. I believe they feared this would cause a precedent and as a consequence they'd get such small fines.</p><p>Now of course they play the good guys</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA offered to settle for 25 grand , with some conditions that would make the lawsuit results not apply to other trials , if I understood correctly .
I believe they feared this would cause a precedent and as a consequence they 'd get such small fines.Now of course they play the good guys</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA offered to settle for 25 grand, with some conditions that would make the lawsuit results not apply to other trials, if I understood correctly.
I believe they feared this would cause a precedent and as a consequence they'd get such small fines.Now of course they play the good guys</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958196</id>
	<title>its not 'greed'.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1264775460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its distortion of justice, abuse of law, and exploitation of democracy.</p><p>private interests are suppressing individual citizens to protect their near monopoly gained profits through legal system. in addition to that, they buy lawmakers and manufacture laws that will protect ill gained profits in expense of freedoms of citizens, as in the acta case.</p><p>yet still, a lot of you just label this with a simple, insufficient word, 'greed'. this is not greed. its beyond greed. it has started to become a precise replication of feudal society back in middle ages, albeit, the feudalism has democracy as a storefront. we are supposedly free, yet, as citizens, our relative wealth and liberties compared to those small minority percentage on top of the pyramid didnt change by comparison. neither did the percentages of the wealthy and the ordinary had changed. just, the average standard of living globally has changed. back in middle ages wealthy could afford stone mansions adorned with gold while eating exquisite food whereas the ordinary person would live in thatched roof wooden huts eating gritty bread and cheese, now the wealthy can afford to take private jets halfway over the world on a whim while having hundred thousand dollar champagnes whereas the ordinary person has to work his/her butt off for your average meal. everything is the same in regard to justice in the society.</p><p>now, just like everything else that has happened before and had an effect to equalize the situation, empowering the ordinary people and making them less dependent on rich overlords, internet is being suppressed on numerous excuses and grounds, one of which being 'intellectual property rights'. if you put this in a different context with different wording, like into middle ages, you would find that it has no difference from the concept of 'lord's hunting rights in the forest'. and internet is very very detrimental to those 'rights'. it empowers individuals, ordinary people can rise up to noticeable wealth without having to be subservient to any overlord on top with shareholdership or conglomerate ties, and become a threat to existing aristocracy.</p><p>no, this is not a matter of simple 'greed'. this is a matter of freedom, and unfortunately, its being fought in the same basic ideals on which it was fought back in middle ages - inequality created due to skewed ownership rights and resulting control scheme. which is unfortunate, because it shows that nothing changed in principle compared to the middle ages, despite the stage and the costumes have changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its distortion of justice , abuse of law , and exploitation of democracy.private interests are suppressing individual citizens to protect their near monopoly gained profits through legal system .
in addition to that , they buy lawmakers and manufacture laws that will protect ill gained profits in expense of freedoms of citizens , as in the acta case.yet still , a lot of you just label this with a simple , insufficient word , 'greed' .
this is not greed .
its beyond greed .
it has started to become a precise replication of feudal society back in middle ages , albeit , the feudalism has democracy as a storefront .
we are supposedly free , yet , as citizens , our relative wealth and liberties compared to those small minority percentage on top of the pyramid didnt change by comparison .
neither did the percentages of the wealthy and the ordinary had changed .
just , the average standard of living globally has changed .
back in middle ages wealthy could afford stone mansions adorned with gold while eating exquisite food whereas the ordinary person would live in thatched roof wooden huts eating gritty bread and cheese , now the wealthy can afford to take private jets halfway over the world on a whim while having hundred thousand dollar champagnes whereas the ordinary person has to work his/her butt off for your average meal .
everything is the same in regard to justice in the society.now , just like everything else that has happened before and had an effect to equalize the situation , empowering the ordinary people and making them less dependent on rich overlords , internet is being suppressed on numerous excuses and grounds , one of which being 'intellectual property rights' .
if you put this in a different context with different wording , like into middle ages , you would find that it has no difference from the concept of 'lord 's hunting rights in the forest' .
and internet is very very detrimental to those 'rights' .
it empowers individuals , ordinary people can rise up to noticeable wealth without having to be subservient to any overlord on top with shareholdership or conglomerate ties , and become a threat to existing aristocracy.no , this is not a matter of simple 'greed' .
this is a matter of freedom , and unfortunately , its being fought in the same basic ideals on which it was fought back in middle ages - inequality created due to skewed ownership rights and resulting control scheme .
which is unfortunate , because it shows that nothing changed in principle compared to the middle ages , despite the stage and the costumes have changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its distortion of justice, abuse of law, and exploitation of democracy.private interests are suppressing individual citizens to protect their near monopoly gained profits through legal system.
in addition to that, they buy lawmakers and manufacture laws that will protect ill gained profits in expense of freedoms of citizens, as in the acta case.yet still, a lot of you just label this with a simple, insufficient word, 'greed'.
this is not greed.
its beyond greed.
it has started to become a precise replication of feudal society back in middle ages, albeit, the feudalism has democracy as a storefront.
we are supposedly free, yet, as citizens, our relative wealth and liberties compared to those small minority percentage on top of the pyramid didnt change by comparison.
neither did the percentages of the wealthy and the ordinary had changed.
just, the average standard of living globally has changed.
back in middle ages wealthy could afford stone mansions adorned with gold while eating exquisite food whereas the ordinary person would live in thatched roof wooden huts eating gritty bread and cheese, now the wealthy can afford to take private jets halfway over the world on a whim while having hundred thousand dollar champagnes whereas the ordinary person has to work his/her butt off for your average meal.
everything is the same in regard to justice in the society.now, just like everything else that has happened before and had an effect to equalize the situation, empowering the ordinary people and making them less dependent on rich overlords, internet is being suppressed on numerous excuses and grounds, one of which being 'intellectual property rights'.
if you put this in a different context with different wording, like into middle ages, you would find that it has no difference from the concept of 'lord's hunting rights in the forest'.
and internet is very very detrimental to those 'rights'.
it empowers individuals, ordinary people can rise up to noticeable wealth without having to be subservient to any overlord on top with shareholdership or conglomerate ties, and become a threat to existing aristocracy.no, this is not a matter of simple 'greed'.
this is a matter of freedom, and unfortunately, its being fought in the same basic ideals on which it was fought back in middle ages - inequality created due to skewed ownership rights and resulting control scheme.
which is unfortunate, because it shows that nothing changed in principle compared to the middle ages, despite the stage and the costumes have changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500</id>
	<title>Mispleling in summory</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1264770960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 fine for file sharing to $54,000</p></div><p>That wouldn't be a reduction.  That would be a dramatic increase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset 's $ 1.92 fine for file sharing to $ 54,000That would n't be a reduction .
That would be a dramatic increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 fine for file sharing to $54,000That wouldn't be a reduction.
That would be a dramatic increase.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957922</id>
	<title>Appeal the constitutionality?</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1264773420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless the RIAA has figured out a way to successfully amend the U.S. Constitution through the courts(hint: they cannot), then there is not a damned thing that is going to change.  I believe that corporations should be limited to receiving the real losses for IP theft.  If a person is caught stealing one song, then the RIAA would get $0.99 USD, and if someone steals a movie, then the MPAA would get the cost of a movie ticket or DVD/Blu-ray disc, depending on which version is stolen.  It is only fair, as these assholes do not deserve to turn a higher profit on each violation because the hire the right lawyer.</p><p>Now, any fines the state places on the violator is a different story, but that is up to the people, not the MPAA, or RIAA, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless the RIAA has figured out a way to successfully amend the U.S. Constitution through the courts ( hint : they can not ) , then there is not a damned thing that is going to change .
I believe that corporations should be limited to receiving the real losses for IP theft .
If a person is caught stealing one song , then the RIAA would get $ 0.99 USD , and if someone steals a movie , then the MPAA would get the cost of a movie ticket or DVD/Blu-ray disc , depending on which version is stolen .
It is only fair , as these assholes do not deserve to turn a higher profit on each violation because the hire the right lawyer.Now , any fines the state places on the violator is a different story , but that is up to the people , not the MPAA , or RIAA , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless the RIAA has figured out a way to successfully amend the U.S. Constitution through the courts(hint: they cannot), then there is not a damned thing that is going to change.
I believe that corporations should be limited to receiving the real losses for IP theft.
If a person is caught stealing one song, then the RIAA would get $0.99 USD, and if someone steals a movie, then the MPAA would get the cost of a movie ticket or DVD/Blu-ray disc, depending on which version is stolen.
It is only fair, as these assholes do not deserve to turn a higher profit on each violation because the hire the right lawyer.Now, any fines the state places on the violator is a different story, but that is up to the people, not the MPAA, or RIAA, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958580</id>
	<title>Filter error: You can type more than that for your</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264778880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958348</id>
	<title>$1.92 Too Much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$1.92? It's $1.92 more than the bastards deserve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 1.92 ?
It 's $ 1.92 more than the bastards deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$1.92?
It's $1.92 more than the bastards deserve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959188</id>
	<title>Hold on...</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1264783980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that 1.92 cents or 1.92 dollars?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that 1.92 cents or 1.92 dollars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that 1.92 cents or 1.92 dollars?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958360</id>
	<title>Re:My sentiments exactly</title>
	<author>Bios\_Hakr</author>
	<datestamp>1264776780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA isn't hiring lawyers; they are lawyers.  They really have nothing to lose from dragging this out as long as possible.</p><p>Even if the $54k settlement goes to the SCOTUS, it will stand.  And $54k is plenty of deterrent for 90\% of the US.  That's about 10~15 years of garnished wages for most people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA is n't hiring lawyers ; they are lawyers .
They really have nothing to lose from dragging this out as long as possible.Even if the $ 54k settlement goes to the SCOTUS , it will stand .
And $ 54k is plenty of deterrent for 90 \ % of the US .
That 's about 10 ~ 15 years of garnished wages for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA isn't hiring lawyers; they are lawyers.
They really have nothing to lose from dragging this out as long as possible.Even if the $54k settlement goes to the SCOTUS, it will stand.
And $54k is plenty of deterrent for 90\% of the US.
That's about 10~15 years of garnished wages for most people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957874</id>
	<title>Re:The real question is, what's the goal here?</title>
	<author>unwastaken</author>
	<datestamp>1264773120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting idea, but due to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_accounting" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Hollywood Accounting</a> [wikipedia.org] it would probably never be feasible in practice.

I'd accept a return to reasonable copyright terms as an alternative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting idea , but due to Hollywood Accounting [ wikipedia.org ] it would probably never be feasible in practice .
I 'd accept a return to reasonable copyright terms as an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting idea, but due to Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] it would probably never be feasible in practice.
I'd accept a return to reasonable copyright terms as an alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30980090</id>
	<title>Whatever the outcome</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1265035200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think she has accepted there is no justice in her case and has said to all her family to sell everything she has, and keep the money<br>for her kids, and that if she goes to jail, they will not get a penny. That is what I would do, until the lawyers can sort out how this<br>stupid case came to light, or when someone uncovers the judge was paid off by guess who....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think she has accepted there is no justice in her case and has said to all her family to sell everything she has , and keep the moneyfor her kids , and that if she goes to jail , they will not get a penny .
That is what I would do , until the lawyers can sort out how thisstupid case came to light , or when someone uncovers the judge was paid off by guess who... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think she has accepted there is no justice in her case and has said to all her family to sell everything she has, and keep the moneyfor her kids, and that if she goes to jail, they will not get a penny.
That is what I would do, until the lawyers can sort out how thisstupid case came to light, or when someone uncovers the judge was paid off by guess who....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959122</id>
	<title>Re:Appeal the constitutionality?</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1264783260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a good question.  What does a license to play a song on the radio cost?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a good question .
What does a license to play a song on the radio cost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a good question.
What does a license to play a song on the radio cost?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958288</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30961026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30960932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0013201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30962472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30961026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30960932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30958880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30957942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0013201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0013201.30959824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
