<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_03_2347208</id>
	<title>Landmark Ruling Gives Australian ISPs Safe Harbor</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1265200380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>omnibit writes <i>"Today, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its <a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/166348,iinet-wins-film-industrys-case-torn-to-shreds.aspx">ruling in favor of the country's third largest ISP, iiNet</a>. The case was backed by some of the largest media companies, including 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. They accused iiNet of approving piracy by ignoring thousands of infringement notices. Justice Cowdroy said that the 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement' and 'copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet... iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [is] not responsible for BitTorrent system.' Many Internet providers had been concerned that an adverse ruling would have forced themselves to police Internet traffic and comply with the demands of copyright owners without any legislative or judicial oversight."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>omnibit writes " Today , the Federal Court of Australia handed down its ruling in favor of the country 's third largest ISP , iiNet .
The case was backed by some of the largest media companies , including 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. They accused iiNet of approving piracy by ignoring thousands of infringement notices .
Justice Cowdroy said that the 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement ' and 'copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent , not the Internet... iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [ is ] not responsible for BitTorrent system .
' Many Internet providers had been concerned that an adverse ruling would have forced themselves to police Internet traffic and comply with the demands of copyright owners without any legislative or judicial oversight .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>omnibit writes "Today, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its ruling in favor of the country's third largest ISP, iiNet.
The case was backed by some of the largest media companies, including 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. They accused iiNet of approving piracy by ignoring thousands of infringement notices.
Justice Cowdroy said that the 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement' and 'copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet... iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [is] not responsible for BitTorrent system.
' Many Internet providers had been concerned that an adverse ruling would have forced themselves to police Internet traffic and comply with the demands of copyright owners without any legislative or judicial oversight.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017982</id>
	<title>Re:sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264950120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>"copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet...iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [is] not responsible for BitTorrent system."</p></div></blockquote><p> The important part is what isn't said.  The ruling didn't say that there was no obligation to police a certain part of the net for copyright violations, just that the ISP wasn't responsible for BitTorrent and thus wasn't obligated to police that part of the net.</p></div><p>i would also add that blaming on bittorrent isn't a true statement either.   bittorrent is the plumbing, not an illegal technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent , not the Internet...iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [ is ] not responsible for BitTorrent system .
" The important part is what is n't said .
The ruling did n't say that there was no obligation to police a certain part of the net for copyright violations , just that the ISP was n't responsible for BitTorrent and thus was n't obligated to police that part of the net.i would also add that blaming on bittorrent is n't a true statement either .
bittorrent is the plumbing , not an illegal technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet...iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [is] not responsible for BitTorrent system.
" The important part is what isn't said.
The ruling didn't say that there was no obligation to police a certain part of the net for copyright violations, just that the ISP wasn't responsible for BitTorrent and thus wasn't obligated to police that part of the net.i would also add that blaming on bittorrent isn't a true statement either.
bittorrent is the plumbing, not an illegal technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017726</id>
	<title>Re:Good news, but</title>
	<author>StrahdVZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264947720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My apologies, factors have changed overnight. He will indeed attempt to repeal the laws immediately.</p><p>I guess I was just having a hard time believing that common sense could prevail twice in one day....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My apologies , factors have changed overnight .
He will indeed attempt to repeal the laws immediately.I guess I was just having a hard time believing that common sense could prevail twice in one day... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My apologies, factors have changed overnight.
He will indeed attempt to repeal the laws immediately.I guess I was just having a hard time believing that common sense could prevail twice in one day....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019770</id>
	<title>Re:Statement in full from the losing party</title>
	<author>wintermute000</author>
	<datestamp>1265274000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Today's decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,"</p><p>Seeing as our film industry is pretty small + vast majority of piracy is for overseas content (the local content is mostly live TV stuff - sports, news, fluff reality and cooking shows etc. that nobody pirates, you just watch it if its on etc. and if you pirate neighbours then god bless your simple mind) that statement is kinda like sweatshop workers protesting that fake designer gear is depriving them of their 2 bucks a day.</p><p>As for iinet, good on them, they're a good isp, shame about the inevitable appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Today 's decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry , " Seeing as our film industry is pretty small + vast majority of piracy is for overseas content ( the local content is mostly live TV stuff - sports , news , fluff reality and cooking shows etc .
that nobody pirates , you just watch it if its on etc .
and if you pirate neighbours then god bless your simple mind ) that statement is kinda like sweatshop workers protesting that fake designer gear is depriving them of their 2 bucks a day.As for iinet , good on them , they 're a good isp , shame about the inevitable appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Today's decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry,"Seeing as our film industry is pretty small + vast majority of piracy is for overseas content (the local content is mostly live TV stuff - sports, news, fluff reality and cooking shows etc.
that nobody pirates, you just watch it if its on etc.
and if you pirate neighbours then god bless your simple mind) that statement is kinda like sweatshop workers protesting that fake designer gear is depriving them of their 2 bucks a day.As for iinet, good on them, they're a good isp, shame about the inevitable appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31020170</id>
	<title>Re:Suck it, AFACT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265279700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And welcome to slashdot.org.au, where every story posted must have at least one Australian connection.</p><p>Patriotism is a wonderful thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And welcome to slashdot.org.au , where every story posted must have at least one Australian connection.Patriotism is a wonderful thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And welcome to slashdot.org.au, where every story posted must have at least one Australian connection.Patriotism is a wonderful thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017322</id>
	<title>SECOND POST !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018950</id>
	<title>Re:Good news, but</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1264959720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Sigh&gt; you mean the SA law that has already been beaten down by the public, to the point where the SA AG Atkinson has said it will not be enforced at the upcoming election and will be repealed after?</p><p>Do try to keep up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Sigh &gt; you mean the SA law that has already been beaten down by the public , to the point where the SA AG Atkinson has said it will not be enforced at the upcoming election and will be repealed after ? Do try to keep up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Sigh&gt; you mean the SA law that has already been beaten down by the public, to the point where the SA AG Atkinson has said it will not be enforced at the upcoming election and will be repealed after?Do try to keep up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019812</id>
	<title>Re:Suck it, AFACT</title>
	<author>Smegly</author>
	<datestamp>1265274480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The case was backed by some of the largest media companies, including 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros.</p></div><p>Irresponsible behavior  (some would say - criminal) and total lack of respect for our internet from these last century media company behemoths really does make it <i>that</i> much easier to justify going out of our way to never ever pay them a penny - on moral grounds.  Oh they will still get paid, and paid very well for doing nothing, what with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private\_copying\_levy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">our taxes going right to their pockets</a> [wikipedia.org]. What a convenient business model! However a serious correction in market capitalization is obviously in order for these people - they apparently will not be content <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1466468&amp;cid=30322412" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">until they destroy the internet</a> [slashdot.org].</p><p>As an aside, in parts of Europe they released the Disney channel last year or so to free view on TDT. Previously it was cable TV subscriber only where the post-war economic crisis was causing their viewer ratings to seriously drop. A generation of little EU'lings growing up without crying for their "Micky Mouse" tee-shirts or wanting to go to "WarnerBros world" must have scared the absolute goofies out of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The case was backed by some of the largest media companies , including 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros.Irresponsible behavior ( some would say - criminal ) and total lack of respect for our internet from these last century media company behemoths really does make it that much easier to justify going out of our way to never ever pay them a penny - on moral grounds .
Oh they will still get paid , and paid very well for doing nothing , what with our taxes going right to their pockets [ wikipedia.org ] .
What a convenient business model !
However a serious correction in market capitalization is obviously in order for these people - they apparently will not be content until they destroy the internet [ slashdot.org ] .As an aside , in parts of Europe they released the Disney channel last year or so to free view on TDT .
Previously it was cable TV subscriber only where the post-war economic crisis was causing their viewer ratings to seriously drop .
A generation of little EU'lings growing up without crying for their " Micky Mouse " tee-shirts or wanting to go to " WarnerBros world " must have scared the absolute goofies out of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The case was backed by some of the largest media companies, including 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros.Irresponsible behavior  (some would say - criminal) and total lack of respect for our internet from these last century media company behemoths really does make it that much easier to justify going out of our way to never ever pay them a penny - on moral grounds.
Oh they will still get paid, and paid very well for doing nothing, what with our taxes going right to their pockets [wikipedia.org].
What a convenient business model!
However a serious correction in market capitalization is obviously in order for these people - they apparently will not be content until they destroy the internet [slashdot.org].As an aside, in parts of Europe they released the Disney channel last year or so to free view on TDT.
Previously it was cable TV subscriber only where the post-war economic crisis was causing their viewer ratings to seriously drop.
A generation of little EU'lings growing up without crying for their "Micky Mouse" tee-shirts or wanting to go to "WarnerBros world" must have scared the absolute goofies out of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31021354</id>
	<title>Links of doom</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1265293860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if only we can explain that trackers don't hold any content, only a means for people to connect to eachother, and that P2P networks aren't inherently evil, that'd be great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if only we can explain that trackers do n't hold any content , only a means for people to connect to eachother , and that P2P networks are n't inherently evil , that 'd be great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if only we can explain that trackers don't hold any content, only a means for people to connect to eachother, and that P2P networks aren't inherently evil, that'd be great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31020216</id>
	<title>Re:The future is still undetermined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265280600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Justice Cowdroy is experienced - and as he did not summarily dismiss this case, tried hard to please his masters. However he put the law first. The decision and logic will hold, and Federal court appeals are very much likely to fail.<br>I want to know how COST's were awarded, and now things are clear, if Victorians can sue the shit out of illegal privacy breaches. (Only in Victoria is stolen or illegally gained privacy information inadmissible).</p><p>Before the politicians get bought off to do something, they should know they will be authorizing themselves to be bugged and tracked. If I'm and ISP, I can choose, at election time, to make a lot of troble for candidates (unless the don't use a computer).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Justice Cowdroy is experienced - and as he did not summarily dismiss this case , tried hard to please his masters .
However he put the law first .
The decision and logic will hold , and Federal court appeals are very much likely to fail.I want to know how COST 's were awarded , and now things are clear , if Victorians can sue the shit out of illegal privacy breaches .
( Only in Victoria is stolen or illegally gained privacy information inadmissible ) .Before the politicians get bought off to do something , they should know they will be authorizing themselves to be bugged and tracked .
If I 'm and ISP , I can choose , at election time , to make a lot of troble for candidates ( unless the do n't use a computer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Justice Cowdroy is experienced - and as he did not summarily dismiss this case, tried hard to please his masters.
However he put the law first.
The decision and logic will hold, and Federal court appeals are very much likely to fail.I want to know how COST's were awarded, and now things are clear, if Victorians can sue the shit out of illegal privacy breaches.
(Only in Victoria is stolen or illegally gained privacy information inadmissible).Before the politicians get bought off to do something, they should know they will be authorizing themselves to be bugged and tracked.
If I'm and ISP, I can choose, at election time, to make a lot of troble for candidates (unless the don't use a computer).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31020520</id>
	<title>Pirates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265284560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iiNet - pronounced aye-aye-net? Pass me my parrot and wooden leg...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iiNet - pronounced aye-aye-net ?
Pass me my parrot and wooden leg.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iiNet - pronounced aye-aye-net?
Pass me my parrot and wooden leg...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018108</id>
	<title>Loved the line</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1264951140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. <br>The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts."<br>
From <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html" title="austlii.edu.au">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html</a> [austlii.edu.au] <br>
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (includes summary) (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24 (4 February 2010)</htmltext>
<tokenext>'The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another .
The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee , or the authorisation of those acts .
" From http : //www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html [ austlii.edu.au ] Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited ( includes summary ) ( No .
3 ) [ 2010 ] FCA 24 ( 4 February 2010 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another.
The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts.
"
From http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html [austlii.edu.au] 
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (includes summary) (No.
3) [2010] FCA 24 (4 February 2010)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017748</id>
	<title>The future is still undetermined</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264947900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Issue was decided by a single judge, which means the likelihood of appeal to the full bench of the Federal court and the high court after that is 100\%.

I think this is a good day for Australian ISPs.

And despite the whinging from AFACT it does not protect pirates since the copyright holders have had the mechanism of going to the court for a court order to name an ISP subscriber for years. They just elected not to use it and tried to bully subscribers with infringement notices. And any ISP that didnt pass on these notices were run over the coals by AFACT as this case has demonstrated. But what this case demonstrates is that AFACT is not above the law.

However I can see the Government tightening the legislation at the end of this case making any decision by the high court moot when it gets reversed by the incompetent Conroy and his band of merry men</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Issue was decided by a single judge , which means the likelihood of appeal to the full bench of the Federal court and the high court after that is 100 \ % .
I think this is a good day for Australian ISPs .
And despite the whinging from AFACT it does not protect pirates since the copyright holders have had the mechanism of going to the court for a court order to name an ISP subscriber for years .
They just elected not to use it and tried to bully subscribers with infringement notices .
And any ISP that didnt pass on these notices were run over the coals by AFACT as this case has demonstrated .
But what this case demonstrates is that AFACT is not above the law .
However I can see the Government tightening the legislation at the end of this case making any decision by the high court moot when it gets reversed by the incompetent Conroy and his band of merry men</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Issue was decided by a single judge, which means the likelihood of appeal to the full bench of the Federal court and the high court after that is 100\%.
I think this is a good day for Australian ISPs.
And despite the whinging from AFACT it does not protect pirates since the copyright holders have had the mechanism of going to the court for a court order to name an ISP subscriber for years.
They just elected not to use it and tried to bully subscribers with infringement notices.
And any ISP that didnt pass on these notices were run over the coals by AFACT as this case has demonstrated.
But what this case demonstrates is that AFACT is not above the law.
However I can see the Government tightening the legislation at the end of this case making any decision by the high court moot when it gets reversed by the incompetent Conroy and his band of merry men</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017440</id>
	<title>Now we'll see what happens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264945620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will be interesting to see if the studios take up a campaign of harassment lawsuits against individuals in AU. At least ISPs won't be foisted with another short-sighted compliance issue - now all us Aussies need to do is avoid Stephen Conroy's mandatory internet filtering debacle.... In either case, this is a great thing for industry: well done iiNet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be interesting to see if the studios take up a campaign of harassment lawsuits against individuals in AU .
At least ISPs wo n't be foisted with another short-sighted compliance issue - now all us Aussies need to do is avoid Stephen Conroy 's mandatory internet filtering debacle.... In either case , this is a great thing for industry : well done iiNet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be interesting to see if the studios take up a campaign of harassment lawsuits against individuals in AU.
At least ISPs won't be foisted with another short-sighted compliance issue - now all us Aussies need to do is avoid Stephen Conroy's mandatory internet filtering debacle.... In either case, this is a great thing for industry: well done iiNet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017380</id>
	<title>sudden outbreak of common sense.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1264945260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is really a great step in the right direction for Australia!  Time to break out the suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really a great step in the right direction for Australia !
Time to break out the suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really a great step in the right direction for Australia!
Time to break out the suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358</id>
	<title>Good news, but</title>
	<author>Karsaroth</author>
	<datestamp>1264945200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>we still have a proposed Internet Filter, no R18+ rating for video games, and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode. We have a long way to go yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we still have a proposed Internet Filter , no R18 + rating for video games , and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode .
We have a long way to go yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we still have a proposed Internet Filter, no R18+ rating for video games, and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode.
We have a long way to go yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017320</id>
	<title>Prepare for the appeals!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This case is probably not over yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case is probably not over yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case is probably not over yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018688</id>
	<title>Re:statement from the losing party</title>
	<author>dakameleon</author>
	<datestamp>1264956840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Dey tuk er jeb! Won't someone think of the jeb?</p></div><p>Where the hell do you think this is from, New Zealand?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Dey tuk er jeb !
Wo n't someone think of the jeb ? Where the hell do you think this is from , New Zealand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Dey tuk er jeb!
Won't someone think of the jeb?Where the hell do you think this is from, New Zealand?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516</id>
	<title>statement from the losing party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264946160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Speaking on behalf of the Australian and US film companies that launched the action, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director, Neil Gane, said he was disappointed by the Court's decision.</p><p>"Today's decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry," he said.</p><p>"But we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centred on the court's interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISPs ability to control them.</p><p>"We are confident that the government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network.</p><p>"We will now take the time to review the decision before making further comment on next steps," he said.</p></div></blockquote><p>Translation:</p><p>1. Dey tuk er jeb! Won't someone think of the jeb?</p><p>2. Never should have allowed testimony about how the Internet works.</p><p>3. OK, fuck the courts, we'll just buy a few politicians. We'll tell 'em it's about protecting Australian jobs and about protecting de widdle chiwdwen.</p><p>4. Need to work out which politicians to buy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking on behalf of the Australian and US film companies that launched the action , Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director , Neil Gane , said he was disappointed by the Court 's decision .
" Today 's decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry , " he said .
" But we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centred on the court 's interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISPs ability to control them .
" We are confident that the government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network .
" We will now take the time to review the decision before making further comment on next steps , " he said.Translation : 1 .
Dey tuk er jeb !
Wo n't someone think of the jeb ? 2 .
Never should have allowed testimony about how the Internet works.3 .
OK , fuck the courts , we 'll just buy a few politicians .
We 'll tell 'em it 's about protecting Australian jobs and about protecting de widdle chiwdwen.4 .
Need to work out which politicians to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking on behalf of the Australian and US film companies that launched the action, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director, Neil Gane, said he was disappointed by the Court's decision.
"Today's decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry," he said.
"But we believe this decision was based on a technical finding centred on the court's interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISPs ability to control them.
"We are confident that the government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network.
"We will now take the time to review the decision before making further comment on next steps," he said.Translation:1.
Dey tuk er jeb!
Won't someone think of the jeb?2.
Never should have allowed testimony about how the Internet works.3.
OK, fuck the courts, we'll just buy a few politicians.
We'll tell 'em it's about protecting Australian jobs and about protecting de widdle chiwdwen.4.
Need to work out which politicians to buy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019400</id>
	<title>Re:Users only infringe *once* per file</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1264965720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion, making available is close to publishing. It is surely debatable whether "making available" is copyright infringement. I think the consensus here is that "publishing" a work that you have no copyright (license) of is copyright infringement. Then the question is how would "making available" differ from "publishing", and how would this clear one from infringement?
</p><p>If I were to take a book (which is under copyright, and not mine) and make a dozen copies of that. As long as I keep those in my house and do not show it to anyone, it may fall under "fair use" depending on your jurisdiction. Actually probably this is already infringement but that's besides the point.
</p><p>Now I go sit on a busy street corner, with those books on a table in front of me, for anyone who comes by to take a copy from me. I allow them, do not charge for the paper and printing cost or anything, that's my decision. Is this publishing or making available? What if no-one takes a copy, am I suddenly clear of copyright infringement?
</p><p>Similar for when I would take this book, scan it electronically, make a torrent out of it, and publish it on a torrent site. Am I merely making it available? Am I publishing? And if so: what is the difference between "making available" and "publishing"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion , making available is close to publishing .
It is surely debatable whether " making available " is copyright infringement .
I think the consensus here is that " publishing " a work that you have no copyright ( license ) of is copyright infringement .
Then the question is how would " making available " differ from " publishing " , and how would this clear one from infringement ?
If I were to take a book ( which is under copyright , and not mine ) and make a dozen copies of that .
As long as I keep those in my house and do not show it to anyone , it may fall under " fair use " depending on your jurisdiction .
Actually probably this is already infringement but that 's besides the point .
Now I go sit on a busy street corner , with those books on a table in front of me , for anyone who comes by to take a copy from me .
I allow them , do not charge for the paper and printing cost or anything , that 's my decision .
Is this publishing or making available ?
What if no-one takes a copy , am I suddenly clear of copyright infringement ?
Similar for when I would take this book , scan it electronically , make a torrent out of it , and publish it on a torrent site .
Am I merely making it available ?
Am I publishing ?
And if so : what is the difference between " making available " and " publishing " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion, making available is close to publishing.
It is surely debatable whether "making available" is copyright infringement.
I think the consensus here is that "publishing" a work that you have no copyright (license) of is copyright infringement.
Then the question is how would "making available" differ from "publishing", and how would this clear one from infringement?
If I were to take a book (which is under copyright, and not mine) and make a dozen copies of that.
As long as I keep those in my house and do not show it to anyone, it may fall under "fair use" depending on your jurisdiction.
Actually probably this is already infringement but that's besides the point.
Now I go sit on a busy street corner, with those books on a table in front of me, for anyone who comes by to take a copy from me.
I allow them, do not charge for the paper and printing cost or anything, that's my decision.
Is this publishing or making available?
What if no-one takes a copy, am I suddenly clear of copyright infringement?
Similar for when I would take this book, scan it electronically, make a torrent out of it, and publish it on a torrent site.
Am I merely making it available?
Am I publishing?
And if so: what is the difference between "making available" and "publishing"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018664</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264956660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This had NOTHING to do with Ste<b>ph</b>en convoy.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Wrong...<br> <br>

Twice...<br> <br>

Justice Dennis Cowdroy was the presiding judge over the AFACT vs iinet case.<br> <br>

Minister Ste<b>ph</b>en Conroy had commented on the case, against iinet (who are one of the principal opponents against his internet filter) and was promptly smacked back into place by everyone involved (The opposition, his own party, the courts and the media) for attempting to interfere with the courts (in this country, a no no for politicians).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This had NOTHING to do with Stephen convoy .
Wrong.. . Twice.. . Justice Dennis Cowdroy was the presiding judge over the AFACT vs iinet case .
Minister Stephen Conroy had commented on the case , against iinet ( who are one of the principal opponents against his internet filter ) and was promptly smacked back into place by everyone involved ( The opposition , his own party , the courts and the media ) for attempting to interfere with the courts ( in this country , a no no for politicians ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This had NOTHING to do with Stephen convoy.
Wrong... 

Twice... 

Justice Dennis Cowdroy was the presiding judge over the AFACT vs iinet case.
Minister Stephen Conroy had commented on the case, against iinet (who are one of the principal opponents against his internet filter) and was promptly smacked back into place by everyone involved (The opposition, his own party, the courts and the media) for attempting to interfere with the courts (in this country, a no no for politicians).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31022116</id>
	<title>Ripper result.</title>
	<author>aaaurgh</author>
	<datestamp>1265298060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'bout time we had some legal sanity down here.  Now all we need is for bloody Senator Conroy to drop the internet filtering bullshit and we'll all be happy campers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'bout time we had some legal sanity down here .
Now all we need is for bloody Senator Conroy to drop the internet filtering bullshit and we 'll all be happy campers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'bout time we had some legal sanity down here.
Now all we need is for bloody Senator Conroy to drop the internet filtering bullshit and we'll all be happy campers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019348</id>
	<title>How many bytes in a Megabyte?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264964940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>63. As an aside, a &lsquo;byte&rsquo; is a term that refers to a certain amount of data, namely 8 &lsquo;bits&rsquo;. A bit is either a zero or a one, given that computers compute by means of binary code. A &lsquo;kilobyte&rsquo; is 1024 bytes, a &lsquo;megabyte&rsquo; is 1024 kilobytes and a &lsquo;gigabyte&rsquo; is 1024 megabytes.</p></div><p>Let the flamewar begin...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>63 .
As an aside , a    byte    is a term that refers to a certain amount of data , namely 8    bits    .
A bit is either a zero or a one , given that computers compute by means of binary code .
A    kilobyte    is 1024 bytes , a    megabyte    is 1024 kilobytes and a    gigabyte    is 1024 megabytes.Let the flamewar begin.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>63.
As an aside, a ‘byte’ is a term that refers to a certain amount of data, namely 8 ‘bits’.
A bit is either a zero or a one, given that computers compute by means of binary code.
A ‘kilobyte’ is 1024 bytes, a ‘megabyte’ is 1024 kilobytes and a ‘gigabyte’ is 1024 megabytes.Let the flamewar begin...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019674</id>
	<title>Re:statement from the losing party</title>
	<author>Nocterro</author>
	<datestamp>1265315940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an Australian, can I please just say "<b>NOT FUNNY</b>".</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an Australian , can I please just say " NOT FUNNY " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an Australian, can I please just say "NOT FUNNY".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31026050</id>
	<title>Re:Statement in full from the losing party</title>
	<author>Dracophile</author>
	<datestamp>1265274180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope it <i>does</i> get appealed, and then I hope that the High Court affirms the Federal Court's decision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope it does get appealed , and then I hope that the High Court affirms the Federal Court 's decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope it does get appealed, and then I hope that the High Court affirms the Federal Court's decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017880</id>
	<title>Users only infringe *once* per file</title>
	<author>tdelaney</author>
	<datestamp>1264949160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And additional important ruling (taken from the summary):</p><blockquote><div><p>10. The first step in making a finding of authorisation was to determine whether certain iiNet users infringed copyright. I have found that they have. However, in reaching that finding, I have found that the number of infringements that have occurred are significantly fewer than the number alleged by the applicants. This follows from my finding that, on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law, a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system. This excludes the possible case of a person who might repeatedly download the same file, but no evidence was presented of such unusual and unlikely circumstance. Further, I have found, on the evidence before me, that the iiNet users have made one copy of each film and have not made further copies onto physical media such as DVDs.</p></div></blockquote><p>This appears to be saying that when someone torrents, they only infringe copyright <b>once</b>. Which would make it economically unviable to go after people for casual copyright infringement via the internet, since damages would be severly limited.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And additional important ruling ( taken from the summary ) : 10 .
The first step in making a finding of authorisation was to determine whether certain iiNet users infringed copyright .
I have found that they have .
However , in reaching that finding , I have found that the number of infringements that have occurred are significantly fewer than the number alleged by the applicants .
This follows from my finding that , on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law , a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system .
This excludes the possible case of a person who might repeatedly download the same file , but no evidence was presented of such unusual and unlikely circumstance .
Further , I have found , on the evidence before me , that the iiNet users have made one copy of each film and have not made further copies onto physical media such as DVDs.This appears to be saying that when someone torrents , they only infringe copyright once .
Which would make it economically unviable to go after people for casual copyright infringement via the internet , since damages would be severly limited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And additional important ruling (taken from the summary):10.
The first step in making a finding of authorisation was to determine whether certain iiNet users infringed copyright.
I have found that they have.
However, in reaching that finding, I have found that the number of infringements that have occurred are significantly fewer than the number alleged by the applicants.
This follows from my finding that, on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law, a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system.
This excludes the possible case of a person who might repeatedly download the same file, but no evidence was presented of such unusual and unlikely circumstance.
Further, I have found, on the evidence before me, that the iiNet users have made one copy of each film and have not made further copies onto physical media such as DVDs.This appears to be saying that when someone torrents, they only infringe copyright once.
Which would make it economically unviable to go after people for casual copyright infringement via the internet, since damages would be severly limited.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019100</id>
	<title>Good luck to the people of Oz</title>
	<author>ALeader71</author>
	<datestamp>1264961460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope your civil rights struggles against your government go well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope your civil rights struggles against your government go well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope your civil rights struggles against your government go well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018546</id>
	<title>Re:Headline should read...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry but I suspect the endgame is presented in this <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htm" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htm</a> [abc.net.au] <br>
quote:<br>
<i>Outside court, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director Neil Gane said he was disappointed with the decision.
He said the case was lodged to try to protect the livelihoods of the thousands of Australians who work in the television and film industries.
<b>Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review the laws surrounding copyright infringement.</b> </i> <br> <br>
as the saying goes, who needs judges and courts when you can afford politicians.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but I suspect the endgame is presented in this http : //www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htm [ abc.net.au ] quote : Outside court , Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director Neil Gane said he was disappointed with the decision .
He said the case was lodged to try to protect the livelihoods of the thousands of Australians who work in the television and film industries .
Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review the laws surrounding copyright infringement .
as the saying goes , who needs judges and courts when you can afford politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but I suspect the endgame is presented in this http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htm [abc.net.au] 
quote:
Outside court, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director Neil Gane said he was disappointed with the decision.
He said the case was lodged to try to protect the livelihoods of the thousands of Australians who work in the television and film industries.
Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review the laws surrounding copyright infringement.
as the saying goes, who needs judges and courts when you can afford politicians.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017548</id>
	<title>Re:Headline should read...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264946400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can read the decision for yourself <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html" title="austlii.edu.au" rel="nofollow">here.</a> [austlii.edu.au] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can read the decision for yourself here .
[ austlii.edu.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can read the decision for yourself here.
[austlii.edu.au] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017610</id>
	<title>Re:Sudden outbreak of...</title>
	<author>ThinkOfaNumber</author>
	<datestamp>1264946940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I live in Australia and therefore I resemble that remark...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I live in Australia and therefore I resemble that remark.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I live in Australia and therefore I resemble that remark...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31031504</id>
	<title>Re:It was awesome how thoroughly they won too</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1265308140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was also a useful bit in the summary judgement that would be of great use to any individuals who get sued:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This follows from my finding that, on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law, <b>a person makes each film available online only once</b> through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system.</p> </div><p>In other words, each torrent counts as a single infringement, which significantly reduces the (theoretical) damages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was also a useful bit in the summary judgement that would be of great use to any individuals who get sued : This follows from my finding that , on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law , a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system .
In other words , each torrent counts as a single infringement , which significantly reduces the ( theoretical ) damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was also a useful bit in the summary judgement that would be of great use to any individuals who get sued:This follows from my finding that, on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law, a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system.
In other words, each torrent counts as a single infringement, which significantly reduces the (theoretical) damages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31022294</id>
	<title>Re:Users only infringe *once* per file</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1265298900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishing" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] would agree with you:</p><p>"Publishing: the activity of making information available for public view."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] would agree with you : " Publishing : the activity of making information available for public view .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] would agree with you:"Publishing: the activity of making information available for public view.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018056</id>
	<title>Almost there...</title>
	<author>fremean</author>
	<datestamp>1264950720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, if we could just get rid of Conroy and Aktinson - I could almost be proud to call my self an Aussie again...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if we could just get rid of Conroy and Aktinson - I could almost be proud to call my self an Aussie again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if we could just get rid of Conroy and Aktinson - I could almost be proud to call my self an Aussie again...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018092</id>
	<title>Re:Users only infringe *once* per file</title>
	<author>masher\_oz</author>
	<datestamp>1264950960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So it looks like merely making a file available isn't an infringement. This is congruent with the finding that<blockquote><div><p>20. The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts. In the circumstances outlined above and discussed in greater detail in my judgment, it is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Just because you're able to copy my file doesn't make me responsible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it looks like merely making a file available is n't an infringement .
This is congruent with the finding that20 .
The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another .
The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee , or the authorisation of those acts .
In the circumstances outlined above and discussed in greater detail in my judgment , it is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement .
Just because you 're able to copy my file does n't make me responsible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it looks like merely making a file available isn't an infringement.
This is congruent with the finding that20.
The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another.
The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts.
In the circumstances outlined above and discussed in greater detail in my judgment, it is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement.
Just because you're able to copy my file doesn't make me responsible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017402</id>
	<title>sigh</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1264945380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet...iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [is] not responsible for BitTorrent system."</p></div></blockquote><p> The important part is what isn't said.  The ruling didn't say that there was no obligation to police a certain part of the net for copyright violations, just that the ISP wasn't responsible for BitTorrent and thus wasn't obligated to police that part of the net.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent , not the Internet...iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [ is ] not responsible for BitTorrent system .
" The important part is what is n't said .
The ruling did n't say that there was no obligation to police a certain part of the net for copyright violations , just that the ISP was n't responsible for BitTorrent and thus was n't obligated to police that part of the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"copyright infringement occurred as result of use of BitTorrent, not the Internet...iiNet has no control over BitTorrent system and [is] not responsible for BitTorrent system.
" The important part is what isn't said.
The ruling didn't say that there was no obligation to police a certain part of the net for copyright violations, just that the ISP wasn't responsible for BitTorrent and thus wasn't obligated to police that part of the net.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017356</id>
	<title>It was awesome how thoroughly they won too</title>
	<author>adamkennedy</author>
	<datestamp>1264945140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I liked about this ruling was just how much they won it.</p><p>The judge said that Safe Harbour provisions did apply to the ISP... but they weren't needed because they only applied if the ISP explicit approved that user activity (which they do not)... and any infringement notices from the studios didn't need to be sent to consumers due to the Privacy Act (iiNet sends all infringement notices to the police instead)... and in any case the sending of infringement notices and subsequent banning etc was not considered a valid copyright prevention mechanism.</p><p>So yeah, they wiped the floor with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I liked about this ruling was just how much they won it.The judge said that Safe Harbour provisions did apply to the ISP... but they were n't needed because they only applied if the ISP explicit approved that user activity ( which they do not ) ... and any infringement notices from the studios did n't need to be sent to consumers due to the Privacy Act ( iiNet sends all infringement notices to the police instead ) ... and in any case the sending of infringement notices and subsequent banning etc was not considered a valid copyright prevention mechanism.So yeah , they wiped the floor with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I liked about this ruling was just how much they won it.The judge said that Safe Harbour provisions did apply to the ISP... but they weren't needed because they only applied if the ISP explicit approved that user activity (which they do not)... and any infringement notices from the studios didn't need to be sent to consumers due to the Privacy Act (iiNet sends all infringement notices to the police instead)... and in any case the sending of infringement notices and subsequent banning etc was not considered a valid copyright prevention mechanism.So yeah, they wiped the floor with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017550</id>
	<title>Error in title...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264946400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reports here this morning explicitly state that the Safe Harbour provisions were not invoked:</p><p>'Justice Cowdory agreed and said that, while iiNet was entitled to protection under the Safe Harbour provisions, there was no need for iiNet to take advantage of this as he did not find it authorised its users' copyright infringement.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reports here this morning explicitly state that the Safe Harbour provisions were not invoked : 'Justice Cowdory agreed and said that , while iiNet was entitled to protection under the Safe Harbour provisions , there was no need for iiNet to take advantage of this as he did not find it authorised its users ' copyright infringement .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reports here this morning explicitly state that the Safe Harbour provisions were not invoked:'Justice Cowdory agreed and said that, while iiNet was entitled to protection under the Safe Harbour provisions, there was no need for iiNet to take advantage of this as he did not find it authorised its users' copyright infringement.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017318</id>
	<title>Headline should read...</title>
	<author>DigiJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1264944900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Landmark Legal Decision - Law and Common Sense Align</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Landmark Legal Decision - Law and Common Sense Align</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Landmark Legal Decision - Law and Common Sense Align</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018578</id>
	<title>But they have a back door</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1264955580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.itwire.com/telecommunications-news/networks/36473-spooks-get-broader-powers-to-bug-internet" title="itwire.com">http://www.itwire.com/telecommunications-news/networks/36473-spooks-get-broader-powers-to-bug-internet</a> [itwire.com] <br>
[Australian] Spooks get broader powers to bug internet" <br>
Isp's can watch and report on traffic, gov agencies can make copies of your isp usage logs.<br>
Bt would make an isp look, then its just finding out what you looking at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.itwire.com/telecommunications-news/networks/36473-spooks-get-broader-powers-to-bug-internet [ itwire.com ] [ Australian ] Spooks get broader powers to bug internet " Isp 's can watch and report on traffic , gov agencies can make copies of your isp usage logs .
Bt would make an isp look , then its just finding out what you looking at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.itwire.com/telecommunications-news/networks/36473-spooks-get-broader-powers-to-bug-internet [itwire.com] 
[Australian] Spooks get broader powers to bug internet" 
Isp's can watch and report on traffic, gov agencies can make copies of your isp usage logs.
Bt would make an isp look, then its just finding out what you looking at.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018360</id>
	<title>Stupid samzenpus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Landmark ruling" and Australia don't mix.  Who gives rat's ass?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Landmark ruling " and Australia do n't mix .
Who gives rat 's ass ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Landmark ruling" and Australia don't mix.
Who gives rat's ass?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31041194</id>
	<title>Re:Users only infringe *once* per file</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265373780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now I go sit on a busy street corner, with those books on a table in front of me, for anyone who comes by to take a copy from me. I allow them, do not charge for the paper and printing cost or anything, that's my decision. Is this publishing or making available?</p></div><p>This case is like the author's agents/publishing company sueing the council for letting you set up on that street.</p><p>In my mind, yes, you are both publishing AND making available, and so liable. As far as the difference between 'making available' and 'publishing', well, I'd have to say that publishing would include having a sign up saying 'Free book!' (or, in torrent terms, making a tracker).</p><p>If you break into a bank, and are standing at the entrance to the vault, but don't take any money, you have already committed a crime, regardless of if you actually took any money or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I go sit on a busy street corner , with those books on a table in front of me , for anyone who comes by to take a copy from me .
I allow them , do not charge for the paper and printing cost or anything , that 's my decision .
Is this publishing or making available ? This case is like the author 's agents/publishing company sueing the council for letting you set up on that street.In my mind , yes , you are both publishing AND making available , and so liable .
As far as the difference between 'making available ' and 'publishing ' , well , I 'd have to say that publishing would include having a sign up saying 'Free book !
' ( or , in torrent terms , making a tracker ) .If you break into a bank , and are standing at the entrance to the vault , but do n't take any money , you have already committed a crime , regardless of if you actually took any money or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I go sit on a busy street corner, with those books on a table in front of me, for anyone who comes by to take a copy from me.
I allow them, do not charge for the paper and printing cost or anything, that's my decision.
Is this publishing or making available?This case is like the author's agents/publishing company sueing the council for letting you set up on that street.In my mind, yes, you are both publishing AND making available, and so liable.
As far as the difference between 'making available' and 'publishing', well, I'd have to say that publishing would include having a sign up saying 'Free book!
' (or, in torrent terms, making a tracker).If you break into a bank, and are standing at the entrance to the vault, but don't take any money, you have already committed a crime, regardless of if you actually took any money or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019122</id>
	<title>I like this...</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1264961820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Justice Cowdroy said that the 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement'</p></div><p>We desperately need more lawmakers and Judges like this. And a few more wise folks who see beyond the smoke of copyright infringement fiasco.</p><p> But then again, dreams like these seldom become reality in today's world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Justice Cowdroy said that the 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement'We desperately need more lawmakers and Judges like this .
And a few more wise folks who see beyond the smoke of copyright infringement fiasco .
But then again , dreams like these seldom become reality in today 's world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Justice Cowdroy said that the 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement'We desperately need more lawmakers and Judges like this.
And a few more wise folks who see beyond the smoke of copyright infringement fiasco.
But then again, dreams like these seldom become reality in today's world.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017328</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we can do <i>something</i> right down here!</p><p>Thank you Mr. Cowdroy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we can do something right down here ! Thank you Mr. Cowdroy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we can do something right down here!Thank you Mr. Cowdroy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019384</id>
	<title>The inevitable...</title>
	<author>jayegirl</author>
	<datestamp>1264965480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Up next, dogs and cats living together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up next , dogs and cats living together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up next, dogs and cats living together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017400</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1264945380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This had NOTHING to do with steven conroy.<p>
i'm very suprised actually. even though iinet's arguement was solid - why should they spend money and lose customers policing someone elses copyrights. usually the music and film industry weasles find a way to win these things.</p><p>
it is too early to celebrate though, there will be an appeal no doubt where the music industry try get a judge more inline with their thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This had NOTHING to do with steven conroy .
i 'm very suprised actually .
even though iinet 's arguement was solid - why should they spend money and lose customers policing someone elses copyrights .
usually the music and film industry weasles find a way to win these things .
it is too early to celebrate though , there will be an appeal no doubt where the music industry try get a judge more inline with their thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This had NOTHING to do with steven conroy.
i'm very suprised actually.
even though iinet's arguement was solid - why should they spend money and lose customers policing someone elses copyrights.
usually the music and film industry weasles find a way to win these things.
it is too early to celebrate though, there will be an appeal no doubt where the music industry try get a judge more inline with their thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017720</id>
	<title>Re:Good news, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264947720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless something has happened between yesterday and today it wasn't overturned as such, the actual wording was that the state government would try to overturn it after the state election.  Typical political doublespeak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless something has happened between yesterday and today it was n't overturned as such , the actual wording was that the state government would try to overturn it after the state election .
Typical political doublespeak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless something has happened between yesterday and today it wasn't overturned as such, the actual wording was that the state government would try to overturn it after the state election.
Typical political doublespeak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018810</id>
	<title>Re:Now we'll see what happens</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264958280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It will be interesting to see if the studios take up a campaign of harassment lawsuits against individuals in AU.</p></div></blockquote><p>

If that had a chance of working then they would have done it in the first place rather then trying to attack an organisation that had the money and knowledge to defend itself.<br> <br>

AFACT wont start suing consumers because they'll get laughed out of court by our evil activist judges who always favour the consumer (this is sarcasm for the sarcastically impaired). Further more our woeful deformation laws (unfortunately this is not sarcasm, our deformation laws are dreadful) will allow the consumer to sue the pants off anyone who tries to sue them with false information even if they withdraw the suit (basically an admission of guilt in terms of deformation).<br> <br>

They went after iinet because they were the weakest target the media cartels could find and they rightfully lost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be interesting to see if the studios take up a campaign of harassment lawsuits against individuals in AU .
If that had a chance of working then they would have done it in the first place rather then trying to attack an organisation that had the money and knowledge to defend itself .
AFACT wont start suing consumers because they 'll get laughed out of court by our evil activist judges who always favour the consumer ( this is sarcasm for the sarcastically impaired ) .
Further more our woeful deformation laws ( unfortunately this is not sarcasm , our deformation laws are dreadful ) will allow the consumer to sue the pants off anyone who tries to sue them with false information even if they withdraw the suit ( basically an admission of guilt in terms of deformation ) .
They went after iinet because they were the weakest target the media cartels could find and they rightfully lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be interesting to see if the studios take up a campaign of harassment lawsuits against individuals in AU.
If that had a chance of working then they would have done it in the first place rather then trying to attack an organisation that had the money and knowledge to defend itself.
AFACT wont start suing consumers because they'll get laughed out of court by our evil activist judges who always favour the consumer (this is sarcasm for the sarcastically impaired).
Further more our woeful deformation laws (unfortunately this is not sarcasm, our deformation laws are dreadful) will allow the consumer to sue the pants off anyone who tries to sue them with false information even if they withdraw the suit (basically an admission of guilt in terms of deformation).
They went after iinet because they were the weakest target the media cartels could find and they rightfully lost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019980</id>
	<title>As an iiNet Customer....</title>
	<author>mambodog</author>
	<datestamp>1265276820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank fuck!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank fuck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank fuck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017792</id>
	<title>Feels Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264948320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feels good to be a citizen of Australia, and a customer of iiNet. Way to go guys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feels good to be a citizen of Australia , and a customer of iiNet .
Way to go guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feels good to be a citizen of Australia, and a customer of iiNet.
Way to go guys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018262</id>
	<title>Re-arranging the Applicants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264952400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've re-arranged the applicants based on ownership or affiliation (including distribution deals); the last number in brackets is the order on the list. Not a lot is left....</p><p>NBC UNIVERSAL:<br>
&nbsp; UNIVERSAL PICTURES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (11)<br>
&nbsp; UNIVERSAL PICTURES INTERNATIONAL B.V (13)<br>
&nbsp; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP (2)<br>
&nbsp; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP (14)<br>
&nbsp; UNIVERSAL STUDIOS INTERNATIONAL B.V. (27)<br>
&nbsp; NBC STUDIOS, INC (19)<br>
&nbsp; RINGERIKE GMBH &amp; CO KG (15) (Movie: "Wanted" (2008))<br>
&nbsp; INTERNATIONALE FILMPRODUKTION BLACKBIRD VIERTE GMBH &amp; CO KG (16) (Movie: "Mummy 3" (2008))<br>
&nbsp; MDBF ZWEITE FILMGESELLSCHAFT MBH &amp; CO KG (17) (Movie: "The Kingdom" (2007))<br>
&nbsp; INTERNATIONALE FILMPRODUCKTION RICHTER GMBH &amp; CO KG (18) (Movie: "Mamma Mia!" (2008))</p><p>VIACOM:<br>
&nbsp; PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION (3)<br>
&nbsp; PARAMOUNT HOME ENTERTAINMENT (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD (8)</p><p>TIME WARNER:<br>
&nbsp; WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. (4)<br>
&nbsp; WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (32)<br>
&nbsp; WARNER BROS INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION INC (21)<br>
&nbsp; WARNER HOME VIDEO PTY LTD (23)<br>
&nbsp; VILLAGE ROADSHOW FILMS (BVI) LTD (12)<br>
&nbsp; PATALEX III PRODUCTIONS LIMITED (24) (Movie: "Batman Begins" (2005))<br>
&nbsp; LONELY FILM PRODUCTIONS GMBH &amp; CO KG (25) (Movie: "Blood Diamond" (2006))</p><p>WALT DISNEY CO.:<br>
&nbsp; DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. (5)<br>
&nbsp; BUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (9)<br>
&nbsp; DREAMWORKS FILMS L.L.C (20)</p><p>NEWS CORP:<br>
&nbsp; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION (7)<br>
&nbsp; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (10)<br>
&nbsp; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (22)<br>
&nbsp; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT LLC (33)</p><p>SONY:<br>
&nbsp; SONY PICTURES ANIMATION INC (26)<br>
&nbsp; SONY PICTURES HOME ENTERTAINMENT PTY LTD (28)<br>
&nbsp; COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC (6)<br>
&nbsp; GH ONE LLC (29) (Movie: "Ghost Rider" (2007))<br>
&nbsp; GH THREE LLC (30) (Movie: "21" (2008), "Vantage Point" (2008), etc.)<br>
&nbsp; BEVERLY BLVD LLC (31) (co-financing fund with Relativity Media)</p><p>SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LTD (34)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've re-arranged the applicants based on ownership or affiliation ( including distribution deals ) ; the last number in brackets is the order on the list .
Not a lot is left....NBC UNIVERSAL :   UNIVERSAL PICTURES ( AUSTRALIA ) PTY LTD ( 11 )   UNIVERSAL PICTURES INTERNATIONAL B.V ( 13 )   UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP ( 2 )   UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP ( 14 )   UNIVERSAL STUDIOS INTERNATIONAL B.V. ( 27 )   NBC STUDIOS , INC ( 19 )   RINGERIKE GMBH &amp; CO KG ( 15 ) ( Movie : " Wanted " ( 2008 ) )   INTERNATIONALE FILMPRODUKTION BLACKBIRD VIERTE GMBH &amp; CO KG ( 16 ) ( Movie : " Mummy 3 " ( 2008 ) )   MDBF ZWEITE FILMGESELLSCHAFT MBH &amp; CO KG ( 17 ) ( Movie : " The Kingdom " ( 2007 ) )   INTERNATIONALE FILMPRODUCKTION RICHTER GMBH &amp; CO KG ( 18 ) ( Movie : " Mamma Mia !
" ( 2008 ) ) VIACOM :   PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION ( 3 )   PARAMOUNT HOME ENTERTAINMENT ( AUSTRALASIA ) PTY LTD ( 8 ) TIME WARNER :   WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. ( 4 )   WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ( 32 )   WARNER BROS INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION INC ( 21 )   WARNER HOME VIDEO PTY LTD ( 23 )   VILLAGE ROADSHOW FILMS ( BVI ) LTD ( 12 )   PATALEX III PRODUCTIONS LIMITED ( 24 ) ( Movie : " Batman Begins " ( 2005 ) )   LONELY FILM PRODUCTIONS GMBH &amp; CO KG ( 25 ) ( Movie : " Blood Diamond " ( 2006 ) ) WALT DISNEY CO. :   DISNEY ENTERPRISES , INC. ( 5 )   BUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT , INC. ( 9 )   DREAMWORKS FILMS L.L.C ( 20 ) NEWS CORP :   TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION ( 7 )   TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION ( AUSTRALIA ) PTY LIMITED ( 10 )   TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ( 22 )   TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT LLC ( 33 ) SONY :   SONY PICTURES ANIMATION INC ( 26 )   SONY PICTURES HOME ENTERTAINMENT PTY LTD ( 28 )   COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES , INC ( 6 )   GH ONE LLC ( 29 ) ( Movie : " Ghost Rider " ( 2007 ) )   GH THREE LLC ( 30 ) ( Movie : " 21 " ( 2008 ) , " Vantage Point " ( 2008 ) , etc .
)   BEVERLY BLVD LLC ( 31 ) ( co-financing fund with Relativity Media ) SEVEN NETWORK ( OPERATIONS ) LTD ( 34 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've re-arranged the applicants based on ownership or affiliation (including distribution deals); the last number in brackets is the order on the list.
Not a lot is left....NBC UNIVERSAL:
  UNIVERSAL PICTURES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (11)
  UNIVERSAL PICTURES INTERNATIONAL B.V (13)
  UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP (2)
  UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP (14)
  UNIVERSAL STUDIOS INTERNATIONAL B.V. (27)
  NBC STUDIOS, INC (19)
  RINGERIKE GMBH &amp; CO KG (15) (Movie: "Wanted" (2008))
  INTERNATIONALE FILMPRODUKTION BLACKBIRD VIERTE GMBH &amp; CO KG (16) (Movie: "Mummy 3" (2008))
  MDBF ZWEITE FILMGESELLSCHAFT MBH &amp; CO KG (17) (Movie: "The Kingdom" (2007))
  INTERNATIONALE FILMPRODUCKTION RICHTER GMBH &amp; CO KG (18) (Movie: "Mamma Mia!
" (2008))VIACOM:
  PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION (3)
  PARAMOUNT HOME ENTERTAINMENT (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD (8)TIME WARNER:
  WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. (4)
  WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (32)
  WARNER BROS INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION INC (21)
  WARNER HOME VIDEO PTY LTD (23)
  VILLAGE ROADSHOW FILMS (BVI) LTD (12)
  PATALEX III PRODUCTIONS LIMITED (24) (Movie: "Batman Begins" (2005))
  LONELY FILM PRODUCTIONS GMBH &amp; CO KG (25) (Movie: "Blood Diamond" (2006))WALT DISNEY CO.:
  DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. (5)
  BUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (9)
  DREAMWORKS FILMS L.L.C (20)NEWS CORP:
  TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION (7)
  TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED (10)
  TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (22)
  TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT LLC (33)SONY:
  SONY PICTURES ANIMATION INC (26)
  SONY PICTURES HOME ENTERTAINMENT PTY LTD (28)
  COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC (6)
  GH ONE LLC (29) (Movie: "Ghost Rider" (2007))
  GH THREE LLC (30) (Movie: "21" (2008), "Vantage Point" (2008), etc.
)
  BEVERLY BLVD LLC (31) (co-financing fund with Relativity Media)SEVEN NETWORK (OPERATIONS) LTD (34)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31028678</id>
	<title>Re:Users only infringe *once* per file</title>
	<author>jeffrey.endres</author>
	<datestamp>1265286780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that the copyright laws here in Australia have changed recently, but it used to be that we didn't have any "fair use" rights at all.  The way the law stood, even local cache of a website for example, was an infringement. Thankfully that at least has been fixed.
</p><p>
I'm not too sure what the limits are now, but we don't have anywhere near the rights available in the US. Although we did get their extended length of copyright protection thanks to the Free Trade act. That's free as in free to get screwed over not in free as in beer...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets\_pdf/g091.pdf" title="copyright.org.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets\_pdf/g091.pdf</a> [copyright.org.au]
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian\_copyright\_law#List\_of\_some\_possibly\_non-violating\_actions\_in\_Australia" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian\_copyright\_law#List\_of\_some\_possibly\_non-violating\_actions\_in\_Australia</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that the copyright laws here in Australia have changed recently , but it used to be that we did n't have any " fair use " rights at all .
The way the law stood , even local cache of a website for example , was an infringement .
Thankfully that at least has been fixed .
I 'm not too sure what the limits are now , but we do n't have anywhere near the rights available in the US .
Although we did get their extended length of copyright protection thanks to the Free Trade act .
That 's free as in free to get screwed over not in free as in beer... : / http : //www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets \ _pdf/g091.pdf [ copyright.org.au ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian \ _copyright \ _law # List \ _of \ _some \ _possibly \ _non-violating \ _actions \ _in \ _Australia [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that the copyright laws here in Australia have changed recently, but it used to be that we didn't have any "fair use" rights at all.
The way the law stood, even local cache of a website for example, was an infringement.
Thankfully that at least has been fixed.
I'm not too sure what the limits are now, but we don't have anywhere near the rights available in the US.
Although we did get their extended length of copyright protection thanks to the Free Trade act.
That's free as in free to get screwed over not in free as in beer... :/

http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets\_pdf/g091.pdf [copyright.org.au]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian\_copyright\_law#List\_of\_some\_possibly\_non-violating\_actions\_in\_Australia [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017582</id>
	<title>Statement in full from the losing party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264946700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thirty-four film companies representing the Australian and US film industries today expressed their disappointment that the Federal Court found that iiNet <a href="http://newstechnica.com/2010/02/04/afact-v-iinet-statement-in-full-from-the-losing-party/" title="newstechnica.com">was not using orbital mind control lasers</a> [newstechnica.com] to encourage copyright infringements by its customers on its network.</p><p>Despite findings of copyright infringement by iiNet customers, pirate flags in their front yards and downloaded cars in their driveways, iiNet did not authorise the acts of its customers, merely sitting back and watching the tens of dollars rolling in to feather their own nests at the expense of the poor beleaguered major record companies and film studios.</p><p>Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director, Neil Gane, said he was disappointed by the Court&rsquo;s decision. "Today&rsquo;s decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry, who work hard to send money to America as fast as possible. But we believe there's something <i>not quoite roight</i> about this ruling &mdash; it was based on a mere technical loophole centred on the court's interpretation of what the law technically says in actual words and original intention, rather than what it <i>should</i> say.</p><p>"We are confident that the government does not intend a policy outcome where zombie hordes of drooling open source copyright terrorists led by the evil genius Michael Malone are allowed to continue feasting upon the flesh of the living via the iiNet network.</p><p>"We will now take the time to review the decision before seeing if we can bribe enough federal politicians to get a law more to our liking."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thirty-four film companies representing the Australian and US film industries today expressed their disappointment that the Federal Court found that iiNet was not using orbital mind control lasers [ newstechnica.com ] to encourage copyright infringements by its customers on its network.Despite findings of copyright infringement by iiNet customers , pirate flags in their front yards and downloaded cars in their driveways , iiNet did not authorise the acts of its customers , merely sitting back and watching the tens of dollars rolling in to feather their own nests at the expense of the poor beleaguered major record companies and film studios.Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director , Neil Gane , said he was disappointed by the Court    s decision .
" Today    s decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry , who work hard to send money to America as fast as possible .
But we believe there 's something not quoite roight about this ruling    it was based on a mere technical loophole centred on the court 's interpretation of what the law technically says in actual words and original intention , rather than what it should say .
" We are confident that the government does not intend a policy outcome where zombie hordes of drooling open source copyright terrorists led by the evil genius Michael Malone are allowed to continue feasting upon the flesh of the living via the iiNet network .
" We will now take the time to review the decision before seeing if we can bribe enough federal politicians to get a law more to our liking .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thirty-four film companies representing the Australian and US film industries today expressed their disappointment that the Federal Court found that iiNet was not using orbital mind control lasers [newstechnica.com] to encourage copyright infringements by its customers on its network.Despite findings of copyright infringement by iiNet customers, pirate flags in their front yards and downloaded cars in their driveways, iiNet did not authorise the acts of its customers, merely sitting back and watching the tens of dollars rolling in to feather their own nests at the expense of the poor beleaguered major record companies and film studios.Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director, Neil Gane, said he was disappointed by the Court’s decision.
"Today’s decision is a setback for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry, who work hard to send money to America as fast as possible.
But we believe there's something not quoite roight about this ruling — it was based on a mere technical loophole centred on the court's interpretation of what the law technically says in actual words and original intention, rather than what it should say.
"We are confident that the government does not intend a policy outcome where zombie hordes of drooling open source copyright terrorists led by the evil genius Michael Malone are allowed to continue feasting upon the flesh of the living via the iiNet network.
"We will now take the time to review the decision before seeing if we can bribe enough federal politicians to get a law more to our liking.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017432</id>
	<title>Re:Good news, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264945620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the South Australian law requiring real names and postcodes on all Internet comments about the election has already been overturned.</p><p>So now they can twitter "off to vote today" from their phones without getting RSI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the South Australian law requiring real names and postcodes on all Internet comments about the election has already been overturned.So now they can twitter " off to vote today " from their phones without getting RSI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the South Australian law requiring real names and postcodes on all Internet comments about the election has already been overturned.So now they can twitter "off to vote today" from their phones without getting RSI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017362</id>
	<title>Sudden outbreak of...</title>
	<author>Pushpabon</author>
	<datestamp>1264945260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...common sense? But it's Austfailia! This can't be true! Somehow they'll find a way to overturn this I know it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...common sense ?
But it 's Austfailia !
This ca n't be true !
Somehow they 'll find a way to overturn this I know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...common sense?
But it's Austfailia!
This can't be true!
Somehow they'll find a way to overturn this I know it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019438</id>
	<title>Re:statement from the losing party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair, iiNet are probably getting together with Telstra and Optus and making decisions on what politicians *they* want to buy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , iiNet are probably getting together with Telstra and Optus and making decisions on what politicians * they * want to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, iiNet are probably getting together with Telstra and Optus and making decisions on what politicians *they* want to buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019528</id>
	<title>Re:Users only infringe *once* per file</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1264967940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I think it should be interpreted thus:<br>Download = 1 infringement, simply because you copied the media. Fair enough, and the judge seems to have done this.<br>Upload = Assisting infringement (if there is such a thing) based on share ratio, if applicable depending on where the peers are located (eg, nation states that don't have treaty or other problem with copying don't count): so it's not 3000 copies based on the number of client connections, it's 0.27 or whatever the number works out to be. Note that this is only once you've shared above the fair use threshold, perhaps 10\% depending on local law.</p><p>Moreover, it's also NOT BitTorrent that was the enabler, it's the user. I use BT for free software torrents all the time. It's just a procotol, and the sooner the Judges figure that out the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think it should be interpreted thus : Download = 1 infringement , simply because you copied the media .
Fair enough , and the judge seems to have done this.Upload = Assisting infringement ( if there is such a thing ) based on share ratio , if applicable depending on where the peers are located ( eg , nation states that do n't have treaty or other problem with copying do n't count ) : so it 's not 3000 copies based on the number of client connections , it 's 0.27 or whatever the number works out to be .
Note that this is only once you 've shared above the fair use threshold , perhaps 10 \ % depending on local law.Moreover , it 's also NOT BitTorrent that was the enabler , it 's the user .
I use BT for free software torrents all the time .
It 's just a procotol , and the sooner the Judges figure that out the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think it should be interpreted thus:Download = 1 infringement, simply because you copied the media.
Fair enough, and the judge seems to have done this.Upload = Assisting infringement (if there is such a thing) based on share ratio, if applicable depending on where the peers are located (eg, nation states that don't have treaty or other problem with copying don't count): so it's not 3000 copies based on the number of client connections, it's 0.27 or whatever the number works out to be.
Note that this is only once you've shared above the fair use threshold, perhaps 10\% depending on local law.Moreover, it's also NOT BitTorrent that was the enabler, it's the user.
I use BT for free software torrents all the time.
It's just a procotol, and the sooner the Judges figure that out the better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019658</id>
	<title>Re:Headline should read...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265315760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait... this will receive an unfortunate swift kick in the arse on appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait... this will receive an unfortunate swift kick in the arse on appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait... this will receive an unfortunate swift kick in the arse on appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019464</id>
	<title>Theft or no theft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The court even took issue with the MPAA/RIAA pushed idea that copyright infringement is theft:</p><p>p 171 As an aside, the Court notes that AFACT, the organisation which the applicants use to aid in enforcement of their copyright, itself blurs the distinction between tortuous copyright infringement and criminal acts involving copyright, as seen in its name: Australian Federation Against Copyright *Theft* [emphasis added (by the court)].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The court even took issue with the MPAA/RIAA pushed idea that copyright infringement is theft : p 171 As an aside , the Court notes that AFACT , the organisation which the applicants use to aid in enforcement of their copyright , itself blurs the distinction between tortuous copyright infringement and criminal acts involving copyright , as seen in its name : Australian Federation Against Copyright * Theft * [ emphasis added ( by the court ) ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court even took issue with the MPAA/RIAA pushed idea that copyright infringement is theft:p 171 As an aside, the Court notes that AFACT, the organisation which the applicants use to aid in enforcement of their copyright, itself blurs the distinction between tortuous copyright infringement and criminal acts involving copyright, as seen in its name: Australian Federation Against Copyright *Theft* [emphasis added (by the court)].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017836</id>
	<title>Re:Good news, but</title>
	<author>Madsy</author>
	<datestamp>1264948680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we still have a proposed Internet Filter, no R18+ rating for video games, and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode. We have a long way to go yet.</p></div><p>And banned A-cup breasts from mainstream pornography. Reason? Think-of-the-children mentality again.
<a href="http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/01/28/australia-bans-small-breasts-as-child-pornography/" title="sankakucomplex.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/01/28/australia-bans-small-breasts-as-child-pornography/</a> [sankakucomplex.com]

I found that both amusing and shocking. It's not about children's safety anymore, but pushing moral values and acting as thought-police.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we still have a proposed Internet Filter , no R18 + rating for video games , and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode .
We have a long way to go yet.And banned A-cup breasts from mainstream pornography .
Reason ? Think-of-the-children mentality again .
http : //www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/01/28/australia-bans-small-breasts-as-child-pornography/ [ sankakucomplex.com ] I found that both amusing and shocking .
It 's not about children 's safety anymore , but pushing moral values and acting as thought-police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we still have a proposed Internet Filter, no R18+ rating for video games, and a South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode.
We have a long way to go yet.And banned A-cup breasts from mainstream pornography.
Reason? Think-of-the-children mentality again.
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2010/01/28/australia-bans-small-breasts-as-child-pornography/ [sankakucomplex.com]

I found that both amusing and shocking.
It's not about children's safety anymore, but pushing moral values and acting as thought-police.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017314</id>
	<title>Suck it, AFACT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suck it long and hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suck it long and hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suck it long and hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017418</id>
	<title>Re:Good news, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264945500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the <a href="http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/press-releases/619-depictions-of-female-orgasm-being-banned-by-classification-board" title="sexparty.org.au" rel="nofollow">issues with water sports and female ejaculation</a> [sexparty.org.au]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the issues with water sports and female ejaculation [ sexparty.org.au ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the issues with water sports and female ejaculation [sexparty.org.au]...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018260</id>
	<title>The best quote of the ruling</title>
	<author>tick-tock-atona</author>
	<datestamp>1264952400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To use the rather colourful imagery that internet piracy conjures up in a highly imperfect analogy, the file being shared in the swarm is the treasure, the BitTorrent client is the ship, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.torrent file is the treasure map, The Pirate Bay provides treasure maps free of charge and the tracker is the wise old man that needs to be consulted to understand the treasure map.</p></div></blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html" title="austlii.edu.au">http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html</a> [austlii.edu.au]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To use the rather colourful imagery that internet piracy conjures up in a highly imperfect analogy , the file being shared in the swarm is the treasure , the BitTorrent client is the ship , the .torrent file is the treasure map , The Pirate Bay provides treasure maps free of charge and the tracker is the wise old man that needs to be consulted to understand the treasure map .
http : //www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html [ austlii.edu.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To use the rather colourful imagery that internet piracy conjures up in a highly imperfect analogy, the file being shared in the swarm is the treasure, the BitTorrent client is the ship, the .torrent file is the treasure map, The Pirate Bay provides treasure maps free of charge and the tracker is the wise old man that needs to be consulted to understand the treasure map.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html [austlii.edu.au]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017616</id>
	<title>Favourite quote:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264946940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another," - Justice Cowdroy</p><p>Ah, reasonable, rational, and direct. Love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another , " - Justice CowdroyAh , reasonable , rational , and direct .
Love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another," - Justice CowdroyAh, reasonable, rational, and direct.
Love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31021032</id>
	<title>Meanwhile in another court in Oz...</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1265290920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a deaf judge seems to have presided over a case against <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men\_at\_Work" title="wikipedia.org">Men at Work</a> [wikipedia.org] in which it is claimed that their song 'Down Under' plagiarizes a song from 1935 named 'Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree'. I listened to that song. It is nothing at all like the flute riff in 'Down Under'. Still... <a href="http://newsblog.thecmuwebsite.com/post/Kookaburra-publisher-wins-down-under-copyright-case.aspx" title="thecmuwebsite.com">They</a> [thecmuwebsite.com] <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/music/men-at-works-down-under-ripped-off-kookaburra-court/2010/02/04/1265151932344.html" title="smh.com.au">Won</a> [smh.com.au]. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyB2l5wqLE" title="youtube.com">What do you think?</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a deaf judge seems to have presided over a case against Men at Work [ wikipedia.org ] in which it is claimed that their song 'Down Under ' plagiarizes a song from 1935 named 'Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree' .
I listened to that song .
It is nothing at all like the flute riff in 'Down Under' .
Still... They [ thecmuwebsite.com ] Won [ smh.com.au ] .
What do you think ?
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a deaf judge seems to have presided over a case against Men at Work [wikipedia.org] in which it is claimed that their song 'Down Under' plagiarizes a song from 1935 named 'Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree'.
I listened to that song.
It is nothing at all like the flute riff in 'Down Under'.
Still... They [thecmuwebsite.com] Won [smh.com.au].
What do you think?
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019094</id>
	<title>Re:Prepare for the appeals!</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264961460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This case is probably not over yet.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The case is over, the ending is not ambiguous and Australian high courts have little time or patience for going over the same frivolous law suit over and over again. The courts here can simply refuse a civil case, unlike a criminal case.<br> <br>

AFACT could go to the High Court of Australia and get another case they will be ripped to shreds by a high court judge instead of a federal court judge as none of the evidence has actually changed. Except in this case the high court may slap AFACT's constituents with a criminal fine for misusing/misleading the courts (any number of laws apply here) as well as having to pay iinet's court costs again.<br> <br>

With the amount of negative publicity against AFACT, they'd be certifiably insane to try, so this is a possibility but their victory in the high court is a extremely unlikely. Under Australian law, the High Court decision is final, no further appeals can be made.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This case is probably not over yet .
The case is over , the ending is not ambiguous and Australian high courts have little time or patience for going over the same frivolous law suit over and over again .
The courts here can simply refuse a civil case , unlike a criminal case .
AFACT could go to the High Court of Australia and get another case they will be ripped to shreds by a high court judge instead of a federal court judge as none of the evidence has actually changed .
Except in this case the high court may slap AFACT 's constituents with a criminal fine for misusing/misleading the courts ( any number of laws apply here ) as well as having to pay iinet 's court costs again .
With the amount of negative publicity against AFACT , they 'd be certifiably insane to try , so this is a possibility but their victory in the high court is a extremely unlikely .
Under Australian law , the High Court decision is final , no further appeals can be made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case is probably not over yet.
The case is over, the ending is not ambiguous and Australian high courts have little time or patience for going over the same frivolous law suit over and over again.
The courts here can simply refuse a civil case, unlike a criminal case.
AFACT could go to the High Court of Australia and get another case they will be ripped to shreds by a high court judge instead of a federal court judge as none of the evidence has actually changed.
Except in this case the high court may slap AFACT's constituents with a criminal fine for misusing/misleading the courts (any number of laws apply here) as well as having to pay iinet's court costs again.
With the amount of negative publicity against AFACT, they'd be certifiably insane to try, so this is a possibility but their victory in the high court is a extremely unlikely.
Under Australian law, the High Court decision is final, no further appeals can be made.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017532</id>
	<title>Re:Good news, but</title>
	<author>bcg</author>
	<datestamp>1264946340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

"SOUTH Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson late last night backed down on online media censorship laws.<br> <br>

After stoking a fight with the media less than two months from a state election, Mr Atkinson said the laws stripping anonymity from media blogs would be repealed after the March 20 poll.<br> <br>

"From the feedback we've received through AdelaideNow, the blogging generation believes that the law supported by all MPs and all political parties is unduly restrictive. I have listened," Mr Atkinson said in statement released to the website AdelaideNow.<br> <br>

<b>"I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively."<br> <br>

Mr Atkinson said the law would not be enforced for comments posted during the upcoming election campaign, even though it was technically applicable."</b> <br> <br>

<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sa-attorney-general-backs-down-on-political-blogging/story-e6frg6nf-1225826154732" title="theaustralian.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sa-attorney-general-backs-down-on-political-blogging/story-e6frg6nf-1225826154732</a> [theaustralian.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" SOUTH Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson late last night backed down on online media censorship laws .
After stoking a fight with the media less than two months from a state election , Mr Atkinson said the laws stripping anonymity from media blogs would be repealed after the March 20 poll .
" From the feedback we 've received through AdelaideNow , the blogging generation believes that the law supported by all MPs and all political parties is unduly restrictive .
I have listened , " Mr Atkinson said in statement released to the website AdelaideNow .
" I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively .
" Mr Atkinson said the law would not be enforced for comments posted during the upcoming election campaign , even though it was technically applicable .
" http : //www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sa-attorney-general-backs-down-on-political-blogging/story-e6frg6nf-1225826154732 [ theaustralian.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

"SOUTH Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson late last night backed down on online media censorship laws.
After stoking a fight with the media less than two months from a state election, Mr Atkinson said the laws stripping anonymity from media blogs would be repealed after the March 20 poll.
"From the feedback we've received through AdelaideNow, the blogging generation believes that the law supported by all MPs and all political parties is unduly restrictive.
I have listened," Mr Atkinson said in statement released to the website AdelaideNow.
"I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively.
" 

Mr Atkinson said the law would not be enforced for comments posted during the upcoming election campaign, even though it was technically applicable.
"  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sa-attorney-general-backs-down-on-political-blogging/story-e6frg6nf-1225826154732 [theaustralian.com.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018008</id>
	<title>Re:Good news, but</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1264950360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode"</i>
<br> <br>
Yes they did, and then they were promtly forced to drop it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode " Yes they did , and then they were promtly forced to drop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"South Australian government that passed a law saying that every person commenting about the election online must provide their real name and postcode"
 
Yes they did, and then they were promtly forced to drop it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018942</id>
	<title>Re:statement from the losing party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded funny rather than insightful?</p><p>Considering all points are faithful representations of the true meaning, I have to ask..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded funny rather than insightful ? Considering all points are faithful representations of the true meaning , I have to ask. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded funny rather than insightful?Considering all points are faithful representations of the true meaning, I have to ask..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019646</id>
	<title>BitTorrent next?</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1265315640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now that the finger's been pointed at the BT protocol, does that mean they go after it after they failed to hold the "internets" responsible? I really fear for the long-term survival of the BT protocol due to cases like this. It's going to end up as the scape-goat and ISP's will start to block it since it's obviously only used for illegal activities. I mean the media companies wouldn't lie, would they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now that the finger 's been pointed at the BT protocol , does that mean they go after it after they failed to hold the " internets " responsible ?
I really fear for the long-term survival of the BT protocol due to cases like this .
It 's going to end up as the scape-goat and ISP 's will start to block it since it 's obviously only used for illegal activities .
I mean the media companies would n't lie , would they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now that the finger's been pointed at the BT protocol, does that mean they go after it after they failed to hold the "internets" responsible?
I really fear for the long-term survival of the BT protocol due to cases like this.
It's going to end up as the scape-goat and ISP's will start to block it since it's obviously only used for illegal activities.
I mean the media companies wouldn't lie, would they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31028678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31020216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31020170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31022294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31041194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31031504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31026050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2347208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31041194
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31028678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31022294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31020216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31020170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31026050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31031504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31019348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2347208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31017440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2347208.31018810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
