<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_0046216</id>
	<title>RIAA Insists On 3rd Trial In Thomas Case</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1265893020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes <i>"Not satisfied with <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/22/1939256/Judge-Lowers-Jammie-Thomas-Damages-to-54000">the reduced $54,000 verdict</a> which the Judge allowed it in <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Virgin\_v\_Thomas">Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset</a>, representing approximately 6500 times the amount of their actual damages, the RIAA has <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/02/riaa-opts-for-new-trial-in-capitol.html">decided to take its chances on a third trial</a>, at which it could only win a verdict that is equal to, or less than, $54,000. Since a 3rd trial in and of itself makes no economic sense, and since the RIAA's lawyers inappropriately added 7 pages of legal argument to their 'notice', it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " Not satisfied with the reduced $ 54,000 verdict which the Judge allowed it in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset , representing approximately 6500 times the amount of their actual damages , the RIAA has decided to take its chances on a third trial , at which it could only win a verdict that is equal to , or less than , $ 54,000 .
Since a 3rd trial in and of itself makes no economic sense , and since the RIAA 's lawyers inappropriately added 7 pages of legal argument to their 'notice ' , it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Not satisfied with the reduced $54,000 verdict which the Judge allowed it in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, representing approximately 6500 times the amount of their actual damages, the RIAA has decided to take its chances on a third trial, at which it could only win a verdict that is equal to, or less than, $54,000.
Since a 3rd trial in and of itself makes no economic sense, and since the RIAA's lawyers inappropriately added 7 pages of legal argument to their 'notice', it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31102268</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1265916660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How many times must Thomas-Rasset go to court for copyright violation on twenty-four songs?!</p></div></blockquote><p>24.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times must Thomas-Rasset go to court for copyright violation on twenty-four songs ?
! 24 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times must Thomas-Rasset go to court for copyright violation on twenty-four songs?
!24.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100118</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>jmn2519</author>
	<datestamp>1265906400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's feeling much better!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's feeling much better ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's feeling much better!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099828</id>
	<title>slightly confused...</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1265905080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>surely if they refuse to accept the verdict, the Judge should dismiss their case with prejudice and award costs to the defence... things are getting silly now</htmltext>
<tokenext>surely if they refuse to accept the verdict , the Judge should dismiss their case with prejudice and award costs to the defence... things are getting silly now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>surely if they refuse to accept the verdict, the Judge should dismiss their case with prejudice and award costs to the defence... things are getting silly now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101858</id>
	<title>Re:Making an error on appeal? Think simple.</title>
	<author>blackraven14250</author>
	<datestamp>1265915160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it won't work. The lawyer is an up-and-comer working pro bono to make a name for himself. He has everything to gain by fighting this out to the end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it wo n't work .
The lawyer is an up-and-comer working pro bono to make a name for himself .
He has everything to gain by fighting this out to the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it won't work.
The lawyer is an up-and-comer working pro bono to make a name for himself.
He has everything to gain by fighting this out to the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31124664</id>
	<title>None of this pedantic really matters ...</title>
	<author>Sepiraph</author>
	<datestamp>1265999760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the end of the day, if the law defined and applied stopped making sense to the majority of the population, then it must eventually be changed to reflect the will of the people.  Because ultimately, laws are MADE by people, and as such, they should follow the majority.<br> <br>
None of this pedantic really matters in the BIG picture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of the day , if the law defined and applied stopped making sense to the majority of the population , then it must eventually be changed to reflect the will of the people .
Because ultimately , laws are MADE by people , and as such , they should follow the majority .
None of this pedantic really matters in the BIG picture .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end of the day, if the law defined and applied stopped making sense to the majority of the population, then it must eventually be changed to reflect the will of the people.
Because ultimately, laws are MADE by people, and as such, they should follow the majority.
None of this pedantic really matters in the BIG picture ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098566</id>
	<title>As someone who was a victim of a frivilous lawsuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265898360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Goliaths know that whoever has deeper pockets to pay legal expenses for a longer period of time, generally wins lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits filed by large companies on individuals and small entities are more often than not seen as a war of attrition that they have no way of losing.

As someone was once the victim of this, it makes me incredibly angry. I was frivolously sued by a large company. Even though I won the case (basically by showing up and showing the contract vis a vis their allegations), I had to spend a few thousand dollars defending myself (I'm lucky it wasn't tens or hundreds of thousands).

They're trying to ruin this individual, and make an example out of him. It's one of the most evil aspects of corporations and is what's most wrong IMO about our legal system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Goliaths know that whoever has deeper pockets to pay legal expenses for a longer period of time , generally wins lawsuits .
Frivolous lawsuits filed by large companies on individuals and small entities are more often than not seen as a war of attrition that they have no way of losing .
As someone was once the victim of this , it makes me incredibly angry .
I was frivolously sued by a large company .
Even though I won the case ( basically by showing up and showing the contract vis a vis their allegations ) , I had to spend a few thousand dollars defending myself ( I 'm lucky it was n't tens or hundreds of thousands ) .
They 're trying to ruin this individual , and make an example out of him .
It 's one of the most evil aspects of corporations and is what 's most wrong IMO about our legal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goliaths know that whoever has deeper pockets to pay legal expenses for a longer period of time, generally wins lawsuits.
Frivolous lawsuits filed by large companies on individuals and small entities are more often than not seen as a war of attrition that they have no way of losing.
As someone was once the victim of this, it makes me incredibly angry.
I was frivolously sued by a large company.
Even though I won the case (basically by showing up and showing the contract vis a vis their allegations), I had to spend a few thousand dollars defending myself (I'm lucky it wasn't tens or hundreds of thousands).
They're trying to ruin this individual, and make an example out of him.
It's one of the most evil aspects of corporations and is what's most wrong IMO about our legal system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098614</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1265898720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I wonder if everyone can "respectfully decline to accept" the court's agreed-upon settlement in a civil case. "No, we're going to keep coming back until Walmart pays me one trillion dollars to replace this faulty TV."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I wonder if everyone can " respectfully decline to accept " the court 's agreed-upon settlement in a civil case .
" No , we 're going to keep coming back until Walmart pays me one trillion dollars to replace this faulty TV .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I wonder if everyone can "respectfully decline to accept" the court's agreed-upon settlement in a civil case.
"No, we're going to keep coming back until Walmart pays me one trillion dollars to replace this faulty TV.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100216</id>
	<title>Go go go RIAA!</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1265906760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never say die! Never quit while you're ahead!</p><p>I never would have guessed the ultimate demise of the RIAA would be themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never say die !
Never quit while you 're ahead ! I never would have guessed the ultimate demise of the RIAA would be themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never say die!
Never quit while you're ahead!I never would have guessed the ultimate demise of the RIAA would be themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31104316</id>
	<title>Re:I don't condone what the RIAA does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>)</p><p>Sorry, here ya know even lawyer posts with caps have to compile...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>) Sorry , here ya know even lawyer posts with caps have to compile.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>)Sorry, here ya know even lawyer posts with caps have to compile...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099700</id>
	<title>What About Harrassment?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1265904480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Since a 3rd trial in and of itself makes no economic sense, and since the RIAA's lawyers inappropriately added 7 pages of legal argument to their 'notice', it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal.</i></p><p>Isn't another possible reason; to use the legal process as punishment? There are cases between established enterprises and upstart competitors where the presumed motive of the enterprise was to bleed the competitor through legal entanglement, even though they have little chance of winning. Admittedly in this case the RIAA presumably does not hope to forestall some future loss of revenue, but couldn't they just be plain old vindictive?</p><p>As the old saying goes: Never ascribe to strategy what can be explained by simple malice. (OK, that's a new spin on an old classic, but still)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since a 3rd trial in and of itself makes no economic sense , and since the RIAA 's lawyers inappropriately added 7 pages of legal argument to their 'notice ' , it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal.Is n't another possible reason ; to use the legal process as punishment ?
There are cases between established enterprises and upstart competitors where the presumed motive of the enterprise was to bleed the competitor through legal entanglement , even though they have little chance of winning .
Admittedly in this case the RIAA presumably does not hope to forestall some future loss of revenue , but could n't they just be plain old vindictive ? As the old saying goes : Never ascribe to strategy what can be explained by simple malice .
( OK , that 's a new spin on an old classic , but still )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since a 3rd trial in and of itself makes no economic sense, and since the RIAA's lawyers inappropriately added 7 pages of legal argument to their 'notice', it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal.Isn't another possible reason; to use the legal process as punishment?
There are cases between established enterprises and upstart competitors where the presumed motive of the enterprise was to bleed the competitor through legal entanglement, even though they have little chance of winning.
Admittedly in this case the RIAA presumably does not hope to forestall some future loss of revenue, but couldn't they just be plain old vindictive?As the old saying goes: Never ascribe to strategy what can be explained by simple malice.
(OK, that's a new spin on an old classic, but still)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098534</id>
	<title>My patience would be thin.</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1265898000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this is what, the third trial?</p><p>At this point, since my life would be financially over, I'd consider some other options.  Options that, while not monetarily or legally beneficial, ones that would be immensely emotionally cathartic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is what , the third trial ? At this point , since my life would be financially over , I 'd consider some other options .
Options that , while not monetarily or legally beneficial , ones that would be immensely emotionally cathartic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is what, the third trial?At this point, since my life would be financially over, I'd consider some other options.
Options that, while not monetarily or legally beneficial, ones that would be immensely emotionally cathartic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098476</id>
	<title>Repeating themselves</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1265897640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So basically, they're going to court and simply repeating themselves?
<br> <br>
They're starting to sound like a broken record now.
<br> <br>
I'll get my coat</htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically , they 're going to court and simply repeating themselves ?
They 're starting to sound like a broken record now .
I 'll get my coat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically, they're going to court and simply repeating themselves?
They're starting to sound like a broken record now.
I'll get my coat</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099860</id>
	<title>Also oblig</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265905200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sleeping... upside down.  And inside out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sleeping... upside down .
And inside out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sleeping... upside down.
And inside out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098646</id>
	<title>They're getting the money out of Jammie somehow</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1265898900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're probably just trying to cause Jammie to incur as much legal fees, stress and inconvenience as possible.<br>I really hope the new judge comes down hard on them for subverting the legal system and just being jerks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're probably just trying to cause Jammie to incur as much legal fees , stress and inconvenience as possible.I really hope the new judge comes down hard on them for subverting the legal system and just being jerks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're probably just trying to cause Jammie to incur as much legal fees, stress and inconvenience as possible.I really hope the new judge comes down hard on them for subverting the legal system and just being jerks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</id>
	<title>New Trial?  Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1265896860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So their filing says:<p><div class="quote"><p>After considering the Court&rsquo;s Order, Plaintiffs regretfully must decline to accept the remittitur since the rationale underlying the remittitur is inconsistent with the Copyright Act and its legislative history, as well as established case law.</p></div><p>I am not a lawyer but how many times can you prolong at trial?  I'm aware of the appeal process but is this even an appeal?  It sounds more like they're saying "we refuse to accept the court's decision" which is not quite how I recall law in the United States to work.  <br> <br>

Then their filing says this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully decline to accept the Court&rsquo;s remittitur and shall work with Defendant&rsquo;s counsel and the Court to set this matter for a <b>new</b> trial on the issue of damages.</p></div><p>Emphasis mine.  So this isn't an appeal or a retrial but instead a <i>new</i> trial?  How many times must Thomas-Rasset go to court for copyright violation on twenty four songs?!  <br> <br>

Further more, if any lawyers are reading this, does this affect the precedence that this verdict would set?  Will Capital v. Thomas be referenced with an asterisk indicating that the first eight trials found her on the hook for any amount between $24 and $2 million causing the judge to finally throw it out on the ninth "new trial"?  <br> <br>

Whatever happened to due process and not being able to stand trial for the same crime twice?  Is this new trial a civil suit where the first two trials were criminal suits?  <br> <br>

I understand some issues are not clearly defined in law but this is turning into a circus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So their filing says : After considering the Court    s Order , Plaintiffs regretfully must decline to accept the remittitur since the rationale underlying the remittitur is inconsistent with the Copyright Act and its legislative history , as well as established case law.I am not a lawyer but how many times can you prolong at trial ?
I 'm aware of the appeal process but is this even an appeal ?
It sounds more like they 're saying " we refuse to accept the court 's decision " which is not quite how I recall law in the United States to work .
Then their filing says this : In light of the foregoing , Plaintiffs respectfully decline to accept the Court    s remittitur and shall work with Defendant    s counsel and the Court to set this matter for a new trial on the issue of damages.Emphasis mine .
So this is n't an appeal or a retrial but instead a new trial ?
How many times must Thomas-Rasset go to court for copyright violation on twenty four songs ? !
Further more , if any lawyers are reading this , does this affect the precedence that this verdict would set ?
Will Capital v. Thomas be referenced with an asterisk indicating that the first eight trials found her on the hook for any amount between $ 24 and $ 2 million causing the judge to finally throw it out on the ninth " new trial " ?
Whatever happened to due process and not being able to stand trial for the same crime twice ?
Is this new trial a civil suit where the first two trials were criminal suits ?
I understand some issues are not clearly defined in law but this is turning into a circus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So their filing says:After considering the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs regretfully must decline to accept the remittitur since the rationale underlying the remittitur is inconsistent with the Copyright Act and its legislative history, as well as established case law.I am not a lawyer but how many times can you prolong at trial?
I'm aware of the appeal process but is this even an appeal?
It sounds more like they're saying "we refuse to accept the court's decision" which is not quite how I recall law in the United States to work.
Then their filing says this:In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully decline to accept the Court’s remittitur and shall work with Defendant’s counsel and the Court to set this matter for a new trial on the issue of damages.Emphasis mine.
So this isn't an appeal or a retrial but instead a new trial?
How many times must Thomas-Rasset go to court for copyright violation on twenty four songs?!
Further more, if any lawyers are reading this, does this affect the precedence that this verdict would set?
Will Capital v. Thomas be referenced with an asterisk indicating that the first eight trials found her on the hook for any amount between $24 and $2 million causing the judge to finally throw it out on the ninth "new trial"?
Whatever happened to due process and not being able to stand trial for the same crime twice?
Is this new trial a civil suit where the first two trials were criminal suits?
I understand some issues are not clearly defined in law but this is turning into a circus.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100200</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265906700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, so far, this case hasn't gone anywhere that double jeopardy would prevent a criminal trial from going, has it? Criminal trials can be appealed, and appeals courts can order do-overs, and it counts as an extension of the original trial.</p><p>I'm pretty sure for civil cases, you can't re-sue over the same event, whether you settled, won, or lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , so far , this case has n't gone anywhere that double jeopardy would prevent a criminal trial from going , has it ?
Criminal trials can be appealed , and appeals courts can order do-overs , and it counts as an extension of the original trial.I 'm pretty sure for civil cases , you ca n't re-sue over the same event , whether you settled , won , or lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, so far, this case hasn't gone anywhere that double jeopardy would prevent a criminal trial from going, has it?
Criminal trials can be appealed, and appeals courts can order do-overs, and it counts as an extension of the original trial.I'm pretty sure for civil cases, you can't re-sue over the same event, whether you settled, won, or lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098776</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1265899740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people don't have the money to send the lawyers back again and again...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people do n't have the money to send the lawyers back again and again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people don't have the money to send the lawyers back again and again...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098888</id>
	<title>Third time's a charm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265900220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Millions the first time, thousands the second time... let's extrapolate. Third time's a charm?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Millions the first time , thousands the second time... let 's extrapolate .
Third time 's a charm ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Millions the first time, thousands the second time... let's extrapolate.
Third time's a charm?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098402</id>
	<title>Attorneys should be sanctioned</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1265896860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The attorneys should be personally sanctioned for improperly representing their client and wasting valuable resources.</p><p>In addition to court-assigned fines, they should be referred to their bar association for further sanctions and possibly barred from that courthouse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The attorneys should be personally sanctioned for improperly representing their client and wasting valuable resources.In addition to court-assigned fines , they should be referred to their bar association for further sanctions and possibly barred from that courthouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The attorneys should be personally sanctioned for improperly representing their client and wasting valuable resources.In addition to court-assigned fines, they should be referred to their bar association for further sanctions and possibly barred from that courthouse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100328</id>
	<title>Re:I don't condone what the RIAA does</title>
	<author>albedoa</author>
	<datestamp>1265907240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I'ma make a zany statement and then leave without explaining myself. Watch me!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I'ma make a zany statement and then leave without explaining myself .
Watch me !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'ma make a zany statement and then leave without explaining myself.
Watch me!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31102430</id>
	<title>My theory of what riAA wants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proof of my theory is here:<br>
&nbsp; 1) riaa browses the p2p networks and finds some data<br>
&nbsp; 2) riaa asks for settlements<br>
&nbsp; 3) riaa never admits they're wrong<br>
&nbsp; 4) riaa increases their claims and damages until they get a legal paper that the person did something wrong<br>
&nbsp; 5) riaa does not care who is their target -- anyone is good enough from p2p users -- as long as they admit doing something wrong.<br>
&nbsp; 6) riaa uses legal system to get the admissions, by stonewalling everyone who opposes it</p><p>the theory is that they don't care about the feeble money they receive from these lawsuits. Instead what they want is admissions that persons in this group did something wrong and that people belonging this group are \_all\_ criminals. They will no doubt collect statistics of how many people took the settlements and admit what riaa claims. And then this statistics will be used to pass some very dragonian laws or measures for isp's to prevent "unauthorised" downloads. So it's not about their copyrights at all, but a way to build statistics that favor them. They couldn't care less if some one person violates their copyrights. All they care is finding a way to destroy the whole group of people.</p><p>The real problem is that their product is not up-to-date. Their competitors found a way to build new technologies that got accepted by the public. ISP's are becoming real players in the market, making the environment difficult for people who create songs and distribute them to the public using old channels. Putting end to this practise is only possible if they have statistics that favors them. Statistics that say ISP's customers are all criminals. So they decided to create such statistics. Using real people. By destroying lives. They think that because they pressed some button to record some naturally occurring sounds and did that few hundred times, that they can destroy people's lives to create some statistics. Statistics that is needed to compete against other players in the market.</p><p>It's just a theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proof of my theory is here :   1 ) riaa browses the p2p networks and finds some data   2 ) riaa asks for settlements   3 ) riaa never admits they 're wrong   4 ) riaa increases their claims and damages until they get a legal paper that the person did something wrong   5 ) riaa does not care who is their target -- anyone is good enough from p2p users -- as long as they admit doing something wrong .
  6 ) riaa uses legal system to get the admissions , by stonewalling everyone who opposes itthe theory is that they do n't care about the feeble money they receive from these lawsuits .
Instead what they want is admissions that persons in this group did something wrong and that people belonging this group are \ _all \ _ criminals .
They will no doubt collect statistics of how many people took the settlements and admit what riaa claims .
And then this statistics will be used to pass some very dragonian laws or measures for isp 's to prevent " unauthorised " downloads .
So it 's not about their copyrights at all , but a way to build statistics that favor them .
They could n't care less if some one person violates their copyrights .
All they care is finding a way to destroy the whole group of people.The real problem is that their product is not up-to-date .
Their competitors found a way to build new technologies that got accepted by the public .
ISP 's are becoming real players in the market , making the environment difficult for people who create songs and distribute them to the public using old channels .
Putting end to this practise is only possible if they have statistics that favors them .
Statistics that say ISP 's customers are all criminals .
So they decided to create such statistics .
Using real people .
By destroying lives .
They think that because they pressed some button to record some naturally occurring sounds and did that few hundred times , that they can destroy people 's lives to create some statistics .
Statistics that is needed to compete against other players in the market.It 's just a theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proof of my theory is here:
  1) riaa browses the p2p networks and finds some data
  2) riaa asks for settlements
  3) riaa never admits they're wrong
  4) riaa increases their claims and damages until they get a legal paper that the person did something wrong
  5) riaa does not care who is their target -- anyone is good enough from p2p users -- as long as they admit doing something wrong.
  6) riaa uses legal system to get the admissions, by stonewalling everyone who opposes itthe theory is that they don't care about the feeble money they receive from these lawsuits.
Instead what they want is admissions that persons in this group did something wrong and that people belonging this group are \_all\_ criminals.
They will no doubt collect statistics of how many people took the settlements and admit what riaa claims.
And then this statistics will be used to pass some very dragonian laws or measures for isp's to prevent "unauthorised" downloads.
So it's not about their copyrights at all, but a way to build statistics that favor them.
They couldn't care less if some one person violates their copyrights.
All they care is finding a way to destroy the whole group of people.The real problem is that their product is not up-to-date.
Their competitors found a way to build new technologies that got accepted by the public.
ISP's are becoming real players in the market, making the environment difficult for people who create songs and distribute them to the public using old channels.
Putting end to this practise is only possible if they have statistics that favors them.
Statistics that say ISP's customers are all criminals.
So they decided to create such statistics.
Using real people.
By destroying lives.
They think that because they pressed some button to record some naturally occurring sounds and did that few hundred times, that they can destroy people's lives to create some statistics.
Statistics that is needed to compete against other players in the market.It's just a theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101058</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265910900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the good laugth... I needed that to releve the tension from the tor... errrm physics exam of this afternoon...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the good laugth... I needed that to releve the tension from the tor... errrm physics exam of this afternoon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the good laugth... I needed that to releve the tension from the tor... errrm physics exam of this afternoon...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31103066</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was a victim of a frivilous laws</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1265918940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, what has been stopping the US of A adopting a loser-pays -all legal system?</p></div></blockquote><p>Mainly the ease with which an unscrupulous individual can "PROVE" they don't have a dollar to their name...</p><p>So, the out and out criminals continue to file frivolous lawsuits...  If they lose, they have no provable income to pay the winner's legal fees.  If they happen to win, then not only do you have to pay the adjudicated amount, you also get stuck paying their legal bill, however over-inflated it happens to be...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what has been stopping the US of A adopting a loser-pays -all legal system ? Mainly the ease with which an unscrupulous individual can " PROVE " they do n't have a dollar to their name...So , the out and out criminals continue to file frivolous lawsuits... If they lose , they have no provable income to pay the winner 's legal fees .
If they happen to win , then not only do you have to pay the adjudicated amount , you also get stuck paying their legal bill , however over-inflated it happens to be.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what has been stopping the US of A adopting a loser-pays -all legal system?Mainly the ease with which an unscrupulous individual can "PROVE" they don't have a dollar to their name...So, the out and out criminals continue to file frivolous lawsuits...  If they lose, they have no provable income to pay the winner's legal fees.
If they happen to win, then not only do you have to pay the adjudicated amount, you also get stuck paying their legal bill, however over-inflated it happens to be...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098878</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1265900160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Whatever happened to due process and not being able to stand trial for the same crime twice?</i></p><p>As this is the RIAA bringing the case, rather than The People (or whatever the US's equivalent of the UK's "Crown vs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." is), surely it's a civil case and it can be brought as many times as a judge is willing to put up with it before throwing it out of court and telling them not to come back?</p><p>(ObDisclaimer: IANAL)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to due process and not being able to stand trial for the same crime twice ? As this is the RIAA bringing the case , rather than The People ( or whatever the US 's equivalent of the UK 's " Crown vs ... " is ) , surely it 's a civil case and it can be brought as many times as a judge is willing to put up with it before throwing it out of court and telling them not to come back ?
( ObDisclaimer : IANAL )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to due process and not being able to stand trial for the same crime twice?As this is the RIAA bringing the case, rather than The People (or whatever the US's equivalent of the UK's "Crown vs ..." is), surely it's a civil case and it can be brought as many times as a judge is willing to put up with it before throwing it out of court and telling them not to come back?
(ObDisclaimer: IANAL)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098670</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>warGod3</author>
	<datestamp>1265899020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I am not a lawyer either, so hopefully someone who is can respond with an educated opinion...</p><p>So how does being tried three times for the same offense not violate the intent of the Constitution? I know the Fifth Amendment primarily speaks to capitol offenses, but what about the Eighth Amendment?</p><p>Were the previous two trials mistrials or somehow screwed up? If I read the articles right, then the last trial had a verdict. Does this mean in civil cases I can sue until I get what I want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I am not a lawyer either , so hopefully someone who is can respond with an educated opinion...So how does being tried three times for the same offense not violate the intent of the Constitution ?
I know the Fifth Amendment primarily speaks to capitol offenses , but what about the Eighth Amendment ? Were the previous two trials mistrials or somehow screwed up ?
If I read the articles right , then the last trial had a verdict .
Does this mean in civil cases I can sue until I get what I want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I am not a lawyer either, so hopefully someone who is can respond with an educated opinion...So how does being tried three times for the same offense not violate the intent of the Constitution?
I know the Fifth Amendment primarily speaks to capitol offenses, but what about the Eighth Amendment?Were the previous two trials mistrials or somehow screwed up?
If I read the articles right, then the last trial had a verdict.
Does this mean in civil cases I can sue until I get what I want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31104382</id>
	<title>Moral of your story: justice for the rich</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I turn 18, I am inheriting over two million dollars and will be more than happy to pay as many lawyers as it takes. [...] Moral of the story</p></div><p>Moral of the story: justice for the rich.</p><p>Now, don't get me wrong.  I think it's great you won your victory there.  A three-digit settlement (in dollars) isn't a huge deal financially; I'd be angry to pay it but I'd be able to manage it (heck, I just bought a new phone for high three digits even though my current one works just fine), and I'd been able to afford it even when I was on state welfare for students (in socialist Denmark, the government pays <em>you</em> to study...).  Symmetrically, I'd be happy to receive a three-digit settlement---zomfg free monies!!</p><p>And I'm not speaking out of envy for that large wad of dough.  Sure, I'd love to have two million dollars, but I think I'd just be putting them in a savings account just like I am my doing to my money now.</p><p>It's just striking to me that you backed up your threat of litigation with "I have a large amount of money" rather than "I have a very strong case".  That speaks volumes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I turn 18 , I am inheriting over two million dollars and will be more than happy to pay as many lawyers as it takes .
[ ... ] Moral of the storyMoral of the story : justice for the rich.Now , do n't get me wrong .
I think it 's great you won your victory there .
A three-digit settlement ( in dollars ) is n't a huge deal financially ; I 'd be angry to pay it but I 'd be able to manage it ( heck , I just bought a new phone for high three digits even though my current one works just fine ) , and I 'd been able to afford it even when I was on state welfare for students ( in socialist Denmark , the government pays you to study... ) .
Symmetrically , I 'd be happy to receive a three-digit settlement---zomfg free monies !
! And I 'm not speaking out of envy for that large wad of dough .
Sure , I 'd love to have two million dollars , but I think I 'd just be putting them in a savings account just like I am my doing to my money now.It 's just striking to me that you backed up your threat of litigation with " I have a large amount of money " rather than " I have a very strong case " .
That speaks volumes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I turn 18, I am inheriting over two million dollars and will be more than happy to pay as many lawyers as it takes.
[...] Moral of the storyMoral of the story: justice for the rich.Now, don't get me wrong.
I think it's great you won your victory there.
A three-digit settlement (in dollars) isn't a huge deal financially; I'd be angry to pay it but I'd be able to manage it (heck, I just bought a new phone for high three digits even though my current one works just fine), and I'd been able to afford it even when I was on state welfare for students (in socialist Denmark, the government pays you to study...).
Symmetrically, I'd be happy to receive a three-digit settlement---zomfg free monies!
!And I'm not speaking out of envy for that large wad of dough.
Sure, I'd love to have two million dollars, but I think I'd just be putting them in a savings account just like I am my doing to my money now.It's just striking to me that you backed up your threat of litigation with "I have a large amount of money" rather than "I have a very strong case".
That speaks volumes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099168</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265901600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The constitution doesn't count in civil cases. It's not a crime, it's a civil dispute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution does n't count in civil cases .
It 's not a crime , it 's a civil dispute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution doesn't count in civil cases.
It's not a crime, it's a civil dispute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31109620</id>
	<title>Re:This will multiply to other industries</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1265910900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...delay release of electronic versions hoping people will buy the hard-copy first and the ebook 6 months later...</p></div><p>You mean, ebooks are the new paperback?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...delay release of electronic versions hoping people will buy the hard-copy first and the ebook 6 months later...You mean , ebooks are the new paperback ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...delay release of electronic versions hoping people will buy the hard-copy first and the ebook 6 months later...You mean, ebooks are the new paperback?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099246</id>
	<title>Re:Question for NYCL</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265902080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[W]hat prevents a plaintiff with very deep pockets from suing a defendant for something, losing, suing them again, losing, etc until the defendant's funds with which to defend themselves run out?</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous\_litigation" title="wikipedia.org">Frivilous litigation</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry" title="wikipedia.org">Barratry</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious\_litigant" title="wikipedia.org">Vexatious litigation</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious\_prosecution" title="wikipedia.org">Malicious prosecution</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>Take your pick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ W ] hat prevents a plaintiff with very deep pockets from suing a defendant for something , losing , suing them again , losing , etc until the defendant 's funds with which to defend themselves run out ?
Frivilous litigation [ wikipedia.org ] Barratry [ wikipedia.org ] Vexatious litigation [ wikipedia.org ] Malicious prosecution [ wikipedia.org ] Take your pick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[W]hat prevents a plaintiff with very deep pockets from suing a defendant for something, losing, suing them again, losing, etc until the defendant's funds with which to defend themselves run out?
Frivilous litigation [wikipedia.org]  Barratry [wikipedia.org]  Vexatious litigation [wikipedia.org]  Malicious prosecution [wikipedia.org]  Take your pick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099858</id>
	<title>The other side of the story</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1265905200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mules, long noted for stubbornness, would seem to have nothing on either the music labels or Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Both sides have dug in deep and are prepared, almost unbelievably, to have a third trial on the question of whether Thomas-Rasset was a dirty P2P pirate... and of what she should pay if she was.</i></p><p><i>At the second trial, in 2009, Thomas-Rasset was again found liable, but the jury this time fined her $1.92 million. Last week, federal judge Michael Davis decided that this was "monstrous" in its disproportionality and slashed the damages to $54,000. The recording industry could either accept his decision or request a third trial.</i></p><p><i>The RIAA then sent a letter to Thomas-Rasset's lawyers with an alternate offer. Thomas-Rasset could settle for only $25,000 ("We are willing to negotiate a payment schedule for this sum," said a copy of the letter seen by Ars), and she wouldn't even need to pay the labels--all cash could go to a charity benefiting musicians. The entire settlement would be conditioned on the judge vacating his recent remittitur order.</i></p><p><i>"We do not believe embarking on a third trial is in anyone's interest," said the letter. "Continuing to use scarce judicial resources as well as spend our respective clients' time and money strikes as unwise and pointless."</i></p><p><i>It does not strike Thomas-Rasset that way. While the RIAA asked for an answer by Friday, January 29, Thomas-Rasset's lawyers have already responded: no deal.</i></p><p><i>I checked in with Kiwi Camara, one of Thomas-Rasset's lawyers. who confirmed that the settlement was ruled out. He added that Thomas-Rasset would likewise rule out any settlement asking her to pay damages, and that the Camara &amp; Sibley law firm was ready to represent her pro bono once more.</i></p><p><i><br>It's hard to see how this will play out, but a few things are clear: Judge Davis, despite strong criticism of the damage award, had no kind words for Thomas-Rasset. He noted that "ThomasRasset's refusal to accept responsibility for her actions and her decision to concoct a new theory of the infringement casting possible blame on her children and exboyfriend for her actions demonstrate a refusal to accept responsibility and raise the need for strong deterrence." The judge even concluded that she "lied on the witness stand by denying responsibility for her infringing acts and, instead, blamed others, including her children, for her actions."</i></p><p><i>Given the facts in the case, which after two trials don't appear to be in dispute, it's hard to see how Thomas-Rasset hopes to prevail without paying a dime, but that appears to be the plan.</i></p><p><i><br>
&nbsp; If she had been willing to pay something, she would have done so long ago, when the RIAA offered her a settlement of a few thousand dollars. Instead, Thomas-Rasset has spent years of her life working with two law firms on two federal trials, and she's willing to risk a third.</i></p><p><i>The stubbornness isn't just on one side of the aisle, however. The RIAA is completely unwilling to abide Judge Davis' ruling that the jury's damage award was excessive. Accepting the ruling would set an unacceptable precedent for judges to alter jury awards in copyright cases at their whim. It's not the amount, but the principle--something shown by the fact that the trade group is willing to drop roughly a bazillion dollars more on the Denver law firm that has been prosecuting the case in order to do it all again. In addition, conversations with industry lawyers and executives over the years have also revealed a strong sense that Thomas-Rasset needs to take responsibility and pay something; there's a very real sense that, apart from issue of statutory damage law, Thomas-Rasset is thumbing her nose at the industry and hoping to get away with no penalty.</i></p><p><i>Thus--a third trial.</i></p><p><i> <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/thomas-rasset-vows-to-pay-nothing-so-third-trial-inevitable.ars" title="arstechnica.com">Thomas-Rasset vows to pay nothing, so third trial inevitable</a> [arstechnica.com] [Jan 28]</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mules , long noted for stubbornness , would seem to have nothing on either the music labels or Jammie Thomas-Rasset .
Both sides have dug in deep and are prepared , almost unbelievably , to have a third trial on the question of whether Thomas-Rasset was a dirty P2P pirate... and of what she should pay if she was.At the second trial , in 2009 , Thomas-Rasset was again found liable , but the jury this time fined her $ 1.92 million .
Last week , federal judge Michael Davis decided that this was " monstrous " in its disproportionality and slashed the damages to $ 54,000 .
The recording industry could either accept his decision or request a third trial.The RIAA then sent a letter to Thomas-Rasset 's lawyers with an alternate offer .
Thomas-Rasset could settle for only $ 25,000 ( " We are willing to negotiate a payment schedule for this sum , " said a copy of the letter seen by Ars ) , and she would n't even need to pay the labels--all cash could go to a charity benefiting musicians .
The entire settlement would be conditioned on the judge vacating his recent remittitur order .
" We do not believe embarking on a third trial is in anyone 's interest , " said the letter .
" Continuing to use scarce judicial resources as well as spend our respective clients ' time and money strikes as unwise and pointless .
" It does not strike Thomas-Rasset that way .
While the RIAA asked for an answer by Friday , January 29 , Thomas-Rasset 's lawyers have already responded : no deal.I checked in with Kiwi Camara , one of Thomas-Rasset 's lawyers .
who confirmed that the settlement was ruled out .
He added that Thomas-Rasset would likewise rule out any settlement asking her to pay damages , and that the Camara &amp; Sibley law firm was ready to represent her pro bono once more.It 's hard to see how this will play out , but a few things are clear : Judge Davis , despite strong criticism of the damage award , had no kind words for Thomas-Rasset .
He noted that " ThomasRasset 's refusal to accept responsibility for her actions and her decision to concoct a new theory of the infringement casting possible blame on her children and exboyfriend for her actions demonstrate a refusal to accept responsibility and raise the need for strong deterrence .
" The judge even concluded that she " lied on the witness stand by denying responsibility for her infringing acts and , instead , blamed others , including her children , for her actions .
" Given the facts in the case , which after two trials do n't appear to be in dispute , it 's hard to see how Thomas-Rasset hopes to prevail without paying a dime , but that appears to be the plan .
  If she had been willing to pay something , she would have done so long ago , when the RIAA offered her a settlement of a few thousand dollars .
Instead , Thomas-Rasset has spent years of her life working with two law firms on two federal trials , and she 's willing to risk a third.The stubbornness is n't just on one side of the aisle , however .
The RIAA is completely unwilling to abide Judge Davis ' ruling that the jury 's damage award was excessive .
Accepting the ruling would set an unacceptable precedent for judges to alter jury awards in copyright cases at their whim .
It 's not the amount , but the principle--something shown by the fact that the trade group is willing to drop roughly a bazillion dollars more on the Denver law firm that has been prosecuting the case in order to do it all again .
In addition , conversations with industry lawyers and executives over the years have also revealed a strong sense that Thomas-Rasset needs to take responsibility and pay something ; there 's a very real sense that , apart from issue of statutory damage law , Thomas-Rasset is thumbing her nose at the industry and hoping to get away with no penalty.Thus--a third trial .
Thomas-Rasset vows to pay nothing , so third trial inevitable [ arstechnica.com ] [ Jan 28 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mules, long noted for stubbornness, would seem to have nothing on either the music labels or Jammie Thomas-Rasset.
Both sides have dug in deep and are prepared, almost unbelievably, to have a third trial on the question of whether Thomas-Rasset was a dirty P2P pirate... and of what she should pay if she was.At the second trial, in 2009, Thomas-Rasset was again found liable, but the jury this time fined her $1.92 million.
Last week, federal judge Michael Davis decided that this was "monstrous" in its disproportionality and slashed the damages to $54,000.
The recording industry could either accept his decision or request a third trial.The RIAA then sent a letter to Thomas-Rasset's lawyers with an alternate offer.
Thomas-Rasset could settle for only $25,000 ("We are willing to negotiate a payment schedule for this sum," said a copy of the letter seen by Ars), and she wouldn't even need to pay the labels--all cash could go to a charity benefiting musicians.
The entire settlement would be conditioned on the judge vacating his recent remittitur order.
"We do not believe embarking on a third trial is in anyone's interest," said the letter.
"Continuing to use scarce judicial resources as well as spend our respective clients' time and money strikes as unwise and pointless.
"It does not strike Thomas-Rasset that way.
While the RIAA asked for an answer by Friday, January 29, Thomas-Rasset's lawyers have already responded: no deal.I checked in with Kiwi Camara, one of Thomas-Rasset's lawyers.
who confirmed that the settlement was ruled out.
He added that Thomas-Rasset would likewise rule out any settlement asking her to pay damages, and that the Camara &amp; Sibley law firm was ready to represent her pro bono once more.It's hard to see how this will play out, but a few things are clear: Judge Davis, despite strong criticism of the damage award, had no kind words for Thomas-Rasset.
He noted that "ThomasRasset's refusal to accept responsibility for her actions and her decision to concoct a new theory of the infringement casting possible blame on her children and exboyfriend for her actions demonstrate a refusal to accept responsibility and raise the need for strong deterrence.
" The judge even concluded that she "lied on the witness stand by denying responsibility for her infringing acts and, instead, blamed others, including her children, for her actions.
"Given the facts in the case, which after two trials don't appear to be in dispute, it's hard to see how Thomas-Rasset hopes to prevail without paying a dime, but that appears to be the plan.
  If she had been willing to pay something, she would have done so long ago, when the RIAA offered her a settlement of a few thousand dollars.
Instead, Thomas-Rasset has spent years of her life working with two law firms on two federal trials, and she's willing to risk a third.The stubbornness isn't just on one side of the aisle, however.
The RIAA is completely unwilling to abide Judge Davis' ruling that the jury's damage award was excessive.
Accepting the ruling would set an unacceptable precedent for judges to alter jury awards in copyright cases at their whim.
It's not the amount, but the principle--something shown by the fact that the trade group is willing to drop roughly a bazillion dollars more on the Denver law firm that has been prosecuting the case in order to do it all again.
In addition, conversations with industry lawyers and executives over the years have also revealed a strong sense that Thomas-Rasset needs to take responsibility and pay something; there's a very real sense that, apart from issue of statutory damage law, Thomas-Rasset is thumbing her nose at the industry and hoping to get away with no penalty.Thus--a third trial.
Thomas-Rasset vows to pay nothing, so third trial inevitable [arstechnica.com] [Jan 28]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100126</id>
	<title>Re:I don't condone what the RIAA does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265906460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The MAXIMUM actual damages for an unauthorized download of any of these mp3 files is AT MOST about 35 cents.<br> <br>1. Wholesale price=70 cents<br>2. Expenses=35 cents.<br>3. ???????????<br>4. Profit!!!!!!!!!! [35 cents]<br> <br>(That's assuming every single unauthorized download = a lost sale, which is obviously not the case. See, e.g. <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/01/riaas-download-equals-lost-sale-theory.html" title="blogspot.com">USA v. Dove</a> [blogspot.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MAXIMUM actual damages for an unauthorized download of any of these mp3 files is AT MOST about 35 cents .
1. Wholesale price = 70 cents2 .
Expenses = 35 cents.3 .
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4. Profit ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
[ 35 cents ] ( That 's assuming every single unauthorized download = a lost sale , which is obviously not the case .
See , e.g .
USA v. Dove [ blogspot.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MAXIMUM actual damages for an unauthorized download of any of these mp3 files is AT MOST about 35 cents.
1. Wholesale price=70 cents2.
Expenses=35 cents.3.
???????????4. Profit!!!!!!!!!!
[35 cents] (That's assuming every single unauthorized download = a lost sale, which is obviously not the case.
See, e.g.
USA v. Dove [blogspot.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099466</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was a victim of a frivilous laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265903280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what has been stopping the US of A adopting a loser-pays -all legal system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what has been stopping the US of A adopting a loser-pays -all legal system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what has been stopping the US of A adopting a loser-pays -all legal system?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099556</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1265903760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The judge offered the option of a new trial to the plaintiffs when he set aside the jury's verdict.  There may be a 7th amendment issue involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge offered the option of a new trial to the plaintiffs when he set aside the jury 's verdict .
There may be a 7th amendment issue involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge offered the option of a new trial to the plaintiffs when he set aside the jury's verdict.
There may be a 7th amendment issue involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099746</id>
	<title>Re:I don't condone what the RIAA does</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265904720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But to say that $54,000 is approximately 6500x (ie $8.30) the actual damages is disingenuous at best.</p></div><p>Very true. Since this is the case where the RIAA invented the crime of "making available", and (as far as I know) no one has ever proven that she <em>actually</em> distributed a single copy of any song, it's a division-by-zero error to attempt to estimate the multiple by which she's being punished.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But to say that $ 54,000 is approximately 6500x ( ie $ 8.30 ) the actual damages is disingenuous at best.Very true .
Since this is the case where the RIAA invented the crime of " making available " , and ( as far as I know ) no one has ever proven that she actually distributed a single copy of any song , it 's a division-by-zero error to attempt to estimate the multiple by which she 's being punished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But to say that $54,000 is approximately 6500x (ie $8.30) the actual damages is disingenuous at best.Very true.
Since this is the case where the RIAA invented the crime of "making available", and (as far as I know) no one has ever proven that she actually distributed a single copy of any song, it's a division-by-zero error to attempt to estimate the multiple by which she's being punished.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098658</id>
	<title>Question for NYCL</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265898960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the idea of double jeopardy apply in civil law? If not, what prevents a plaintiff with very deep pockets from suing a defendant for something, losing, suing them again, losing, etc until the defendant's funds with which to defend themselves run out? Because this sounds like a pretty open-and-shut case of the RIAA doing exactly that, and the overall effect is that said defendant effectively loses even if they win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the idea of double jeopardy apply in civil law ?
If not , what prevents a plaintiff with very deep pockets from suing a defendant for something , losing , suing them again , losing , etc until the defendant 's funds with which to defend themselves run out ?
Because this sounds like a pretty open-and-shut case of the RIAA doing exactly that , and the overall effect is that said defendant effectively loses even if they win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the idea of double jeopardy apply in civil law?
If not, what prevents a plaintiff with very deep pockets from suing a defendant for something, losing, suing them again, losing, etc until the defendant's funds with which to defend themselves run out?
Because this sounds like a pretty open-and-shut case of the RIAA doing exactly that, and the overall effect is that said defendant effectively loses even if they win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098780</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>sh00z</author>
	<datestamp>1265899740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm aware of the appeal process but is this even an appeal? It sounds more like they're saying "we refuse to accept the court's decision" which is not quite how I recall law in the United States to work</p></div></blockquote><p>

Well, IANAL, but they <i>can't</i> appeal--because they won the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm aware of the appeal process but is this even an appeal ?
It sounds more like they 're saying " we refuse to accept the court 's decision " which is not quite how I recall law in the United States to work Well , IANAL , but they ca n't appeal--because they won the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm aware of the appeal process but is this even an appeal?
It sounds more like they're saying "we refuse to accept the court's decision" which is not quite how I recall law in the United States to work

Well, IANAL, but they can't appeal--because they won the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31110254</id>
	<title>RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266005820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK so Thomas is a Stupid Twat.
--

The RIAA are arseholes, looking more and more and more and more like fucking arseholes... and stupid fucking arseholes at that.
--

"Fuck the RIAA.", Oh sorry that record isn't available for downloading from ITUNES, I guess I'll just have to pirate it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK so Thomas is a Stupid Twat .
-- The RIAA are arseholes , looking more and more and more and more like fucking arseholes... and stupid fucking arseholes at that .
-- " Fuck the RIAA .
" , Oh sorry that record is n't available for downloading from ITUNES , I guess I 'll just have to pirate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK so Thomas is a Stupid Twat.
--

The RIAA are arseholes, looking more and more and more and more like fucking arseholes... and stupid fucking arseholes at that.
--

"Fuck the RIAA.
", Oh sorry that record isn't available for downloading from ITUNES, I guess I'll just have to pirate it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100488</id>
	<title>Vexacious litigation?</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1265907840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's starting to seem like it. At some point, a judge is going to have to teach these buttheads a lesson by dismissing the damned case with prejudice. Or override any jury's damage amount and give them something like $100 dollars with the admonishment "Take or leave it but never file another suit over Thomas's copyright violations ever again.".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's starting to seem like it .
At some point , a judge is going to have to teach these buttheads a lesson by dismissing the damned case with prejudice .
Or override any jury 's damage amount and give them something like $ 100 dollars with the admonishment " Take or leave it but never file another suit over Thomas 's copyright violations ever again .
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's starting to seem like it.
At some point, a judge is going to have to teach these buttheads a lesson by dismissing the damned case with prejudice.
Or override any jury's damage amount and give them something like $100 dollars with the admonishment "Take or leave it but never file another suit over Thomas's copyright violations ever again.
".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100030</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1265905980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.  It does and it doesn't.  There's some aspects of the Constitution which apply in full force (with changes in procedure that alter the nature of the BoR's impact on things...) and some things that don't.</p><p>For example:</p><p>A civil asset seizure, if not properly done under a valid Warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment- just as if it were a criminal one.  If the assets so seized are not immediately remanded, it's a Fifth Amendment violation (Unlawful Takings...).  Any Civil discovery or Criminal evidence obtained from such a seizure is no longer admissible in court and is typically ordered to be destroyed at the moment of the discovery that the Fourth has been violated.</p><p>Testimony not able to be cross-examined prior to a trial or during is generally held to be inadmissible as hearsay per the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.  Bank statements are excluded from this holding- but most everything else isn't going to fly.</p><p>In a courtroom, you may plead the Fifth in a Civil case, but you have to explicitly take it each and every time you are asked a question- and you can have negative inferences (i.e. it can be at least partly held against you in a decision...) from the Judge or Jury if you DO choose to take that route.  And you can't let up once you start, you have to take it from that moment on.</p><p>You can't be tried under the Civil code by the the State or Federal government for something and then have it followed up by a Criminal code suit for the same specific violation (double-jeopardy).  Though you can have a trial under the Criminal code and then be sued by the family of the deceased/injured in the context of a murder/manslaughter/etc. case as we've seen with the OJ Simpson story.  That's allowed because it wasn't specifically the same cause (The state tried for murder, the family sued for damages, etc.).</p><p>The First Amendment is typically deemed to trump most every Civil and Criminal statute when applied in the manner it's usually done.</p><p>Most of these things apply to State level courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.</p><p>In truth, the Civil code's authority stems from the rules set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights affects it as much as the varying Penal codes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
It does and it does n't .
There 's some aspects of the Constitution which apply in full force ( with changes in procedure that alter the nature of the BoR 's impact on things... ) and some things that do n't.For example : A civil asset seizure , if not properly done under a valid Warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment- just as if it were a criminal one .
If the assets so seized are not immediately remanded , it 's a Fifth Amendment violation ( Unlawful Takings... ) .
Any Civil discovery or Criminal evidence obtained from such a seizure is no longer admissible in court and is typically ordered to be destroyed at the moment of the discovery that the Fourth has been violated.Testimony not able to be cross-examined prior to a trial or during is generally held to be inadmissible as hearsay per the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment .
Bank statements are excluded from this holding- but most everything else is n't going to fly.In a courtroom , you may plead the Fifth in a Civil case , but you have to explicitly take it each and every time you are asked a question- and you can have negative inferences ( i.e .
it can be at least partly held against you in a decision... ) from the Judge or Jury if you DO choose to take that route .
And you ca n't let up once you start , you have to take it from that moment on.You ca n't be tried under the Civil code by the the State or Federal government for something and then have it followed up by a Criminal code suit for the same specific violation ( double-jeopardy ) .
Though you can have a trial under the Criminal code and then be sued by the family of the deceased/injured in the context of a murder/manslaughter/etc .
case as we 've seen with the OJ Simpson story .
That 's allowed because it was n't specifically the same cause ( The state tried for murder , the family sued for damages , etc .
) .The First Amendment is typically deemed to trump most every Civil and Criminal statute when applied in the manner it 's usually done.Most of these things apply to State level courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.In truth , the Civil code 's authority stems from the rules set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights affects it as much as the varying Penal codes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
It does and it doesn't.
There's some aspects of the Constitution which apply in full force (with changes in procedure that alter the nature of the BoR's impact on things...) and some things that don't.For example:A civil asset seizure, if not properly done under a valid Warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment- just as if it were a criminal one.
If the assets so seized are not immediately remanded, it's a Fifth Amendment violation (Unlawful Takings...).
Any Civil discovery or Criminal evidence obtained from such a seizure is no longer admissible in court and is typically ordered to be destroyed at the moment of the discovery that the Fourth has been violated.Testimony not able to be cross-examined prior to a trial or during is generally held to be inadmissible as hearsay per the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.
Bank statements are excluded from this holding- but most everything else isn't going to fly.In a courtroom, you may plead the Fifth in a Civil case, but you have to explicitly take it each and every time you are asked a question- and you can have negative inferences (i.e.
it can be at least partly held against you in a decision...) from the Judge or Jury if you DO choose to take that route.
And you can't let up once you start, you have to take it from that moment on.You can't be tried under the Civil code by the the State or Federal government for something and then have it followed up by a Criminal code suit for the same specific violation (double-jeopardy).
Though you can have a trial under the Criminal code and then be sued by the family of the deceased/injured in the context of a murder/manslaughter/etc.
case as we've seen with the OJ Simpson story.
That's allowed because it wasn't specifically the same cause (The state tried for murder, the family sued for damages, etc.
).The First Amendment is typically deemed to trump most every Civil and Criminal statute when applied in the manner it's usually done.Most of these things apply to State level courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.In truth, the Civil code's authority stems from the rules set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights affects it as much as the varying Penal codes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099662</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265904360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A legal system in which the powerful can obtain the practical result they desire simply by grinding down the weak has no legitimate moral authority.</p></div><p>Since I'm registering to become a South Carolina Subversive, I can say this: the world needs more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">Dexter</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A legal system in which the powerful can obtain the practical result they desire simply by grinding down the weak has no legitimate moral authority.Since I 'm registering to become a South Carolina Subversive , I can say this : the world needs more Dexter [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A legal system in which the powerful can obtain the practical result they desire simply by grinding down the weak has no legitimate moral authority.Since I'm registering to become a South Carolina Subversive, I can say this: the world needs more Dexter [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518</id>
	<title>I don't condone what the RIAA does</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265897820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But to say that $54,000 is approximately 6500x (ie $8.30) the actual damages is disingenuous at best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But to say that $ 54,000 is approximately 6500x ( ie $ 8.30 ) the actual damages is disingenuous at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But to say that $54,000 is approximately 6500x (ie $8.30) the actual damages is disingenuous at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265898180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot: making the defendant crawl underneath the horse and forcing him to carry both it and you.</p><p>A legal system in which the powerful can obtain the practical result they desire simply by grinding down the weak has no legitimate moral authority. Its principles are a sham; they have no practical significance. You might as well auction verdicts to the highest bidder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot : making the defendant crawl underneath the horse and forcing him to carry both it and you.A legal system in which the powerful can obtain the practical result they desire simply by grinding down the weak has no legitimate moral authority .
Its principles are a sham ; they have no practical significance .
You might as well auction verdicts to the highest bidder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot: making the defendant crawl underneath the horse and forcing him to carry both it and you.A legal system in which the powerful can obtain the practical result they desire simply by grinding down the weak has no legitimate moral authority.
Its principles are a sham; they have no practical significance.
You might as well auction verdicts to the highest bidder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098640</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1265898840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, as it turned out, Microsoft's horse was only mostly dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , as it turned out , Microsoft 's horse was only mostly dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, as it turned out, Microsoft's horse was only mostly dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098472</id>
	<title>Making an error on appeal? Think simple.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265897460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're going for harassment and want to make an example of this person by tying up life, finances, and emotional health as long and deeply as possible. If they could get an execution somehow they would, but they'll settle for lawsuits for the rest of natural life to prevent things like, oh, personal property and/or basic health from taking hold ever again.</p><p><b>R</b>ip '<b>i</b>s '<b>a</b>rt '<b>a</b>part!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're going for harassment and want to make an example of this person by tying up life , finances , and emotional health as long and deeply as possible .
If they could get an execution somehow they would , but they 'll settle for lawsuits for the rest of natural life to prevent things like , oh , personal property and/or basic health from taking hold ever again.Rip 'is 'art 'apart !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're going for harassment and want to make an example of this person by tying up life, finances, and emotional health as long and deeply as possible.
If they could get an execution somehow they would, but they'll settle for lawsuits for the rest of natural life to prevent things like, oh, personal property and/or basic health from taking hold ever again.Rip 'is 'art 'apart!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099156</id>
	<title>Re:Making an error on appeal? Think simple.</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1265901540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the word everyone is searching for here is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic\_lawsuit\_against\_public\_participation" title="wikipedia.org">SLAPP</a> [wikipedia.org]. They are trying to show that it is impossible to fight them, because their incredible warchest means they can just keep dragging you to court over and over and over until you are broken.</p><p>

And the sad part? It will work just as they planned it to. They can just keep dragging this out until no lawyer will represent her, and then crush her like a bug. Just another example of how our entire system is completely broken beyond repair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the word everyone is searching for here is SLAPP [ wikipedia.org ] .
They are trying to show that it is impossible to fight them , because their incredible warchest means they can just keep dragging you to court over and over and over until you are broken .
And the sad part ?
It will work just as they planned it to .
They can just keep dragging this out until no lawyer will represent her , and then crush her like a bug .
Just another example of how our entire system is completely broken beyond repair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the word everyone is searching for here is SLAPP [wikipedia.org].
They are trying to show that it is impossible to fight them, because their incredible warchest means they can just keep dragging you to court over and over and over until you are broken.
And the sad part?
It will work just as they planned it to.
They can just keep dragging this out until no lawyer will represent her, and then crush her like a bug.
Just another example of how our entire system is completely broken beyond repair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098438</id>
	<title>Vindictive much?</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1265897160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal."</i> <br> <br>

No, I think other assumptions could also be made. Such as, maybe they're just a bunch of vindictive pricks who have the money and just want to screw with someone they lost to (well, it wasn't a loss, but they surely see it that way). Why not piss away another pile of cash?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal .
" No , I think other assumptions could also be made .
Such as , maybe they 're just a bunch of vindictive pricks who have the money and just want to screw with someone they lost to ( well , it was n't a loss , but they surely see it that way ) .
Why not piss away another pile of cash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal.
"  

No, I think other assumptions could also be made.
Such as, maybe they're just a bunch of vindictive pricks who have the money and just want to screw with someone they lost to (well, it wasn't a loss, but they surely see it that way).
Why not piss away another pile of cash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099744</id>
	<title>Re:Vindictive much?</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1265904660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not piss away another pile of cash?</p></div><p>IMHO, businesses should act like businesses and maximize profits.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of emotional money wasting with this kind of thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not piss away another pile of cash ? IMHO , businesses should act like businesses and maximize profits .
Unfortunately , there seems to be a lot of emotional money wasting with this kind of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not piss away another pile of cash?IMHO, businesses should act like businesses and maximize profits.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of emotional money wasting with this kind of thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099440</id>
	<title>Re:My patience would be thin.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265903040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to agree this with.</p><p>I have put serious thought into it myself.</p><p>Courts are run by lawyers for the benifit of lawyers.  The primary function is to create and monitize conflict.  That may not be the stated goal, but it is what it does very, very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree this with.I have put serious thought into it myself.Courts are run by lawyers for the benifit of lawyers .
The primary function is to create and monitize conflict .
That may not be the stated goal , but it is what it does very , very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree this with.I have put serious thought into it myself.Courts are run by lawyers for the benifit of lawyers.
The primary function is to create and monitize conflict.
That may not be the stated goal, but it is what it does very, very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101634</id>
	<title>What is distribution</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1265914020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the way, a distribution requires<br>1.dissemination of copies <i>to the public</i> <br>2. by sale or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease or lending.<br> <br> <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/106" title="findlaw.com">17 USC 106(3)</a> [findlaw.com]. The RIAA has never proved, and probably could never prove, a distribution in any of these end user cases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , a distribution requires1.dissemination of copies to the public 2. by sale or other transfer of ownership , or a rental , lease or lending .
17 USC 106 ( 3 ) [ findlaw.com ] .
The RIAA has never proved , and probably could never prove , a distribution in any of these end user cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, a distribution requires1.dissemination of copies to the public 2. by sale or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease or lending.
17 USC 106(3) [findlaw.com].
The RIAA has never proved, and probably could never prove, a distribution in any of these end user cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098904</id>
	<title>Did RIAA's lawyers...</title>
	<author>d1r3lnd</author>
	<datestamp>1265900280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...forget about what happened in McDonald's Restaurants vs. Morris &amp; Steel?

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's\_Restaurants\_v\_Morris\_&amp;\_Steel" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's\_Restaurants\_v\_Morris\_&amp;\_Steel</a> [wikipedia.org]

I hope that the MAFIAA gets slapped down hard for these shenanigans eventually.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...forget about what happened in McDonald 's Restaurants vs. Morris &amp; Steel ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald 's \ _Restaurants \ _v \ _Morris \ _&amp; \ _Steel [ wikipedia.org ] I hope that the MAFIAA gets slapped down hard for these shenanigans eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...forget about what happened in McDonald's Restaurants vs. Morris &amp; Steel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's\_Restaurants\_v\_Morris\_&amp;\_Steel [wikipedia.org]

I hope that the MAFIAA gets slapped down hard for these shenanigans eventually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100084</id>
	<title>Monsters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265906220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the damages are lowered then they still get a PR victory, but also make the industry look less like monsters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the damages are lowered then they still get a PR victory , but also make the industry look less like monsters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the damages are lowered then they still get a PR victory, but also make the industry look less like monsters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098736</id>
	<title>Re:This will multiply to other industries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265899440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you buy an ebook when you could buy a good old fashioned book?</p><p>I personally hate reading ebooks. I can't even concentrate on them with all of the distractions on my computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you buy an ebook when you could buy a good old fashioned book ? I personally hate reading ebooks .
I ca n't even concentrate on them with all of the distractions on my computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you buy an ebook when you could buy a good old fashioned book?I personally hate reading ebooks.
I can't even concentrate on them with all of the distractions on my computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099492</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>WiglyWorm</author>
	<datestamp>1265903400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod it insightful or something so the poster gets some Karma. This was too good, and more than just funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod it insightful or something so the poster gets some Karma .
This was too good , and more than just funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod it insightful or something so the poster gets some Karma.
This was too good, and more than just funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099852</id>
	<title>Re:Question for NYCL</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1265905140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does the idea of double jeopardy apply in civil law?</p></div><p>Yes, though slightly different - it's called judicial estoppel, and essentially means that your previous losing judgement is precedent for your later suit.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If not, what prevents a plaintiff with very deep pockets from suing a defendant for something, losing, suing them again, losing, etc until the defendant's funds with which to defend themselves run out? Because this sounds like a pretty open-and-shut case of the RIAA doing exactly that, and the overall effect is that said defendant effectively loses even if they win.</p></div><p>Nope. The RIAA <i>won</i> both of the previous trials. In the first one, the jury found Thomas liable, and awarded $222k.  <i>She</i> appealed, and got a new trial due to a jury instruction error.  In the second trial, the RIAA won again, and the jury awarded them $1.9 million (ooops).  The judge reduced the award to $54k and gave the RIAA the option of either accepting the $54k, or returning to trial.  At this trial, it will just be on damages, so it should go faster.  But the second and third trials aren't the result of any sort of frivolous litigation by the RIAA, even if the first one was.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the idea of double jeopardy apply in civil law ? Yes , though slightly different - it 's called judicial estoppel , and essentially means that your previous losing judgement is precedent for your later suit.If not , what prevents a plaintiff with very deep pockets from suing a defendant for something , losing , suing them again , losing , etc until the defendant 's funds with which to defend themselves run out ?
Because this sounds like a pretty open-and-shut case of the RIAA doing exactly that , and the overall effect is that said defendant effectively loses even if they win.Nope .
The RIAA won both of the previous trials .
In the first one , the jury found Thomas liable , and awarded $ 222k .
She appealed , and got a new trial due to a jury instruction error .
In the second trial , the RIAA won again , and the jury awarded them $ 1.9 million ( ooops ) .
The judge reduced the award to $ 54k and gave the RIAA the option of either accepting the $ 54k , or returning to trial .
At this trial , it will just be on damages , so it should go faster .
But the second and third trials are n't the result of any sort of frivolous litigation by the RIAA , even if the first one was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the idea of double jeopardy apply in civil law?Yes, though slightly different - it's called judicial estoppel, and essentially means that your previous losing judgement is precedent for your later suit.If not, what prevents a plaintiff with very deep pockets from suing a defendant for something, losing, suing them again, losing, etc until the defendant's funds with which to defend themselves run out?
Because this sounds like a pretty open-and-shut case of the RIAA doing exactly that, and the overall effect is that said defendant effectively loses even if they win.Nope.
The RIAA won both of the previous trials.
In the first one, the jury found Thomas liable, and awarded $222k.
She appealed, and got a new trial due to a jury instruction error.
In the second trial, the RIAA won again, and the jury awarded them $1.9 million (ooops).
The judge reduced the award to $54k and gave the RIAA the option of either accepting the $54k, or returning to trial.
At this trial, it will just be on damages, so it should go faster.
But the second and third trials aren't the result of any sort of frivolous litigation by the RIAA, even if the first one was.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099016</id>
	<title>Re:Limited?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1265900820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RIAA has lawyers on retainer.  J. Thomas has to pay for them.</p><p>RIAA is attempting to financially destroy Ms. Thomas permanently and irretrievably.</p><p>It's stopped being about RIAA trying to extract any money from this case, and switched to them trying to make an example by bludgeoning Thomas with lawyers until she either declares bankruptcy or commits suicide.  Faced with the overwhelming legal force that RIAA represents, they are probably hoping that other pirates will just cough up the few thousand dollars they usually ask for rather than face the complete and utter destruction of their personal and financial existence for sharing a couple of songs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA has lawyers on retainer .
J. Thomas has to pay for them.RIAA is attempting to financially destroy Ms. Thomas permanently and irretrievably.It 's stopped being about RIAA trying to extract any money from this case , and switched to them trying to make an example by bludgeoning Thomas with lawyers until she either declares bankruptcy or commits suicide .
Faced with the overwhelming legal force that RIAA represents , they are probably hoping that other pirates will just cough up the few thousand dollars they usually ask for rather than face the complete and utter destruction of their personal and financial existence for sharing a couple of songs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA has lawyers on retainer.
J. Thomas has to pay for them.RIAA is attempting to financially destroy Ms. Thomas permanently and irretrievably.It's stopped being about RIAA trying to extract any money from this case, and switched to them trying to make an example by bludgeoning Thomas with lawyers until she either declares bankruptcy or commits suicide.
Faced with the overwhelming legal force that RIAA represents, they are probably hoping that other pirates will just cough up the few thousand dollars they usually ask for rather than face the complete and utter destruction of their personal and financial existence for sharing a couple of songs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098568</id>
	<title>Limited?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265898360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I understand, the judge has found that as a matter of law they can not claim more than 54,000$. I would think that they could either accept this decision or appeal it as a matter of law. What good is the new trial going to do? Will they have to go through another full trial, only for the RIAA to dispute the jury instructions and demand another new trial? Surely that judge isn't the prime authority on the law and this must sooner or later reach the Supreme Court? Or did the RIAA pass up the possibility to appeal the 54,000$ decision? I somehow doubt that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I understand , the judge has found that as a matter of law they can not claim more than 54,000 $ .
I would think that they could either accept this decision or appeal it as a matter of law .
What good is the new trial going to do ?
Will they have to go through another full trial , only for the RIAA to dispute the jury instructions and demand another new trial ?
Surely that judge is n't the prime authority on the law and this must sooner or later reach the Supreme Court ?
Or did the RIAA pass up the possibility to appeal the 54,000 $ decision ?
I somehow doubt that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I understand, the judge has found that as a matter of law they can not claim more than 54,000$.
I would think that they could either accept this decision or appeal it as a matter of law.
What good is the new trial going to do?
Will they have to go through another full trial, only for the RIAA to dispute the jury instructions and demand another new trial?
Surely that judge isn't the prime authority on the law and this must sooner or later reach the Supreme Court?
Or did the RIAA pass up the possibility to appeal the 54,000$ decision?
I somehow doubt that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098708</id>
	<title>In modern America...</title>
	<author>Jade\_Wayfarer</author>
	<datestamp>1265899260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In modern America people are run (through) by corporations? Yay, the future is now...<br> <br>

I just wonder sometimes, how long can someone look at sheer stupidity with straight face? RIAA has money, power, and wicked sense of self-righteousness, plus law-guaranteed right to do anything they want to humiliate and terrorize (and there's nothing more than that) people. Oh, and most "common people" still dream about their children becoming lawyers and getting a good warm place in DOJ after all. Just like in "Brazil" movie, where people peacefully continued their meals right after big explosion, like nothing ever happened. Well... sometimes I fear I've read too many dystopian novels, lost my mind and now live only in the realm my own surreal nightmares. Then I see news like this and calm myself with thought that <i>my</i> imagination is still incapable of constructing such absurd fantasies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In modern America people are run ( through ) by corporations ?
Yay , the future is now.. . I just wonder sometimes , how long can someone look at sheer stupidity with straight face ?
RIAA has money , power , and wicked sense of self-righteousness , plus law-guaranteed right to do anything they want to humiliate and terrorize ( and there 's nothing more than that ) people .
Oh , and most " common people " still dream about their children becoming lawyers and getting a good warm place in DOJ after all .
Just like in " Brazil " movie , where people peacefully continued their meals right after big explosion , like nothing ever happened .
Well... sometimes I fear I 've read too many dystopian novels , lost my mind and now live only in the realm my own surreal nightmares .
Then I see news like this and calm myself with thought that my imagination is still incapable of constructing such absurd fantasies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In modern America people are run (through) by corporations?
Yay, the future is now... 

I just wonder sometimes, how long can someone look at sheer stupidity with straight face?
RIAA has money, power, and wicked sense of self-righteousness, plus law-guaranteed right to do anything they want to humiliate and terrorize (and there's nothing more than that) people.
Oh, and most "common people" still dream about their children becoming lawyers and getting a good warm place in DOJ after all.
Just like in "Brazil" movie, where people peacefully continued their meals right after big explosion, like nothing ever happened.
Well... sometimes I fear I've read too many dystopian novels, lost my mind and now live only in the realm my own surreal nightmares.
Then I see news like this and calm myself with thought that my imagination is still incapable of constructing such absurd fantasies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099472</id>
	<title>Re:This will multiply to other industries</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1265903280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no problem if publishers want to play the paperback game with ebooks.  Put out the hardcover, then put out the eBook.  They may eventually even choose not to put out the paperback.
<p>
This is publisher choice.  The issue is that with a hardback, one is getting a product that more valuable, in the eyes of many people, than a paperback.  Even now I will seek out hardbacks for used books.  The question is what is the value of an eBook over a paperback?  Why should one sell for $15 and the other sell for $10.  I would much rather have ebooks 6 months later for less than $10.
</p><p>
We will see what Apple does with the $15 book.  If there is added content, such as DVD, then maybe consumers will go for it. Clips of interviews, even, perish the thought, professional reading of the books could make it work $20 or even $25.  Then, later, a stripped down version can be produced</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem if publishers want to play the paperback game with ebooks .
Put out the hardcover , then put out the eBook .
They may eventually even choose not to put out the paperback .
This is publisher choice .
The issue is that with a hardback , one is getting a product that more valuable , in the eyes of many people , than a paperback .
Even now I will seek out hardbacks for used books .
The question is what is the value of an eBook over a paperback ?
Why should one sell for $ 15 and the other sell for $ 10 .
I would much rather have ebooks 6 months later for less than $ 10 .
We will see what Apple does with the $ 15 book .
If there is added content , such as DVD , then maybe consumers will go for it .
Clips of interviews , even , perish the thought , professional reading of the books could make it work $ 20 or even $ 25 .
Then , later , a stripped down version can be produced</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no problem if publishers want to play the paperback game with ebooks.
Put out the hardcover, then put out the eBook.
They may eventually even choose not to put out the paperback.
This is publisher choice.
The issue is that with a hardback, one is getting a product that more valuable, in the eyes of many people, than a paperback.
Even now I will seek out hardbacks for used books.
The question is what is the value of an eBook over a paperback?
Why should one sell for $15 and the other sell for $10.
I would much rather have ebooks 6 months later for less than $10.
We will see what Apple does with the $15 book.
If there is added content, such as DVD, then maybe consumers will go for it.
Clips of interviews, even, perish the thought, professional reading of the books could make it work $20 or even $25.
Then, later, a stripped down version can be produced</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101312</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1265912280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of posters (especially NYCL) have already made the answers to most of your questions clear.<blockquote><div><p>Whatever happened to due process and not being able to stand trial for the same crime twice? Is this new trial a civil suit where the first two trials were criminal suits?</p></div></blockquote><p>All the trials have been civil suits.  There has not been any criminal suit in this case... if there were, the plaintiff would be the state, not the RIAA member companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of posters ( especially NYCL ) have already made the answers to most of your questions clear.Whatever happened to due process and not being able to stand trial for the same crime twice ?
Is this new trial a civil suit where the first two trials were criminal suits ? All the trials have been civil suits .
There has not been any criminal suit in this case... if there were , the plaintiff would be the state , not the RIAA member companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of posters (especially NYCL) have already made the answers to most of your questions clear.Whatever happened to due process and not being able to stand trial for the same crime twice?
Is this new trial a civil suit where the first two trials were criminal suits?All the trials have been civil suits.
There has not been any criminal suit in this case... if there were, the plaintiff would be the state, not the RIAA member companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098628</id>
	<title>Re:I don't condone what the RIAA does</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1265898780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why so? If that $8.30 represents the number of songs he downloaded instead of paying for then that is, at maximum, a fair representation of their <i>actual</i> loss (of course, their actual loss could be said to be less if he can prove he wouldn't have paid for the song and only downloaded it because it was free).</p><p>I think what you mean is it's disingeuous to infer that is their total loss, since there is also the <i>possibility</i> that they lost the <i>potential</i> for sales to other people who downloaded from him (which again, assumes they would have paid actual money if the song wasn't free, and also that they wouldn't have downloaded it elsewhere if they couldn't get it from him). Those aren't actual losses though, just the loss of opportunity, which is much more difficult to account for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why so ?
If that $ 8.30 represents the number of songs he downloaded instead of paying for then that is , at maximum , a fair representation of their actual loss ( of course , their actual loss could be said to be less if he can prove he would n't have paid for the song and only downloaded it because it was free ) .I think what you mean is it 's disingeuous to infer that is their total loss , since there is also the possibility that they lost the potential for sales to other people who downloaded from him ( which again , assumes they would have paid actual money if the song was n't free , and also that they would n't have downloaded it elsewhere if they could n't get it from him ) .
Those are n't actual losses though , just the loss of opportunity , which is much more difficult to account for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why so?
If that $8.30 represents the number of songs he downloaded instead of paying for then that is, at maximum, a fair representation of their actual loss (of course, their actual loss could be said to be less if he can prove he wouldn't have paid for the song and only downloaded it because it was free).I think what you mean is it's disingeuous to infer that is their total loss, since there is also the possibility that they lost the potential for sales to other people who downloaded from him (which again, assumes they would have paid actual money if the song wasn't free, and also that they wouldn't have downloaded it elsewhere if they couldn't get it from him).
Those aren't actual losses though, just the loss of opportunity, which is much more difficult to account for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099406</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>TechForensics</author>
	<datestamp>1265902860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IAAL.  It is really a part of the same trial--  the rules of remittitur say if you don't like how the judge reduced your award, you can try the issue of damages again.  Basically means if you think the judge wrongly reduced the jury verdict, you can and should have the jury try again, so we know, on appeal, what a second jury verdict was (a perspective on the reasonableness of how much the judge chopped off the first verdict).  If I were an appellate court judge I think I'd want to see that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IAAL .
It is really a part of the same trial-- the rules of remittitur say if you do n't like how the judge reduced your award , you can try the issue of damages again .
Basically means if you think the judge wrongly reduced the jury verdict , you can and should have the jury try again , so we know , on appeal , what a second jury verdict was ( a perspective on the reasonableness of how much the judge chopped off the first verdict ) .
If I were an appellate court judge I think I 'd want to see that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IAAL.
It is really a part of the same trial--  the rules of remittitur say if you don't like how the judge reduced your award, you can try the issue of damages again.
Basically means if you think the judge wrongly reduced the jury verdict, you can and should have the jury try again, so we know, on appeal, what a second jury verdict was (a perspective on the reasonableness of how much the judge chopped off the first verdict).
If I were an appellate court judge I think I'd want to see that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31125744</id>
	<title>Re:Moral of your story: justice for the rich</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266061320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just striking to me that you backed up your threat of litigation with "I have a large amount of money" rather than "I have a very strong case". That speaks volumes.</p></div><p>He didn't come out with "I have lot's of money" straight away, did he.  Obviously, who he was fighting had plenty of money to take it to court, so he had to make the point that he was in a similarly strong financial position because they were trying to intimidate him with the prospect of large legal fees.  If they had a strong case, they would have taken it to court regardless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just striking to me that you backed up your threat of litigation with " I have a large amount of money " rather than " I have a very strong case " .
That speaks volumes.He did n't come out with " I have lot 's of money " straight away , did he .
Obviously , who he was fighting had plenty of money to take it to court , so he had to make the point that he was in a similarly strong financial position because they were trying to intimidate him with the prospect of large legal fees .
If they had a strong case , they would have taken it to court regardless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just striking to me that you backed up your threat of litigation with "I have a large amount of money" rather than "I have a very strong case".
That speaks volumes.He didn't come out with "I have lot's of money" straight away, did he.
Obviously, who he was fighting had plenty of money to take it to court, so he had to make the point that he was in a similarly strong financial position because they were trying to intimidate him with the prospect of large legal fees.
If they had a strong case, they would have taken it to court regardless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31104382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099382</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265902740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or in this case "yeah, the horse might be dead...but if we pretend it isn't then we, the caretakers, get to keep our job"</p><p>Really, does anybody need more than circumstances descibed in TFS to conclude that the RIAA nowadays and this new trial is solely for the finacial benefit of lawyers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or in this case " yeah , the horse might be dead...but if we pretend it is n't then we , the caretakers , get to keep our job " Really , does anybody need more than circumstances descibed in TFS to conclude that the RIAA nowadays and this new trial is solely for the finacial benefit of lawyers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or in this case "yeah, the horse might be dead...but if we pretend it isn't then we, the caretakers, get to keep our job"Really, does anybody need more than circumstances descibed in TFS to conclude that the RIAA nowadays and this new trial is solely for the finacial benefit of lawyers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098724</id>
	<title>Re:Making an error on appeal? Think simple.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265899320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a thought, but you may have too many apostrophes.  It could just as well stand for: Rip 'is <b>art</b> apart!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a thought , but you may have too many apostrophes .
It could just as well stand for : Rip 'is art apart !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a thought, but you may have too many apostrophes.
It could just as well stand for: Rip 'is art apart!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098514</id>
	<title>In other news, the Saints appeal their Bowl Win...</title>
	<author>howardd21</author>
	<datestamp>1265897820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Saints submitted notice to appeal their Super Bowl win, on the grounds that the Colts unfairly bunched up at the line near the end of the first half, forcing a turnover on downs, and causing the Saints to settle for a field goal on a subsequent series.  Sean Peyton, coach of the Saints explained that while they could only lose the game due to appeal, and could in no way increase their margin of victory, they hoped that by filing they may increase their chances of a higher pick in next year's draft.  Drunken fans in the french quarter cheered the announcement, and said they "waited 43 years for this, why not wait a little longer".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Saints submitted notice to appeal their Super Bowl win , on the grounds that the Colts unfairly bunched up at the line near the end of the first half , forcing a turnover on downs , and causing the Saints to settle for a field goal on a subsequent series .
Sean Peyton , coach of the Saints explained that while they could only lose the game due to appeal , and could in no way increase their margin of victory , they hoped that by filing they may increase their chances of a higher pick in next year 's draft .
Drunken fans in the french quarter cheered the announcement , and said they " waited 43 years for this , why not wait a little longer " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Saints submitted notice to appeal their Super Bowl win, on the grounds that the Colts unfairly bunched up at the line near the end of the first half, forcing a turnover on downs, and causing the Saints to settle for a field goal on a subsequent series.
Sean Peyton, coach of the Saints explained that while they could only lose the game due to appeal, and could in no way increase their margin of victory, they hoped that by filing they may increase their chances of a higher pick in next year's draft.
Drunken fans in the french quarter cheered the announcement, and said they "waited 43 years for this, why not wait a little longer".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100416</id>
	<title>a small correction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow BRIBE the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal</p><p>FTFY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow BRIBE the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appealFTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a 3rd trial is to hope that they can somehow BRIBE the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appealFTFY</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098930</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1265900460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if this would open up "harassment" as a defense...  Considering that they cannot gain any result that's greater than what already was awarded, this third trial could only be seen as an attempt to get the defendant to settle (And thereby agree not to appeal)...  If only civil law had the no double jeopardy clause...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this would open up " harassment " as a defense... Considering that they can not gain any result that 's greater than what already was awarded , this third trial could only be seen as an attempt to get the defendant to settle ( And thereby agree not to appeal ) ... If only civil law had the no double jeopardy clause.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this would open up "harassment" as a defense...  Considering that they cannot gain any result that's greater than what already was awarded, this third trial could only be seen as an attempt to get the defendant to settle (And thereby agree not to appeal)...  If only civil law had the no double jeopardy clause...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098650</id>
	<title>Re:I don't condone what the RIAA does</title>
	<author>insufflate10mg</author>
	<datestamp>1265898900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you mind elaborating, for the sake of us<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'ers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you mind elaborating , for the sake of us / .
'ers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you mind elaborating, for the sake of us /.
'ers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098432</id>
	<title>This will multiply to other industries</title>
	<author>howardd21</author>
	<datestamp>1265897100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As more content becomes electronically available, such as ebooks, movies, etc this nonsense will proliferate.  Even now, as book publishers try to increase the cost of books from 9.99 to 14,99 and higher, or delay release of electronic versions hoping people will buy the hard-copy first and the ebook 6 months later, there are attacks forming on the publishers (read Amazon reviews for ebooks &gt; $9.99 and see the 1 star reviews), and there will be attacks on the technology as piracy takes hold.  Everybody is just greedy, the consumers want it for a low cost that never changes, the publishers, the lawyers, etc.  I pity the independent singer songwriter or now author who is blamed as part of the economic ecosystem of this mess.  They may have a stigma attached to them they cannot shake and cannot grow beyond.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As more content becomes electronically available , such as ebooks , movies , etc this nonsense will proliferate .
Even now , as book publishers try to increase the cost of books from 9.99 to 14,99 and higher , or delay release of electronic versions hoping people will buy the hard-copy first and the ebook 6 months later , there are attacks forming on the publishers ( read Amazon reviews for ebooks &gt; $ 9.99 and see the 1 star reviews ) , and there will be attacks on the technology as piracy takes hold .
Everybody is just greedy , the consumers want it for a low cost that never changes , the publishers , the lawyers , etc .
I pity the independent singer songwriter or now author who is blamed as part of the economic ecosystem of this mess .
They may have a stigma attached to them they can not shake and can not grow beyond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As more content becomes electronically available, such as ebooks, movies, etc this nonsense will proliferate.
Even now, as book publishers try to increase the cost of books from 9.99 to 14,99 and higher, or delay release of electronic versions hoping people will buy the hard-copy first and the ebook 6 months later, there are attacks forming on the publishers (read Amazon reviews for ebooks &gt; $9.99 and see the 1 star reviews), and there will be attacks on the technology as piracy takes hold.
Everybody is just greedy, the consumers want it for a low cost that never changes, the publishers, the lawyers, etc.
I pity the independent singer songwriter or now author who is blamed as part of the economic ecosystem of this mess.
They may have a stigma attached to them they cannot shake and cannot grow beyond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099788</id>
	<title>Re:Limited?</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1265904900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As far as I understand, the judge has found that as a matter of law they can not claim more than 54,000$</p></div><p>This is not strictly true, and NYCL's summary is a bit misleading on this count.  The jury question on damages will (unfortunately) be the same, and allow them to award between $750 and $150,000 for each infringed work.  So they could again award $1.8 million, and have the judge again reduce it.  However, what the RIAA is trying to do is draw out the issue of what damages are authorized by the statute - in the previous trial, the judge reduced the damages in a short post-trial motion without any opportunity for the parties to argue that he was wrong as a matter of law.  This trial will give the RIAA an opportunity to get some facts and arguments on paper such that, if the judge limits damages again, they can appeal.</p><p>
As for what other people have proposed, such as harassment of Thomas-Rasset or causing her to pay more, that's not an issue - I believe Camera-Sibley is defending her for free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I understand , the judge has found that as a matter of law they can not claim more than 54,000 $ This is not strictly true , and NYCL 's summary is a bit misleading on this count .
The jury question on damages will ( unfortunately ) be the same , and allow them to award between $ 750 and $ 150,000 for each infringed work .
So they could again award $ 1.8 million , and have the judge again reduce it .
However , what the RIAA is trying to do is draw out the issue of what damages are authorized by the statute - in the previous trial , the judge reduced the damages in a short post-trial motion without any opportunity for the parties to argue that he was wrong as a matter of law .
This trial will give the RIAA an opportunity to get some facts and arguments on paper such that , if the judge limits damages again , they can appeal .
As for what other people have proposed , such as harassment of Thomas-Rasset or causing her to pay more , that 's not an issue - I believe Camera-Sibley is defending her for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I understand, the judge has found that as a matter of law they can not claim more than 54,000$This is not strictly true, and NYCL's summary is a bit misleading on this count.
The jury question on damages will (unfortunately) be the same, and allow them to award between $750 and $150,000 for each infringed work.
So they could again award $1.8 million, and have the judge again reduce it.
However, what the RIAA is trying to do is draw out the issue of what damages are authorized by the statute - in the previous trial, the judge reduced the damages in a short post-trial motion without any opportunity for the parties to argue that he was wrong as a matter of law.
This trial will give the RIAA an opportunity to get some facts and arguments on paper such that, if the judge limits damages again, they can appeal.
As for what other people have proposed, such as harassment of Thomas-Rasset or causing her to pay more, that's not an issue - I believe Camera-Sibley is defending her for free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099500</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1265903520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) It's not a criminal trial but a civil matter. In that case, these cases can keep being tried until all parties run out of money or interest in the case. Even if one party is out of money, the other party can keep it going until THEY run out of money. There is only one decision that can stop re-trials and that brings us to b.</p><p>b) The judges have so far ruled that the cases be dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. That means, as long as the courts keep ruling this, the cases can be brought on again. This is off course profitable for the judge as they keep having jobs paid for by taxpayers. This is also good for the wealthier parties as they can just keep going until the other side runs out of money which brings us to c</p><p>c) The judges have not ruled against the cases to be unconstitutional. Judges are really afraid of ruling on constitutional matters it seems as their interpretation will be used as a precedent for all sorts of cases in the future in those courts and lower courts. The only court that can actually rule something to be definitively constitutional is the Supreme Court but since they are so 'overworked' to bring cases to that level is expensive and is usually reserved for more important cases like those that involve the first amendment etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) It 's not a criminal trial but a civil matter .
In that case , these cases can keep being tried until all parties run out of money or interest in the case .
Even if one party is out of money , the other party can keep it going until THEY run out of money .
There is only one decision that can stop re-trials and that brings us to b.b ) The judges have so far ruled that the cases be dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE .
That means , as long as the courts keep ruling this , the cases can be brought on again .
This is off course profitable for the judge as they keep having jobs paid for by taxpayers .
This is also good for the wealthier parties as they can just keep going until the other side runs out of money which brings us to cc ) The judges have not ruled against the cases to be unconstitutional .
Judges are really afraid of ruling on constitutional matters it seems as their interpretation will be used as a precedent for all sorts of cases in the future in those courts and lower courts .
The only court that can actually rule something to be definitively constitutional is the Supreme Court but since they are so 'overworked ' to bring cases to that level is expensive and is usually reserved for more important cases like those that involve the first amendment etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) It's not a criminal trial but a civil matter.
In that case, these cases can keep being tried until all parties run out of money or interest in the case.
Even if one party is out of money, the other party can keep it going until THEY run out of money.
There is only one decision that can stop re-trials and that brings us to b.b) The judges have so far ruled that the cases be dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
That means, as long as the courts keep ruling this, the cases can be brought on again.
This is off course profitable for the judge as they keep having jobs paid for by taxpayers.
This is also good for the wealthier parties as they can just keep going until the other side runs out of money which brings us to cc) The judges have not ruled against the cases to be unconstitutional.
Judges are really afraid of ruling on constitutional matters it seems as their interpretation will be used as a precedent for all sorts of cases in the future in those courts and lower courts.
The only court that can actually rule something to be definitively constitutional is the Supreme Court but since they are so 'overworked' to bring cases to that level is expensive and is usually reserved for more important cases like those that involve the first amendment etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31110328</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>NSN A392-99-964-5927</author>
	<datestamp>1266007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You forgot: making the defendant crawl underneath the horse and forcing him to carry both it and you.</p><p>A legal system in which the powerful can obtain the practical result they desire simply by grinding down the weak has no legitimate moral authority. Its principles are a sham; they have no practical significance. You might as well auction verdicts to the highest bidder.</p></div><p>Hang on the RIAA stole my camel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot : making the defendant crawl underneath the horse and forcing him to carry both it and you.A legal system in which the powerful can obtain the practical result they desire simply by grinding down the weak has no legitimate moral authority .
Its principles are a sham ; they have no practical significance .
You might as well auction verdicts to the highest bidder.Hang on the RIAA stole my camel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot: making the defendant crawl underneath the horse and forcing him to carry both it and you.A legal system in which the powerful can obtain the practical result they desire simply by grinding down the weak has no legitimate moral authority.
Its principles are a sham; they have no practical significance.
You might as well auction verdicts to the highest bidder.Hang on the RIAA stole my camel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100292</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1265907060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I understand some issues are not clearly defined in law but this is turning into a circus.</p></div><p>IANAL but I'm thinking about law school and life as a corporate counsel.<br>I have to wonder how many of these RIAA shysters, one day, relaxed with a cup of tea during their undergrad and thought it would make for a satisfying career to serve an organization that enjoys pounding its fists against the judicial system until she goes blind *again*.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I can do my job without feeling personally responsible for the outcomes. But I just might have to remove all the mirrors from my penthouse apartment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand some issues are not clearly defined in law but this is turning into a circus.IANAL but I 'm thinking about law school and life as a corporate counsel.I have to wonder how many of these RIAA shysters , one day , relaxed with a cup of tea during their undergrad and thought it would make for a satisfying career to serve an organization that enjoys pounding its fists against the judicial system until she goes blind * again * .Do n't get me wrong , I can do my job without feeling personally responsible for the outcomes .
But I just might have to remove all the mirrors from my penthouse apartment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand some issues are not clearly defined in law but this is turning into a circus.IANAL but I'm thinking about law school and life as a corporate counsel.I have to wonder how many of these RIAA shysters, one day, relaxed with a cup of tea during their undergrad and thought it would make for a satisfying career to serve an organization that enjoys pounding its fists against the judicial system until she goes blind *again*.Don't get me wrong, I can do my job without feeling personally responsible for the outcomes.
But I just might have to remove all the mirrors from my penthouse apartment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099056</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>insufflate10mg</author>
	<datestamp>1265901000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are many legal avenues that a well-paid legal team can travel down to simply outpace the individual in both resources and time.<br> <br>I'm going to tell a quick story. When I was a minor (though admittedly close to 18), my parent and I filed a lawsuit against [z] for wrongful discipline.  It wasn't really wrongful discipline, but that's the easiest way to put it: [x] had broken code/regulations dozens of times during the course of the incident after I had unknowingly done something wrong due to a "disability"; my lawyer discovered all of this, and we filed the lawsuit. During the first settlement meeting, they were in one room, we were in another, our lawyers/mediators were jumping all over and meeting privately at times. (Typical mediation.) They were extremely heavy-handed and wouldn't settle for more than a meager amount at first. Four hours into the meeting, the mediator and my lawyer came in the room and we began talking. I decided to play the best card I had after the mediator had informed me that they will be willing to spend however much money it takes, and go through trial for probably over a year, (that that is their main weapon against litigants that are common folk without much money.)  I made it very clear to the mediator: "Listen, I'm going to be honest, I don't care about this settlement, it's not even a dent in my worth. I want them to learn their lesson, and I will not walk out of here without getting at least 20x what they are offering. When I turn 18, I am inheriting over two million dollars and will be more than happy to pay as many lawyers as it takes. [$x] is an insult to me and my family, and unless we see [$20x], we'll be looking very forward to trial and the ability to speak to the press about this whole ordeal."  <br> <br>Long story short, after 5 hours worth of arguing over the size of a three digit settlement, the mediator came back and informed us that over the course of five minutes, they accepted the five-digit number upon finding out about my inheritance and my eagerness to go to trial.  For me, it wasn't a risky move: my lawyer already had the media lined up to speak to me and break the story, I really was inheriting a very large amount of money, and I was dying to go to trial (because of the severity of the "awe" factor in my favor). It's important to note, however, that if you have these three things against you, it becomes a much risker move to make. Though it's a risky move, its very effective, because as this article clearly shows, a large corporation/entity's main weapon is the fact that they can afford far more legal action than you can.  Also please note that I was blessed to have had a great lawyer: my family and I were literally going days without eating in order to pay the mortgage and one or two bills a month (single parent), but my lawyer offered to take the case and allow me to pay him once I turned 18 or when we won. Because I was a minor, the settlement wasn't given to me until I was 18 anyway.  I was very lucky to have such a large upper-hand against an entity that had an enormous advantage to begin with. <br> <br>

Moral of the story: as soon as they found out I was willing to dish out just as much (if not more) money than they were to fight, they backed down and realized even 20x the original settlement amount is worth ending the matter ASAP.  Granted, this article is dealing with the RIAA and I have nowhere near the amount of available resources that they do. Because of that, they will continue fighting this battle just because they can and would like to deter file-sharers from doing this in the future.  Legal fights are all about money: ever seen the lower-class people on Judge Judy fighting over $100? How long do those cases last? Think about it, it's all about money, and unfortunately when an entity as large as the RIAA sues an individual, it is a very uneven fight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many legal avenues that a well-paid legal team can travel down to simply outpace the individual in both resources and time .
I 'm going to tell a quick story .
When I was a minor ( though admittedly close to 18 ) , my parent and I filed a lawsuit against [ z ] for wrongful discipline .
It was n't really wrongful discipline , but that 's the easiest way to put it : [ x ] had broken code/regulations dozens of times during the course of the incident after I had unknowingly done something wrong due to a " disability " ; my lawyer discovered all of this , and we filed the lawsuit .
During the first settlement meeting , they were in one room , we were in another , our lawyers/mediators were jumping all over and meeting privately at times .
( Typical mediation .
) They were extremely heavy-handed and would n't settle for more than a meager amount at first .
Four hours into the meeting , the mediator and my lawyer came in the room and we began talking .
I decided to play the best card I had after the mediator had informed me that they will be willing to spend however much money it takes , and go through trial for probably over a year , ( that that is their main weapon against litigants that are common folk without much money .
) I made it very clear to the mediator : " Listen , I 'm going to be honest , I do n't care about this settlement , it 's not even a dent in my worth .
I want them to learn their lesson , and I will not walk out of here without getting at least 20x what they are offering .
When I turn 18 , I am inheriting over two million dollars and will be more than happy to pay as many lawyers as it takes .
[ $ x ] is an insult to me and my family , and unless we see [ $ 20x ] , we 'll be looking very forward to trial and the ability to speak to the press about this whole ordeal .
" Long story short , after 5 hours worth of arguing over the size of a three digit settlement , the mediator came back and informed us that over the course of five minutes , they accepted the five-digit number upon finding out about my inheritance and my eagerness to go to trial .
For me , it was n't a risky move : my lawyer already had the media lined up to speak to me and break the story , I really was inheriting a very large amount of money , and I was dying to go to trial ( because of the severity of the " awe " factor in my favor ) .
It 's important to note , however , that if you have these three things against you , it becomes a much risker move to make .
Though it 's a risky move , its very effective , because as this article clearly shows , a large corporation/entity 's main weapon is the fact that they can afford far more legal action than you can .
Also please note that I was blessed to have had a great lawyer : my family and I were literally going days without eating in order to pay the mortgage and one or two bills a month ( single parent ) , but my lawyer offered to take the case and allow me to pay him once I turned 18 or when we won .
Because I was a minor , the settlement was n't given to me until I was 18 anyway .
I was very lucky to have such a large upper-hand against an entity that had an enormous advantage to begin with .
Moral of the story : as soon as they found out I was willing to dish out just as much ( if not more ) money than they were to fight , they backed down and realized even 20x the original settlement amount is worth ending the matter ASAP .
Granted , this article is dealing with the RIAA and I have nowhere near the amount of available resources that they do .
Because of that , they will continue fighting this battle just because they can and would like to deter file-sharers from doing this in the future .
Legal fights are all about money : ever seen the lower-class people on Judge Judy fighting over $ 100 ?
How long do those cases last ?
Think about it , it 's all about money , and unfortunately when an entity as large as the RIAA sues an individual , it is a very uneven fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many legal avenues that a well-paid legal team can travel down to simply outpace the individual in both resources and time.
I'm going to tell a quick story.
When I was a minor (though admittedly close to 18), my parent and I filed a lawsuit against [z] for wrongful discipline.
It wasn't really wrongful discipline, but that's the easiest way to put it: [x] had broken code/regulations dozens of times during the course of the incident after I had unknowingly done something wrong due to a "disability"; my lawyer discovered all of this, and we filed the lawsuit.
During the first settlement meeting, they were in one room, we were in another, our lawyers/mediators were jumping all over and meeting privately at times.
(Typical mediation.
) They were extremely heavy-handed and wouldn't settle for more than a meager amount at first.
Four hours into the meeting, the mediator and my lawyer came in the room and we began talking.
I decided to play the best card I had after the mediator had informed me that they will be willing to spend however much money it takes, and go through trial for probably over a year, (that that is their main weapon against litigants that are common folk without much money.
)  I made it very clear to the mediator: "Listen, I'm going to be honest, I don't care about this settlement, it's not even a dent in my worth.
I want them to learn their lesson, and I will not walk out of here without getting at least 20x what they are offering.
When I turn 18, I am inheriting over two million dollars and will be more than happy to pay as many lawyers as it takes.
[$x] is an insult to me and my family, and unless we see [$20x], we'll be looking very forward to trial and the ability to speak to the press about this whole ordeal.
"   Long story short, after 5 hours worth of arguing over the size of a three digit settlement, the mediator came back and informed us that over the course of five minutes, they accepted the five-digit number upon finding out about my inheritance and my eagerness to go to trial.
For me, it wasn't a risky move: my lawyer already had the media lined up to speak to me and break the story, I really was inheriting a very large amount of money, and I was dying to go to trial (because of the severity of the "awe" factor in my favor).
It's important to note, however, that if you have these three things against you, it becomes a much risker move to make.
Though it's a risky move, its very effective, because as this article clearly shows, a large corporation/entity's main weapon is the fact that they can afford far more legal action than you can.
Also please note that I was blessed to have had a great lawyer: my family and I were literally going days without eating in order to pay the mortgage and one or two bills a month (single parent), but my lawyer offered to take the case and allow me to pay him once I turned 18 or when we won.
Because I was a minor, the settlement wasn't given to me until I was 18 anyway.
I was very lucky to have such a large upper-hand against an entity that had an enormous advantage to begin with.
Moral of the story: as soon as they found out I was willing to dish out just as much (if not more) money than they were to fight, they backed down and realized even 20x the original settlement amount is worth ending the matter ASAP.
Granted, this article is dealing with the RIAA and I have nowhere near the amount of available resources that they do.
Because of that, they will continue fighting this battle just because they can and would like to deter file-sharers from doing this in the future.
Legal fights are all about money: ever seen the lower-class people on Judge Judy fighting over $100?
How long do those cases last?
Think about it, it's all about money, and unfortunately when an entity as large as the RIAA sues an individual, it is a very uneven fight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31184184</id>
	<title>Re:Vindictive much?</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1266507720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Afaict the RIAA campaign is not about the money made or lost in the cases that actually go to trial, it's about 1: scaring people into not filesharing in the first place and 2: scaring those who are caught filesharing into settling rather than taking it to court.</p><p>If the judgements in court end up capped at a level not much higher than the settlements the RIAA currently offers that would likely result in a lot more people daring to go to trial which would make the litigation campaign much more expensive for the RIAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Afaict the RIAA campaign is not about the money made or lost in the cases that actually go to trial , it 's about 1 : scaring people into not filesharing in the first place and 2 : scaring those who are caught filesharing into settling rather than taking it to court.If the judgements in court end up capped at a level not much higher than the settlements the RIAA currently offers that would likely result in a lot more people daring to go to trial which would make the litigation campaign much more expensive for the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Afaict the RIAA campaign is not about the money made or lost in the cases that actually go to trial, it's about 1: scaring people into not filesharing in the first place and 2: scaring those who are caught filesharing into settling rather than taking it to court.If the judgements in court end up capped at a level not much higher than the settlements the RIAA currently offers that would likely result in a lot more people daring to go to trial which would make the litigation campaign much more expensive for the RIAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392</id>
	<title>Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265896740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The code of tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.</p><p>In law firms, we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following: buying a stronger whip; changing riders; saying things like 'this is the way we have always ridden this horse'; appointing a committee to study the horse; arranging to visit other firms to see how they ride dead horses; increasing the standards to ride dead horses; declaring that the horse is better, faster, and cheaper dead; and finally, harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed."</p><p>
&nbsp; -- Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, 16 February 1999, in the courtroom after lunch on the second day of testimony from Microsoft's Brad Chase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The code of tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse , the best strategy is to dismount.In law firms , we often try other strategies with dead horses , including the following : buying a stronger whip ; changing riders ; saying things like 'this is the way we have always ridden this horse ' ; appointing a committee to study the horse ; arranging to visit other firms to see how they ride dead horses ; increasing the standards to ride dead horses ; declaring that the horse is better , faster , and cheaper dead ; and finally , harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed .
"   -- Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson , 16 February 1999 , in the courtroom after lunch on the second day of testimony from Microsoft 's Brad Chase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The code of tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.In law firms, we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following: buying a stronger whip; changing riders; saying things like 'this is the way we have always ridden this horse'; appointing a committee to study the horse; arranging to visit other firms to see how they ride dead horses; increasing the standards to ride dead horses; declaring that the horse is better, faster, and cheaper dead; and finally, harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.
"
  -- Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, 16 February 1999, in the courtroom after lunch on the second day of testimony from Microsoft's Brad Chase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098698</id>
	<title>Re:I don't condone what the RIAA does</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1265899200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it hinges on how many copies of the songs in question were distributed. Assuming two albums for (generously) $40, and a share ratio of 100 (which is high even for a perpetual seeder) the actual damages come out to $4,000. And given that distributed does not equate to a lost sale, I'd say the damages are probably at best $1,000.</p><p>But really, we're looking at songs whose value was about $20, and the share ratio probably looked closer to 15, so we get $300.</p><p>Disingenous? A bit. But the damages are still grossly out of proportion with the offense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it hinges on how many copies of the songs in question were distributed .
Assuming two albums for ( generously ) $ 40 , and a share ratio of 100 ( which is high even for a perpetual seeder ) the actual damages come out to $ 4,000 .
And given that distributed does not equate to a lost sale , I 'd say the damages are probably at best $ 1,000.But really , we 're looking at songs whose value was about $ 20 , and the share ratio probably looked closer to 15 , so we get $ 300.Disingenous ?
A bit .
But the damages are still grossly out of proportion with the offense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it hinges on how many copies of the songs in question were distributed.
Assuming two albums for (generously) $40, and a share ratio of 100 (which is high even for a perpetual seeder) the actual damages come out to $4,000.
And given that distributed does not equate to a lost sale, I'd say the damages are probably at best $1,000.But really, we're looking at songs whose value was about $20, and the share ratio probably looked closer to 15, so we get $300.Disingenous?
A bit.
But the damages are still grossly out of proportion with the offense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098836</id>
	<title>Re:New Trial? Whatever Happened to Due Process?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265899980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That depends. $YourLegalTeam &gt; $WalmartLegalTeam ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends .
$ YourLegalTeam &gt; $ WalmartLegalTeam ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends.
$YourLegalTeam &gt; $WalmartLegalTeam ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099036</id>
	<title>Re:My patience would be thin.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265900880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>At this point, since my life would be financially over, I'd consider some other options. Options that, while not monetarily or legally beneficial, ones that would be immensely emotionally cathartic.</i> <br>
<br>
That's the point of what Thomas is doing. She has repeatedly been found guilty -- that much is not in dispute. At this point, it's all about the precedent that will be set regarding damages. When you're going to be end up being screwed, and the decision will ultimately affect how badly screwed other people will be, you may as well take a stand and try to help everyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point , since my life would be financially over , I 'd consider some other options .
Options that , while not monetarily or legally beneficial , ones that would be immensely emotionally cathartic .
That 's the point of what Thomas is doing .
She has repeatedly been found guilty -- that much is not in dispute .
At this point , it 's all about the precedent that will be set regarding damages .
When you 're going to be end up being screwed , and the decision will ultimately affect how badly screwed other people will be , you may as well take a stand and try to help everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point, since my life would be financially over, I'd consider some other options.
Options that, while not monetarily or legally beneficial, ones that would be immensely emotionally cathartic.
That's the point of what Thomas is doing.
She has repeatedly been found guilty -- that much is not in dispute.
At this point, it's all about the precedent that will be set regarding damages.
When you're going to be end up being screwed, and the decision will ultimately affect how badly screwed other people will be, you may as well take a stand and try to help everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098732</id>
	<title>Oblig</title>
	<author>leomekenkamp</author>
	<datestamp>1265899380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That horse is not dead. It's sleeping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That horse is not dead .
It 's sleeping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That horse is not dead.
It's sleeping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099876</id>
	<title>Vexatious litigation.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1265905260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They won their case.  Appealing it is not only churlish, it could wind up seriously biting them in the ass.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They won their case .
Appealing it is not only churlish , it could wind up seriously biting them in the ass.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won their case.
Appealing it is not only churlish, it could wind up seriously biting them in the ass.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099212</id>
	<title>Big corporations and damages</title>
	<author>partofthepuzzle</author>
	<datestamp>1265901960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The way I read the story is that this is a new trial only about the damages. The RIAA is not asking for a new trial about whether she uploaded copy written songs. I assume that Jamie would be protected from that under the double jeopardy statutes. I think it's not uncommon in large civil lawsuits with huge damage assessments for the the company that's paying out to bring two or more additional trials about the damages and it can many years to resolve. Of course it's usually large corporations pursuing reductions in high stakes payouts because they can afford prolonged legal battles that very few private citizens could even consider. Didn't  Exxon doggedly pursue reducing the very high damages that they were assessed for the Valdez disaster? I think they persisted for several years and ultimately succeeded in getting the damages substantially reduced.


<p>
---
The above comments are the property of the RFLF (Real Fake Law Firm). We're really not lawyers and what we don't know, we just make up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I read the story is that this is a new trial only about the damages .
The RIAA is not asking for a new trial about whether she uploaded copy written songs .
I assume that Jamie would be protected from that under the double jeopardy statutes .
I think it 's not uncommon in large civil lawsuits with huge damage assessments for the the company that 's paying out to bring two or more additional trials about the damages and it can many years to resolve .
Of course it 's usually large corporations pursuing reductions in high stakes payouts because they can afford prolonged legal battles that very few private citizens could even consider .
Did n't Exxon doggedly pursue reducing the very high damages that they were assessed for the Valdez disaster ?
I think they persisted for several years and ultimately succeeded in getting the damages substantially reduced .
--- The above comments are the property of the RFLF ( Real Fake Law Firm ) .
We 're really not lawyers and what we do n't know , we just make up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I read the story is that this is a new trial only about the damages.
The RIAA is not asking for a new trial about whether she uploaded copy written songs.
I assume that Jamie would be protected from that under the double jeopardy statutes.
I think it's not uncommon in large civil lawsuits with huge damage assessments for the the company that's paying out to bring two or more additional trials about the damages and it can many years to resolve.
Of course it's usually large corporations pursuing reductions in high stakes payouts because they can afford prolonged legal battles that very few private citizens could even consider.
Didn't  Exxon doggedly pursue reducing the very high damages that they were assessed for the Valdez disaster?
I think they persisted for several years and ultimately succeeded in getting the damages substantially reduced.
---
The above comments are the property of the RFLF (Real Fake Law Firm).
We're really not lawyers and what we don't know, we just make up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31105142</id>
	<title>Re:Beating a Dead Horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265883780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Morality has no place in a society which should stream towards enlightenment.</p><p>Morality must be utterly destroyed and abolished at all costs; too many setbacks in human enlightenment and too many innocent have died at the hands of morale and morality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Morality has no place in a society which should stream towards enlightenment.Morality must be utterly destroyed and abolished at all costs ; too many setbacks in human enlightenment and too many innocent have died at the hands of morale and morality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Morality has no place in a society which should stream towards enlightenment.Morality must be utterly destroyed and abolished at all costs; too many setbacks in human enlightenment and too many innocent have died at the hands of morale and morality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31109620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31125744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31104382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31103066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31110328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31184184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31104316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31102268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31105142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0046216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31104316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31103066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31109620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31184184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31104382
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31125744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31102268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31110328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31105142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098930
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31100200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31101058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0046216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31098568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0046216.31099788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
