<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_14_1824217</id>
	<title>Overzealous Enforcement Means Even Legit Music Blogs Deleted</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266172740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>AnotherUsername writes <i>"Recently, many [Google-hosted] music blogs were deleted for hosting mp3s of songs by various artists.  The problem? The music blogs in question <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/02/dumb-labels-laws-bots-not-google-to-blame-for-music-blog-deletions/?intcid=inform\_relatedContent">had been given permission to host the songs</a>, and often, the older links to mp3s were often broken intentionally by the bloggers in order to save bandwidth. From the article: 'You're reading this right: Five years of Lipold's labor of love was deleted, in part, because he posted a track with full permission of a label, and the track apparently wasn't even online by the time the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFPI">IFPI</a> filed its complaint.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>AnotherUsername writes " Recently , many [ Google-hosted ] music blogs were deleted for hosting mp3s of songs by various artists .
The problem ?
The music blogs in question had been given permission to host the songs , and often , the older links to mp3s were often broken intentionally by the bloggers in order to save bandwidth .
From the article : 'You 're reading this right : Five years of Lipold 's labor of love was deleted , in part , because he posted a track with full permission of a label , and the track apparently was n't even online by the time the IFPI filed its complaint .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AnotherUsername writes "Recently, many [Google-hosted] music blogs were deleted for hosting mp3s of songs by various artists.
The problem?
The music blogs in question had been given permission to host the songs, and often, the older links to mp3s were often broken intentionally by the bloggers in order to save bandwidth.
From the article: 'You're reading this right: Five years of Lipold's labor of love was deleted, in part, because he posted a track with full permission of a label, and the track apparently wasn't even online by the time the IFPI filed its complaint.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31144162</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>ConfusedVorlon</author>
	<datestamp>1266250200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not so sure about serious consequences.</p><p>The agents have to have 'good reason to suspect'. That's a long way from 'conclusive proof'.</p><p>I doubt it would take a very expensive lawyer to convince a court that they had good reason for suspicion - even if they merrily admit that it was proved wrong in the end.</p><p>-And we're not even sure that it would be proved wrong. Consider:</p><p>The blogger gets a file from some agent or some artist and is asked to review it.<br>Did the agent/artist actually have full legal ability to grant the blogger distribution rights?</p><p>It's quite possible that while everything was done in good faith by the blogger - they actually didn't have permission from the right-holder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not so sure about serious consequences.The agents have to have 'good reason to suspect' .
That 's a long way from 'conclusive proof'.I doubt it would take a very expensive lawyer to convince a court that they had good reason for suspicion - even if they merrily admit that it was proved wrong in the end.-And we 're not even sure that it would be proved wrong .
Consider : The blogger gets a file from some agent or some artist and is asked to review it.Did the agent/artist actually have full legal ability to grant the blogger distribution rights ? It 's quite possible that while everything was done in good faith by the blogger - they actually did n't have permission from the right-holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not so sure about serious consequences.The agents have to have 'good reason to suspect'.
That's a long way from 'conclusive proof'.I doubt it would take a very expensive lawyer to convince a court that they had good reason for suspicion - even if they merrily admit that it was proved wrong in the end.-And we're not even sure that it would be proved wrong.
Consider:The blogger gets a file from some agent or some artist and is asked to review it.Did the agent/artist actually have full legal ability to grant the blogger distribution rights?It's quite possible that while everything was done in good faith by the blogger - they actually didn't have permission from the right-holder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141692</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1266266760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement. If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.</i> <br> <br>Are the police going to be interested in doing anything about it? If the complaint is malicious what's to stop it originating from a ficticious entity.<br> <br> <i>And since the blogger claims that he had the permission of the copyright holder, it seems that a criminal act happened (assuming the blogger is telling the truth). And I think damages would be awarded against the complainant anyway if the complaint was not justified (that is if the complainant had good reason to believe there was copyright infringement, but turned out to be wrong).</i> <br> <br>A judgment against an entity which dosn't exist is of little use, nor is one against one which does exist, but which has no assets. e.g. some sort of "shell company".</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you file a DMCA complaint , you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder , and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement .
If that is not the case , then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act .
Are the police going to be interested in doing anything about it ?
If the complaint is malicious what 's to stop it originating from a ficticious entity .
And since the blogger claims that he had the permission of the copyright holder , it seems that a criminal act happened ( assuming the blogger is telling the truth ) .
And I think damages would be awarded against the complainant anyway if the complaint was not justified ( that is if the complainant had good reason to believe there was copyright infringement , but turned out to be wrong ) .
A judgment against an entity which dos n't exist is of little use , nor is one against one which does exist , but which has no assets .
e.g. some sort of " shell company " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement.
If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.
Are the police going to be interested in doing anything about it?
If the complaint is malicious what's to stop it originating from a ficticious entity.
And since the blogger claims that he had the permission of the copyright holder, it seems that a criminal act happened (assuming the blogger is telling the truth).
And I think damages would be awarded against the complainant anyway if the complaint was not justified (that is if the complainant had good reason to believe there was copyright infringement, but turned out to be wrong).
A judgment against an entity which dosn't exist is of little use, nor is one against one which does exist, but which has no assets.
e.g. some sort of "shell company".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142674</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1266237000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Yes, and the other side of the coin is engraved with the same old picture that Google are idiots and the music industry must still die for its centuries of transgressions against mankind.
     Tails!</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and the other side of the coin is engraved with the same old picture that Google are idiots and the music industry must still die for its centuries of transgressions against mankind .
Tails !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and the other side of the coin is engraved with the same old picture that Google are idiots and the music industry must still die for its centuries of transgressions against mankind.
Tails!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136854</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1266140820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that the average amount of output per artist has gone down says nothing about the total output of all artists, as you make no statements as to the number of artists publishing music in that time. Thus the statements in your last paragraph have no evidence (as far as I can see) to back them up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the average amount of output per artist has gone down says nothing about the total output of all artists , as you make no statements as to the number of artists publishing music in that time .
Thus the statements in your last paragraph have no evidence ( as far as I can see ) to back them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that the average amount of output per artist has gone down says nothing about the total output of all artists, as you make no statements as to the number of artists publishing music in that time.
Thus the statements in your last paragraph have no evidence (as far as I can see) to back them up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136256</id>
	<title>In Protest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266180300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As unlikely as it is to happen, we (as in everybody, everywhere, - which is why it is unlikely) should stop buying music both online and off for the first week of every month for a year (or something similar).  Nothing speaks to these people more than their pocketbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As unlikely as it is to happen , we ( as in everybody , everywhere , - which is why it is unlikely ) should stop buying music both online and off for the first week of every month for a year ( or something similar ) .
Nothing speaks to these people more than their pocketbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As unlikely as it is to happen, we (as in everybody, everywhere, - which is why it is unlikely) should stop buying music both online and off for the first week of every month for a year (or something similar).
Nothing speaks to these people more than their pocketbooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874</id>
	<title>This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...as long as there are no repercussions for frivolous DMCA.</p><p>The only provision limiting the scope in DMCA is to own copyright on whatever you claim someone infringes upon.</p><p>So, I have copyright on MyDumbSong. And I am totally free to file DMCA against \_anyone\_ and everyone\_ and \_anything\_ and \_everything\_, claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong. And then it's their burden to prove they don't. And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...as long as there are no repercussions for frivolous DMCA.The only provision limiting the scope in DMCA is to own copyright on whatever you claim someone infringes upon.So , I have copyright on MyDumbSong .
And I am totally free to file DMCA against \ _anyone \ _ and everyone \ _ and \ _anything \ _ and \ _everything \ _ , claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong .
And then it 's their burden to prove they do n't .
And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as long as there are no repercussions for frivolous DMCA.The only provision limiting the scope in DMCA is to own copyright on whatever you claim someone infringes upon.So, I have copyright on MyDumbSong.
And I am totally free to file DMCA against \_anyone\_ and everyone\_ and \_anything\_ and \_everything\_, claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong.
And then it's their burden to prove they don't.
And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137172</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1266142920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the legal system operated as intended, this would be true.</p><p>However, ample evidence has shown that the legal system is well and truly broken, and that if you have sufficient money/power/political weight behind you, there will be no penalty regardless of the crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the legal system operated as intended , this would be true.However , ample evidence has shown that the legal system is well and truly broken , and that if you have sufficient money/power/political weight behind you , there will be no penalty regardless of the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the legal system operated as intended, this would be true.However, ample evidence has shown that the legal system is well and truly broken, and that if you have sufficient money/power/political weight behind you, there will be no penalty regardless of the crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135876</id>
	<title>New tagline/category needed</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1266176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... as apparently, "your rights online" do not really exist. What about "No rights online"? "Duties online"?</p><p>Well, I'm pretty sure we can come up with something that describes the situation a bit better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... as apparently , " your rights online " do not really exist .
What about " No rights online " ?
" Duties online " ? Well , I 'm pretty sure we can come up with something that describes the situation a bit better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... as apparently, "your rights online" do not really exist.
What about "No rights online"?
"Duties online"?Well, I'm pretty sure we can come up with something that describes the situation a bit better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137700</id>
	<title>Re:Another lesson from this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266146400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Needs more "-1, Paranoid" or "-1, Tinfoil Hat"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Needs more " -1 , Paranoid " or " -1 , Tinfoil Hat "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Needs more "-1, Paranoid" or "-1, Tinfoil Hat"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136338</id>
	<title>Let 'em!</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1266180780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call their bluff! Counter sue if you get cut off. Heck, take 'em to small claims court if you have to, then it is just you against any non lawyer they might have, they can't bring a lawyer into court. A judge will read the GPL, and you win most likely, unless they have some really obscure thing in their TOS that says you can get cut off for any reason at all, like they don't like your hat or something.</p><p>Besides that, I am having a hard time believing that any ISP, with some geeks there, would be totally unfamiliar with the GPL and legal downloads of stuff. Maybe you are with some huge ISP that uses script reading "tech support", perhaps in a "foreign land", people who really can't deviate from their script and instructions. If so, bump it up a notch there to second tier or first tier support.</p><p>What-ever, just seems silly to immediately cave to such wrongness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call their bluff !
Counter sue if you get cut off .
Heck , take 'em to small claims court if you have to , then it is just you against any non lawyer they might have , they ca n't bring a lawyer into court .
A judge will read the GPL , and you win most likely , unless they have some really obscure thing in their TOS that says you can get cut off for any reason at all , like they do n't like your hat or something.Besides that , I am having a hard time believing that any ISP , with some geeks there , would be totally unfamiliar with the GPL and legal downloads of stuff .
Maybe you are with some huge ISP that uses script reading " tech support " , perhaps in a " foreign land " , people who really ca n't deviate from their script and instructions .
If so , bump it up a notch there to second tier or first tier support.What-ever , just seems silly to immediately cave to such wrongness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call their bluff!
Counter sue if you get cut off.
Heck, take 'em to small claims court if you have to, then it is just you against any non lawyer they might have, they can't bring a lawyer into court.
A judge will read the GPL, and you win most likely, unless they have some really obscure thing in their TOS that says you can get cut off for any reason at all, like they don't like your hat or something.Besides that, I am having a hard time believing that any ISP, with some geeks there, would be totally unfamiliar with the GPL and legal downloads of stuff.
Maybe you are with some huge ISP that uses script reading "tech support", perhaps in a "foreign land", people who really can't deviate from their script and instructions.
If so, bump it up a notch there to second tier or first tier support.What-ever, just seems silly to immediately cave to such wrongness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136510</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Robot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266138720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.</p></div><p>I thought a take down notice was filed under the penalty of perjury <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf" title="copyright.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf</a> [copyright.gov] (see "TITLE II: ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION" Section "Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users" on page 12)</p><p>IANAL, but if I understand US law correctly you can drag anyone's ass to court if they file a bogus take down notice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are signing them , the fact that the law does n't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.I thought a take down notice was filed under the penalty of perjury http : //www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf [ copyright.gov ] ( see " TITLE II : ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION " Section " Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users " on page 12 ) IANAL , but if I understand US law correctly you can drag anyone 's ass to court if they file a bogus take down notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.I thought a take down notice was filed under the penalty of perjury http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf [copyright.gov] (see "TITLE II: ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION" Section "Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users" on page 12)IANAL, but if I understand US law correctly you can drag anyone's ass to court if they file a bogus take down notice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136772</id>
	<title>Re:In Protest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266140220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>All that does is prove their hypothesis that Pirates (Somalian?) downloading songs are resulting in lost sales: see, our figures for the last 6 months show that sales are down $XXX due to (Somalian?) Pirates downloading copyrighted data.<br>
<br>
Welcome to the world of spin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All that does is prove their hypothesis that Pirates ( Somalian ?
) downloading songs are resulting in lost sales : see , our figures for the last 6 months show that sales are down $ XXX due to ( Somalian ?
) Pirates downloading copyrighted data .
Welcome to the world of spin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that does is prove their hypothesis that Pirates (Somalian?
) downloading songs are resulting in lost sales: see, our figures for the last 6 months show that sales are down $XXX due to (Somalian?
) Pirates downloading copyrighted data.
Welcome to the world of spin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135872</id>
	<title>Artificial Scarcity of Distribution models</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? You thought this had anything to do with their "intellectual property"?</p><p>This has everything to do with crushing alternative distribution methods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
You thought this had anything to do with their " intellectual property " ? This has everything to do with crushing alternative distribution methods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
You thought this had anything to do with their "intellectual property"?This has everything to do with crushing alternative distribution methods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135908</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266177120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[This post deleted due to a copyright infringement complaint by the IFPI]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ This post deleted due to a copyright infringement complaint by the IFPI ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[This post deleted due to a copyright infringement complaint by the IFPI]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136352</id>
	<title>Re:New tagline/category needed</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266180900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the Internet freedom protection special unit.</p><p>*points botnet at St.Creed*</p><p>*with a sweet robotic voice*<br>Please explain why you spread the enemy&rsquo;s mindset and ideology?</p><p>---</p><p>The day when my online rights are gone, will be when the days when I&rsquo;m dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the Internet freedom protection special unit .
* points botnet at St.Creed * * with a sweet robotic voice * Please explain why you spread the enemy    s mindset and ideology ? ---The day when my online rights are gone , will be when the days when I    m dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the Internet freedom protection special unit.
*points botnet at St.Creed**with a sweet robotic voice*Please explain why you spread the enemy’s mindset and ideology?---The day when my online rights are gone, will be when the days when I’m dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135886</id>
	<title>what's this whole do no evil thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266176940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought that was some kind of guiding principle. Silly me. And when it comes to downloading, it seems that a friend's hard drive with hundreds of gigs of music in a taste you trust that can be copied in minutes is vastly more efficient than downloading anyway. So, it seems no matter what the IFPI, RIAA, etc. are still completely fucked. And Google, big, bloated, hard to steer Google, tramples on nimble little good guys as it "does no evil".
<p>
Sigh. such a dialectic of profit, desire, and misdirection.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that was some kind of guiding principle .
Silly me .
And when it comes to downloading , it seems that a friend 's hard drive with hundreds of gigs of music in a taste you trust that can be copied in minutes is vastly more efficient than downloading anyway .
So , it seems no matter what the IFPI , RIAA , etc .
are still completely fucked .
And Google , big , bloated , hard to steer Google , tramples on nimble little good guys as it " does no evil " .
Sigh. such a dialectic of profit , desire , and misdirection .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that was some kind of guiding principle.
Silly me.
And when it comes to downloading, it seems that a friend's hard drive with hundreds of gigs of music in a taste you trust that can be copied in minutes is vastly more efficient than downloading anyway.
So, it seems no matter what the IFPI, RIAA, etc.
are still completely fucked.
And Google, big, bloated, hard to steer Google, tramples on nimble little good guys as it "does no evil".
Sigh. such a dialectic of profit, desire, and misdirection.
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137408</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1266144360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is left is a gatekeeper economy.</p><p>A large amount of money is made in industries that exist purely to charge people for access to something that they likely would have access to anyway if it weren't for the strictures society places on them. Social conservatism and tooth-and-claw capitalism work together here; by depriving you of your basic pleasures and then making a fortune selling them back to you.</p><p>The way things are set up right now, you are either a middleman or a complete mug. If you are driven purely by a desire to increase your monetary worth (and society places immense pressures on you to be exactly this way) then you steer as far clear from actually producing something of value as you can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is left is a gatekeeper economy.A large amount of money is made in industries that exist purely to charge people for access to something that they likely would have access to anyway if it were n't for the strictures society places on them .
Social conservatism and tooth-and-claw capitalism work together here ; by depriving you of your basic pleasures and then making a fortune selling them back to you.The way things are set up right now , you are either a middleman or a complete mug .
If you are driven purely by a desire to increase your monetary worth ( and society places immense pressures on you to be exactly this way ) then you steer as far clear from actually producing something of value as you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is left is a gatekeeper economy.A large amount of money is made in industries that exist purely to charge people for access to something that they likely would have access to anyway if it weren't for the strictures society places on them.
Social conservatism and tooth-and-claw capitalism work together here; by depriving you of your basic pleasures and then making a fortune selling them back to you.The way things are set up right now, you are either a middleman or a complete mug.
If you are driven purely by a desire to increase your monetary worth (and society places immense pressures on you to be exactly this way) then you steer as far clear from actually producing something of value as you can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135934</id>
	<title>Would you like an extra shovel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266177360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let them continue to shoot themselves in their feet repeatedly.  More and more, make it unbearable.  I love it when the entertainment moguls are hysterical to the point of nonsense.  Because it is only hastening the day when they are completely irrelevent because nobody listens to a stark raving lunatic.  So, shout it to the rooftops whenever they are idiots: <i>real</i> people (as in not lawyers and corporates) already know they are full of it.  Dig away media, you're almost dead and the hole will be conveniently there for you to keel over into when you're done digging.  By the way, do your part: download from your own personal sense of fair-use until an actual rational one is established by a Unicorn in the fairy court.  If penaties are ludicrous, join systems such as The Onion Router. make new systems if you can, and lie through your teeth conflating the issues as much as you have to the entire way.  It's not my duty to cooperate in the slightest with <b>them</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let them continue to shoot themselves in their feet repeatedly .
More and more , make it unbearable .
I love it when the entertainment moguls are hysterical to the point of nonsense .
Because it is only hastening the day when they are completely irrelevent because nobody listens to a stark raving lunatic .
So , shout it to the rooftops whenever they are idiots : real people ( as in not lawyers and corporates ) already know they are full of it .
Dig away media , you 're almost dead and the hole will be conveniently there for you to keel over into when you 're done digging .
By the way , do your part : download from your own personal sense of fair-use until an actual rational one is established by a Unicorn in the fairy court .
If penaties are ludicrous , join systems such as The Onion Router .
make new systems if you can , and lie through your teeth conflating the issues as much as you have to the entire way .
It 's not my duty to cooperate in the slightest with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let them continue to shoot themselves in their feet repeatedly.
More and more, make it unbearable.
I love it when the entertainment moguls are hysterical to the point of nonsense.
Because it is only hastening the day when they are completely irrelevent because nobody listens to a stark raving lunatic.
So, shout it to the rooftops whenever they are idiots: real people (as in not lawyers and corporates) already know they are full of it.
Dig away media, you're almost dead and the hole will be conveniently there for you to keel over into when you're done digging.
By the way, do your part: download from your own personal sense of fair-use until an actual rational one is established by a Unicorn in the fairy court.
If penaties are ludicrous, join systems such as The Onion Router.
make new systems if you can, and lie through your teeth conflating the issues as much as you have to the entire way.
It's not my duty to cooperate in the slightest with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136752</id>
	<title>Wrong.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1266140160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of "repeat offenders," even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is false.  The DMCA does not require Google to do anything.  It merely grants them immunity from a claim of copyright infringement if they comply with it in response to a legitimate, correctly formed and delivered takedown notice.  If they ignore the notice they are in exactly the same position they would be in had the DMCA never been enacted.  Furthermore, there are penalties for sending false DMCA takedown notices as well as a counter-notice procedure that permits the material to be put back up (with the service provider retaining immunity) and gives the copyright owner thirty days to file suit.
<br> <br>
Absent the DMCA none of these blogs would exist as Google would be strictly liable for infringements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the law forces Google ( or any other blogging platform ) to terminate the accounts of " repeat offenders , " even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong , but mandated by current law .
This is false .
The DMCA does not require Google to do anything .
It merely grants them immunity from a claim of copyright infringement if they comply with it in response to a legitimate , correctly formed and delivered takedown notice .
If they ignore the notice they are in exactly the same position they would be in had the DMCA never been enacted .
Furthermore , there are penalties for sending false DMCA takedown notices as well as a counter-notice procedure that permits the material to be put back up ( with the service provider retaining immunity ) and gives the copyright owner thirty days to file suit .
Absent the DMCA none of these blogs would exist as Google would be strictly liable for infringements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of "repeat offenders," even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.
This is false.
The DMCA does not require Google to do anything.
It merely grants them immunity from a claim of copyright infringement if they comply with it in response to a legitimate, correctly formed and delivered takedown notice.
If they ignore the notice they are in exactly the same position they would be in had the DMCA never been enacted.
Furthermore, there are penalties for sending false DMCA takedown notices as well as a counter-notice procedure that permits the material to be put back up (with the service provider retaining immunity) and gives the copyright owner thirty days to file suit.
Absent the DMCA none of these blogs would exist as Google would be strictly liable for infringements.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138426</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1266151500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose though, that someone distributing their own song via the website could start a shitstorm by hollering " Unfair Business Practices!" and maybe getting a class action against the IFPI. It really doesn't make a difference that your music was available for free or micropayment or on a full priced CD. The IFPI still put their business interests ahead of yours. Perhaps bloggers should find a greedy shark and sic them on the IFPIAA in a multinational class action frenzy. Of course Google would suffer some blame , but then their ass is big enough to suffer a shark bite as no more  problematic than a pimple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose though , that someone distributing their own song via the website could start a shitstorm by hollering " Unfair Business Practices !
" and maybe getting a class action against the IFPI .
It really does n't make a difference that your music was available for free or micropayment or on a full priced CD .
The IFPI still put their business interests ahead of yours .
Perhaps bloggers should find a greedy shark and sic them on the IFPIAA in a multinational class action frenzy .
Of course Google would suffer some blame , but then their ass is big enough to suffer a shark bite as no more problematic than a pimple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose though, that someone distributing their own song via the website could start a shitstorm by hollering " Unfair Business Practices!
" and maybe getting a class action against the IFPI.
It really doesn't make a difference that your music was available for free or micropayment or on a full priced CD.
The IFPI still put their business interests ahead of yours.
Perhaps bloggers should find a greedy shark and sic them on the IFPIAA in a multinational class action frenzy.
Of course Google would suffer some blame , but then their ass is big enough to suffer a shark bite as no more  problematic than a pimple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138772</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1266153780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analysis is a bit specious. Control of copyright has always been a part of the music industry in the industrialized era even since before the birth of recorded sound. There was no great turning point in 1978. Frank Sinatra founded Reprise Records in 1960 and re-recorded his back catalog because he was fed up with being screwed by Capitol. If anything your observation points to a shift in emphasis for musicians and the record companies. In the early years of the LP there was more incentive to take advantage of all that the new technology offered to prove its merits against 78 RPM records. Once 78's were dead and gone there was no longer any need to fill a record up. There was also the rise of the 10" mini-LP format in the late 70's and 80's that filled a niche for albums with less content. If you've included these in your post 1978 analysis there is again some bias due to change in consumer demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analysis is a bit specious .
Control of copyright has always been a part of the music industry in the industrialized era even since before the birth of recorded sound .
There was no great turning point in 1978 .
Frank Sinatra founded Reprise Records in 1960 and re-recorded his back catalog because he was fed up with being screwed by Capitol .
If anything your observation points to a shift in emphasis for musicians and the record companies .
In the early years of the LP there was more incentive to take advantage of all that the new technology offered to prove its merits against 78 RPM records .
Once 78 's were dead and gone there was no longer any need to fill a record up .
There was also the rise of the 10 " mini-LP format in the late 70 's and 80 's that filled a niche for albums with less content .
If you 've included these in your post 1978 analysis there is again some bias due to change in consumer demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analysis is a bit specious.
Control of copyright has always been a part of the music industry in the industrialized era even since before the birth of recorded sound.
There was no great turning point in 1978.
Frank Sinatra founded Reprise Records in 1960 and re-recorded his back catalog because he was fed up with being screwed by Capitol.
If anything your observation points to a shift in emphasis for musicians and the record companies.
In the early years of the LP there was more incentive to take advantage of all that the new technology offered to prove its merits against 78 RPM records.
Once 78's were dead and gone there was no longer any need to fill a record up.
There was also the rise of the 10" mini-LP format in the late 70's and 80's that filled a niche for albums with less content.
If you've included these in your post 1978 analysis there is again some bias due to change in consumer demand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136178</id>
	<title>Not everything nuked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266179640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After seeing this news the other day and again today I have checked the 10+ google blogs that I subscribe to and am happy to see that none of them have gone down. Of course these sites don't post the commercialized garbage music that seems to be so popular these days but rather truly good and creative electronic music published by real artists who the mainstream rips off their hook lines and calls their own or pays the original artists peanuts to license while they turn around and make millions from their hard work. Sure google blogs and other sites may nuke things periodically but that will never stop people from simply re-creating their blog with a new name elsewhere and with awesome tools like the waybackmachine there is nothing stopping the bloggers from simply putting their content right back up on the cloud. muahahahaha! Epic fail here for the labels not recognizing free promotion when it is handed to them on a silver platter! xD lulz!<br>Score Bloggers: 1<br>Record Label Industry: 0 YOU DOUBLE FAIL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After seeing this news the other day and again today I have checked the 10 + google blogs that I subscribe to and am happy to see that none of them have gone down .
Of course these sites do n't post the commercialized garbage music that seems to be so popular these days but rather truly good and creative electronic music published by real artists who the mainstream rips off their hook lines and calls their own or pays the original artists peanuts to license while they turn around and make millions from their hard work .
Sure google blogs and other sites may nuke things periodically but that will never stop people from simply re-creating their blog with a new name elsewhere and with awesome tools like the waybackmachine there is nothing stopping the bloggers from simply putting their content right back up on the cloud .
muahahahaha ! Epic fail here for the labels not recognizing free promotion when it is handed to them on a silver platter !
xD lulz ! Score Bloggers : 1Record Label Industry : 0 YOU DOUBLE FAIL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After seeing this news the other day and again today I have checked the 10+ google blogs that I subscribe to and am happy to see that none of them have gone down.
Of course these sites don't post the commercialized garbage music that seems to be so popular these days but rather truly good and creative electronic music published by real artists who the mainstream rips off their hook lines and calls their own or pays the original artists peanuts to license while they turn around and make millions from their hard work.
Sure google blogs and other sites may nuke things periodically but that will never stop people from simply re-creating their blog with a new name elsewhere and with awesome tools like the waybackmachine there is nothing stopping the bloggers from simply putting their content right back up on the cloud.
muahahahaha! Epic fail here for the labels not recognizing free promotion when it is handed to them on a silver platter!
xD lulz!Score Bloggers: 1Record Label Industry: 0 YOU DOUBLE FAIL!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138050</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266148920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be interested in seeing your actual math, not just your results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be interested in seeing your actual math , not just your results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be interested in seeing your actual math, not just your results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141544</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>Superdarion</author>
	<datestamp>1266265200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good figures, but Copyright enforcement has nothing to do with the quality of music (or quantity, for that matter) but rather with how much money the musician makes out of it.

After all, we all want to make more money with less work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good figures , but Copyright enforcement has nothing to do with the quality of music ( or quantity , for that matter ) but rather with how much money the musician makes out of it .
After all , we all want to make more money with less work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good figures, but Copyright enforcement has nothing to do with the quality of music (or quantity, for that matter) but rather with how much money the musician makes out of it.
After all, we all want to make more money with less work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137712</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266146460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Using album lengths of studio albums for these artists I came up with a figure I called CPY, which just stands for content per year, which is measured in minutes.</p></div></blockquote><p>How is that a useful metric? Running time of the album is not proportional to the time spent on the recording process, nor does it take into account musicians who spend more time touring than recording.</p><p>Album length is relative to the style of music. It was fairly simple for a band like The Greatful Dead to crank out 80-minute recording after recording, because many of their songs consist of long improvisations. Contrast this with modern hardcore or "grindcore", in which song length often hovers around a minute of rather intense music.</p><p>You're also failing to adjust for wider musical trends; keep in mind that the late '70s is when the whole punk rock thing came along and largely displaced the prog/noodling aesthetic that had become so prevalent at the time.</p><p>tl;dr - creative output is very difficult to quantify.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using album lengths of studio albums for these artists I came up with a figure I called CPY , which just stands for content per year , which is measured in minutes.How is that a useful metric ?
Running time of the album is not proportional to the time spent on the recording process , nor does it take into account musicians who spend more time touring than recording.Album length is relative to the style of music .
It was fairly simple for a band like The Greatful Dead to crank out 80-minute recording after recording , because many of their songs consist of long improvisations .
Contrast this with modern hardcore or " grindcore " , in which song length often hovers around a minute of rather intense music.You 're also failing to adjust for wider musical trends ; keep in mind that the late '70s is when the whole punk rock thing came along and largely displaced the prog/noodling aesthetic that had become so prevalent at the time.tl ; dr - creative output is very difficult to quantify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using album lengths of studio albums for these artists I came up with a figure I called CPY, which just stands for content per year, which is measured in minutes.How is that a useful metric?
Running time of the album is not proportional to the time spent on the recording process, nor does it take into account musicians who spend more time touring than recording.Album length is relative to the style of music.
It was fairly simple for a band like The Greatful Dead to crank out 80-minute recording after recording, because many of their songs consist of long improvisations.
Contrast this with modern hardcore or "grindcore", in which song length often hovers around a minute of rather intense music.You're also failing to adjust for wider musical trends; keep in mind that the late '70s is when the whole punk rock thing came along and largely displaced the prog/noodling aesthetic that had become so prevalent at the time.tl;dr - creative output is very difficult to quantify.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136028</id>
	<title>conflate the legal with the "illegal"</title>
	<author>cats-paw</author>
	<datestamp>1266178200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The music industries goal here is to reinforce the belief that ALL music sharing is illegal and ALL music must be paid for.  It doesn't matter what the reality is, they are trying to force a mindset on people.  Things like the creative commons are just as much a threat as downloading.</p><p>Everything must have an owner, that owner must be a big corp and you must pay. ALWAYS.</p><p>It's a propaganda war.  Unfortunately one of the reasons it works is that when they actually do things which break the law to try and further this propaganda, the law won't come after them.</p><p>They can just point at absolutely anything and say "that's illegal" and immediately there is a presumption of guilt.  Then you must prove you innocence.</p><p>I for one, do not welcome my corporate overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The music industries goal here is to reinforce the belief that ALL music sharing is illegal and ALL music must be paid for .
It does n't matter what the reality is , they are trying to force a mindset on people .
Things like the creative commons are just as much a threat as downloading.Everything must have an owner , that owner must be a big corp and you must pay .
ALWAYS.It 's a propaganda war .
Unfortunately one of the reasons it works is that when they actually do things which break the law to try and further this propaganda , the law wo n't come after them.They can just point at absolutely anything and say " that 's illegal " and immediately there is a presumption of guilt .
Then you must prove you innocence.I for one , do not welcome my corporate overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The music industries goal here is to reinforce the belief that ALL music sharing is illegal and ALL music must be paid for.
It doesn't matter what the reality is, they are trying to force a mindset on people.
Things like the creative commons are just as much a threat as downloading.Everything must have an owner, that owner must be a big corp and you must pay.
ALWAYS.It's a propaganda war.
Unfortunately one of the reasons it works is that when they actually do things which break the law to try and further this propaganda, the law won't come after them.They can just point at absolutely anything and say "that's illegal" and immediately there is a presumption of guilt.
Then you must prove you innocence.I for one, do not welcome my corporate overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136122</id>
	<title>Welcome to the Corporate States of America</title>
	<author>Newer Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1266179100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to the Corporate States of America-where coroprations have all the RIGHTS of citizens-and more-with none of their RESPONSIBILITIES!

<p>Want proof? Here it is! <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/article1072632.ece" title="tampabay.com">http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/article1072632.ece</a> [tampabay.com] </p><p>

If a human being had done this, we'd be charged with the felony crime of breaking and entering-BUT after all Bank of America isn't a human, are they? Personally, I think that when stuff like this is done they should arrest the President of the corporation, process him and then throw him in a cell with the derelicts (make sure you do it on a long holiday weekend so he suffers for a few days).

</p><p>You might think that this is off topic, but it really isn't. Corporations have WAY TOO MUCH POWER-mainly because they have been able to BRIBE our corrupt government into letting them have it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the Corporate States of America-where coroprations have all the RIGHTS of citizens-and more-with none of their RESPONSIBILITIES !
Want proof ?
Here it is !
http : //www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/article1072632.ece [ tampabay.com ] If a human being had done this , we 'd be charged with the felony crime of breaking and entering-BUT after all Bank of America is n't a human , are they ?
Personally , I think that when stuff like this is done they should arrest the President of the corporation , process him and then throw him in a cell with the derelicts ( make sure you do it on a long holiday weekend so he suffers for a few days ) .
You might think that this is off topic , but it really is n't .
Corporations have WAY TOO MUCH POWER-mainly because they have been able to BRIBE our corrupt government into letting them have it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the Corporate States of America-where coroprations have all the RIGHTS of citizens-and more-with none of their RESPONSIBILITIES!
Want proof?
Here it is!
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/article1072632.ece [tampabay.com] 

If a human being had done this, we'd be charged with the felony crime of breaking and entering-BUT after all Bank of America isn't a human, are they?
Personally, I think that when stuff like this is done they should arrest the President of the corporation, process him and then throw him in a cell with the derelicts (make sure you do it on a long holiday weekend so he suffers for a few days).
You might think that this is off topic, but it really isn't.
Corporations have WAY TOO MUCH POWER-mainly because they have been able to BRIBE our corrupt government into letting them have it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137326</id>
	<title>I want to see reverse RIAA on this</title>
	<author>mjensen</author>
	<datestamp>1266143880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have an artist file suit against whoever filed the DCMA paperwork.<br>The artist should be entitled to the "lost sales" of the artists work on the same level of damages the RIAA claim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have an artist file suit against whoever filed the DCMA paperwork.The artist should be entitled to the " lost sales " of the artists work on the same level of damages the RIAA claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have an artist file suit against whoever filed the DCMA paperwork.The artist should be entitled to the "lost sales" of the artists work on the same level of damages the RIAA claim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136472</id>
	<title>Guilty until proven innocent</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1266138540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or rather YOU prove your innocence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or rather YOU prove your innocence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or rather YOU prove your innocence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136004</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266177900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what you get for delivering your message with other peoples computers instead of on your own.  Would it have killed em to run their own server?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what you get for delivering your message with other peoples computers instead of on your own .
Would it have killed em to run their own server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what you get for delivering your message with other peoples computers instead of on your own.
Would it have killed em to run their own server?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31139796</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1266160800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement. If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.</i></p><p>I'm starting to think that just isn't true.<br>I mean, I too know the actual DMCA law wording states that outright and all...   But if it was really part of law, then at least one out of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts (IE false takedown notices) would have been held up in court.</p><p>Of the few cases that even made it to court, not a single judge upheld that any damages should be awarded for filing a false (even known false in one case) take down notice.</p><p>Additionally, using the DMCA for this nearly exact thing was it's goal, and what it's used for most commonly.<br>It is a tool for stopping the competition of the record labels as much as it was a tool to stop piracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you file a DMCA complaint , you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder , and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement .
If that is not the case , then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.I 'm starting to think that just is n't true.I mean , I too know the actual DMCA law wording states that outright and all... But if it was really part of law , then at least one out of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts ( IE false takedown notices ) would have been held up in court.Of the few cases that even made it to court , not a single judge upheld that any damages should be awarded for filing a false ( even known false in one case ) take down notice.Additionally , using the DMCA for this nearly exact thing was it 's goal , and what it 's used for most commonly.It is a tool for stopping the competition of the record labels as much as it was a tool to stop piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement.
If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.I'm starting to think that just isn't true.I mean, I too know the actual DMCA law wording states that outright and all...   But if it was really part of law, then at least one out of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts (IE false takedown notices) would have been held up in court.Of the few cases that even made it to court, not a single judge upheld that any damages should be awarded for filing a false (even known false in one case) take down notice.Additionally, using the DMCA for this nearly exact thing was it's goal, and what it's used for most commonly.It is a tool for stopping the competition of the record labels as much as it was a tool to stop piracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140174</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1266164040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analysis is a bit specious. Control of copyright has always been a part of the music industry in the industrialized era even since before the birth of recorded sound. There was no great turning point in 1978. Frank Sinatra founded Reprise Records in 1960 and re-recorded his back catalog because he was fed up with being screwed by Capitol. If anything your observation points to a shift in emphasis for musicians and the record companies. In the early years of the LP there was more incentive to take advantage of all that the new technology offered to prove its merits against 78 RPM records. Once 78's were dead and gone there was no longer any need to fill a record up. There was also the rise of the 10" mini-LP format in the late 70's and 80's that filled a niche for albums with less content. If you've included these in your post 1978 analysis there is again some bias due to change in consumer demand.</p><p>Sorry if this shows up twice. The site seems to have been broken when I first posted this response and it never made it onto the thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analysis is a bit specious .
Control of copyright has always been a part of the music industry in the industrialized era even since before the birth of recorded sound .
There was no great turning point in 1978 .
Frank Sinatra founded Reprise Records in 1960 and re-recorded his back catalog because he was fed up with being screwed by Capitol .
If anything your observation points to a shift in emphasis for musicians and the record companies .
In the early years of the LP there was more incentive to take advantage of all that the new technology offered to prove its merits against 78 RPM records .
Once 78 's were dead and gone there was no longer any need to fill a record up .
There was also the rise of the 10 " mini-LP format in the late 70 's and 80 's that filled a niche for albums with less content .
If you 've included these in your post 1978 analysis there is again some bias due to change in consumer demand.Sorry if this shows up twice .
The site seems to have been broken when I first posted this response and it never made it onto the thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analysis is a bit specious.
Control of copyright has always been a part of the music industry in the industrialized era even since before the birth of recorded sound.
There was no great turning point in 1978.
Frank Sinatra founded Reprise Records in 1960 and re-recorded his back catalog because he was fed up with being screwed by Capitol.
If anything your observation points to a shift in emphasis for musicians and the record companies.
In the early years of the LP there was more incentive to take advantage of all that the new technology offered to prove its merits against 78 RPM records.
Once 78's were dead and gone there was no longer any need to fill a record up.
There was also the rise of the 10" mini-LP format in the late 70's and 80's that filled a niche for albums with less content.
If you've included these in your post 1978 analysis there is again some bias due to change in consumer demand.Sorry if this shows up twice.
The site seems to have been broken when I first posted this response and it never made it onto the thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136794</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>dhasenan</author>
	<datestamp>1266140400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this is a way of saying the IFPI controls music distribution, and not the artists or recording labels that own the music. The rights holders aren't involved or consulted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is a way of saying the IFPI controls music distribution , and not the artists or recording labels that own the music .
The rights holders are n't involved or consulted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is a way of saying the IFPI controls music distribution, and not the artists or recording labels that own the music.
The rights holders aren't involved or consulted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135894</id>
	<title>Not really a surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266177000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The business model of the record labels is borken.  They don't want to change and are swinging violently.  Everyone must suffer.  I know I recently got a new version of OpenOffice.org off of a p2p site, and I got a warning from my ISP that downloading (anything) off the internet is illegal.  They didn't want to hear about the GNU GPL.  I responded and they threatened to cut me off and were considering forwarding logs to their lawyer.  Nice.  Legal content isn't allowed either.  I'm disgusted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The business model of the record labels is borken .
They do n't want to change and are swinging violently .
Everyone must suffer .
I know I recently got a new version of OpenOffice.org off of a p2p site , and I got a warning from my ISP that downloading ( anything ) off the internet is illegal .
They did n't want to hear about the GNU GPL .
I responded and they threatened to cut me off and were considering forwarding logs to their lawyer .
Nice. Legal content is n't allowed either .
I 'm disgusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The business model of the record labels is borken.
They don't want to change and are swinging violently.
Everyone must suffer.
I know I recently got a new version of OpenOffice.org off of a p2p site, and I got a warning from my ISP that downloading (anything) off the internet is illegal.
They didn't want to hear about the GNU GPL.
I responded and they threatened to cut me off and were considering forwarding logs to their lawyer.
Nice.  Legal content isn't allowed either.
I'm disgusted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136216</id>
	<title>stop endorsing these companies</title>
	<author>blueworm</author>
	<datestamp>1266180000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't post anything related to a major music company to a blog -- it's that simple. If you don't agree with the takedown notices and the lawsuits, do some research and stop endorsing companies who do that type of thing. Stop sharing it and listening to it, because without sharing nothing can survive in the Internet age. The problem is people like music, but they've been so psychologically damaged into thinking that music making isn't a perfectly able to be learned iteratively that they feel they MUST consume music produced by these companies, and that simply isn't true. We need new musicians to make music and find ways to make money off of it through inclusion in other products such that they don't feel the need to be marketed by malicious record companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't post anything related to a major music company to a blog -- it 's that simple .
If you do n't agree with the takedown notices and the lawsuits , do some research and stop endorsing companies who do that type of thing .
Stop sharing it and listening to it , because without sharing nothing can survive in the Internet age .
The problem is people like music , but they 've been so psychologically damaged into thinking that music making is n't a perfectly able to be learned iteratively that they feel they MUST consume music produced by these companies , and that simply is n't true .
We need new musicians to make music and find ways to make money off of it through inclusion in other products such that they do n't feel the need to be marketed by malicious record companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't post anything related to a major music company to a blog -- it's that simple.
If you don't agree with the takedown notices and the lawsuits, do some research and stop endorsing companies who do that type of thing.
Stop sharing it and listening to it, because without sharing nothing can survive in the Internet age.
The problem is people like music, but they've been so psychologically damaged into thinking that music making isn't a perfectly able to be learned iteratively that they feel they MUST consume music produced by these companies, and that simply isn't true.
We need new musicians to make music and find ways to make money off of it through inclusion in other products such that they don't feel the need to be marketed by malicious record companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135942</id>
	<title>Anonymous Robot?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1266177420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> accused blogger must file a counter-claim or, after an unquantified number of complaints -- valid or otherwise -- the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of "repeat offenders," even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.</p></div></blockquote><p>Unless the law has changed recently, all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party.  So it can't be an \_anonymous\_ robot.  If Google has agreed to an expidited, unsigned, automated, takedown process, it's not the law's fault.</p><p>If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>accused blogger must file a counter-claim or , after an unquantified number of complaints -- valid or otherwise -- the law forces Google ( or any other blogging platform ) to terminate the accounts of " repeat offenders , " even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong , but mandated by current law.Unless the law has changed recently , all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party .
So it ca n't be an \ _anonymous \ _ robot .
If Google has agreed to an expidited , unsigned , automated , takedown process , it 's not the law 's fault.If they are signing them , the fact that the law does n't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> accused blogger must file a counter-claim or, after an unquantified number of complaints -- valid or otherwise -- the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of "repeat offenders," even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.Unless the law has changed recently, all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party.
So it can't be an \_anonymous\_ robot.
If Google has agreed to an expidited, unsigned, automated, takedown process, it's not the law's fault.If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136550</id>
	<title>Re:Another lesson from this</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1266139080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the FBI can come and collect your backups and used them in court later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the FBI can come and collect your backups and used them in court later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the FBI can come and collect your backups and used them in court later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884</id>
	<title>This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1266176880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The laws in question are basically a way of saying 'the music industry controls music. There shall be no music without our say so' whilst appearing to be a justified set of rules to make the industry fair. Even if this were the first example (it really, really is not) then nobody ought to be at all surprised. Few service or hosting providers have the balls to actually look into the matter when a legal-sounding letter arrives; they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately, which is exactly the kind of environment the content industry has sought to create.</p><p>Rather than there being a presumption of innocence for those publishing on the web, and the rights holder having to prove guilt - there is a a presumption of guilt and the publisher has to prove innocence, normally with far fewer legal funds available than the rights holder. There is also no consequence to the service/hosting provider for taking content down.</p><p>In a society so thoroughly and openly corrupt, how can this be a surprise? If the entire government and legal system is open to the highest bidder (true in every western nation I can think of) then naturally the intent of all laws will be to keep entrenched elites in place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The laws in question are basically a way of saying 'the music industry controls music .
There shall be no music without our say so ' whilst appearing to be a justified set of rules to make the industry fair .
Even if this were the first example ( it really , really is not ) then nobody ought to be at all surprised .
Few service or hosting providers have the balls to actually look into the matter when a legal-sounding letter arrives ; they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately , which is exactly the kind of environment the content industry has sought to create.Rather than there being a presumption of innocence for those publishing on the web , and the rights holder having to prove guilt - there is a a presumption of guilt and the publisher has to prove innocence , normally with far fewer legal funds available than the rights holder .
There is also no consequence to the service/hosting provider for taking content down.In a society so thoroughly and openly corrupt , how can this be a surprise ?
If the entire government and legal system is open to the highest bidder ( true in every western nation I can think of ) then naturally the intent of all laws will be to keep entrenched elites in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The laws in question are basically a way of saying 'the music industry controls music.
There shall be no music without our say so' whilst appearing to be a justified set of rules to make the industry fair.
Even if this were the first example (it really, really is not) then nobody ought to be at all surprised.
Few service or hosting providers have the balls to actually look into the matter when a legal-sounding letter arrives; they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately, which is exactly the kind of environment the content industry has sought to create.Rather than there being a presumption of innocence for those publishing on the web, and the rights holder having to prove guilt - there is a a presumption of guilt and the publisher has to prove innocence, normally with far fewer legal funds available than the rights holder.
There is also no consequence to the service/hosting provider for taking content down.In a society so thoroughly and openly corrupt, how can this be a surprise?
If the entire government and legal system is open to the highest bidder (true in every western nation I can think of) then naturally the intent of all laws will be to keep entrenched elites in place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136306</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>Not true, they can still be taken to court for business lost by the group whose MP3s they took down.  I'm sure this is the next step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately   Not true , they can still be taken to court for business lost by the group whose MP3s they took down .
I 'm sure this is the next step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately 
  Not true, they can still be taken to court for business lost by the group whose MP3s they took down.
I'm sure this is the next step.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136364</id>
	<title>start'in up a new label and band..</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1266180960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both named "WTF" with a logo "WTF" and first album and song titled "WTF"</p><p>Anyone want to join "WTF"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both named " WTF " with a logo " WTF " and first album and song titled " WTF " Anyone want to join " WTF " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both named "WTF" with a logo "WTF" and first album and song titled "WTF"Anyone want to join "WTF"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31146122</id>
	<title>The law is the law</title>
	<author>terraplane</author>
	<datestamp>1266259620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't do the time? Don't do the crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't do the time ?
Do n't do the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't do the time?
Don't do the crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141958</id>
	<title>Re:Another lesson from this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266227040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is exactly what should have happened here...</p><p>1) Google takes down the blog, claiming DMCA or similar bullshit<br>2) A new blog is created and content restored.</p><p>Then maybe...</p><p>3) A new DMCA complaint is received<br>4) The new blog is taken down<br>5) Yet another new blog is created and content restored.</p><p>And so on... There are many blogging services out there so just keep going on a tour of them all, returning to the previous hosts whenever possible. If we could force some stupid RIAA member to take on Google's army of lawyers, things would be really fun as there's no doubt Google would win and thus invalidate the entire DMCA system. Now that's what we need!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is exactly what should have happened here...1 ) Google takes down the blog , claiming DMCA or similar bullshit2 ) A new blog is created and content restored.Then maybe...3 ) A new DMCA complaint is received4 ) The new blog is taken down5 ) Yet another new blog is created and content restored.And so on... There are many blogging services out there so just keep going on a tour of them all , returning to the previous hosts whenever possible .
If we could force some stupid RIAA member to take on Google 's army of lawyers , things would be really fun as there 's no doubt Google would win and thus invalidate the entire DMCA system .
Now that 's what we need !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is exactly what should have happened here...1) Google takes down the blog, claiming DMCA or similar bullshit2) A new blog is created and content restored.Then maybe...3) A new DMCA complaint is received4) The new blog is taken down5) Yet another new blog is created and content restored.And so on... There are many blogging services out there so just keep going on a tour of them all, returning to the previous hosts whenever possible.
If we could force some stupid RIAA member to take on Google's army of lawyers, things would be really fun as there's no doubt Google would win and thus invalidate the entire DMCA system.
Now that's what we need!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31178576</id>
	<title>Re:Another lesson from this</title>
	<author>Anonymous Cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1265030100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how do you back up a blogger blog in a way which is restorable in any practicable fashion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how do you back up a blogger blog in a way which is restorable in any practicable fashion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how do you back up a blogger blog in a way which is restorable in any practicable fashion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140696</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh-huh. And how many times has a false take-down notice resulted in a criminal conviction of the issuer?</p><p>Go ahead, go find a number. I'll wait.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Oh, right, the number is zero!  Now compare that to the number of legitimate pieces of content that were removed due to criminal take-down notices.  Hmm.  Millions upon millions.</p><p>Yeah, clearly the law is working as intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh-huh .
And how many times has a false take-down notice resulted in a criminal conviction of the issuer ? Go ahead , go find a number .
I 'll wait .
...Oh , right , the number is zero !
Now compare that to the number of legitimate pieces of content that were removed due to criminal take-down notices .
Hmm. Millions upon millions.Yeah , clearly the law is working as intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh-huh.
And how many times has a false take-down notice resulted in a criminal conviction of the issuer?Go ahead, go find a number.
I'll wait.
...Oh, right, the number is zero!
Now compare that to the number of legitimate pieces of content that were removed due to criminal take-down notices.
Hmm.  Millions upon millions.Yeah, clearly the law is working as intended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142882</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266239580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, it can certainly be said that the copyright act definitely is NOT causing an increase in creative output.</p> </div><p>No, you cannot make a positive statement to that effect, for much the same reason. It is perfectly conceivable that CPY would've dropped even more if the new Copyright Act hadn't taken effect.</p><p>That said, we also know nothing about the data you used, how you chose it and so on, so it's not possible to draw ANY conclusion at all from what you've said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , it can certainly be said that the copyright act definitely is NOT causing an increase in creative output .
No , you can not make a positive statement to that effect , for much the same reason .
It is perfectly conceivable that CPY would 've dropped even more if the new Copyright Act had n't taken effect.That said , we also know nothing about the data you used , how you chose it and so on , so it 's not possible to draw ANY conclusion at all from what you 've said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, it can certainly be said that the copyright act definitely is NOT causing an increase in creative output.
No, you cannot make a positive statement to that effect, for much the same reason.
It is perfectly conceivable that CPY would've dropped even more if the new Copyright Act hadn't taken effect.That said, we also know nothing about the data you used, how you chose it and so on, so it's not possible to draw ANY conclusion at all from what you've said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135848</id>
	<title>Fake it until you make it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266176580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a document that shows how to get under the Berlin wall, will i get arrested if i post it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a document that shows how to get under the Berlin wall , will i get arrested if i post it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a document that shows how to get under the Berlin wall, will i get arrested if i post it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137014</id>
	<title>There is no legit enforcement...</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1266142020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There can be no legit copyright enforcement, because the very <i>concept</i> of copyright is immoral and nonsensical in the first place, and <a href="http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm" title="ucla.edu"> <b>ought to be abolished.</b> </a> [ucla.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There can be no legit copyright enforcement , because the very concept of copyright is immoral and nonsensical in the first place , and ought to be abolished .
[ ucla.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There can be no legit copyright enforcement, because the very concept of copyright is immoral and nonsensical in the first place, and  ought to be abolished.
[ucla.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141782</id>
	<title>Re:Not really a surprise, dodo birds</title>
	<author>harvey the nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1266224820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you please indicate, even indirectly who the offending party is?  Enough hints to merit consideration for future users' "avoid" or "embargo" decision. Pretty pls.  The sooner any bad business goes teh way of the dodo bird, the better.  We're tired of scam and hyperaggressive businesses, just cut them off at the knees, especially the middle one...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please indicate , even indirectly who the offending party is ?
Enough hints to merit consideration for future users ' " avoid " or " embargo " decision .
Pretty pls .
The sooner any bad business goes teh way of the dodo bird , the better .
We 're tired of scam and hyperaggressive businesses , just cut them off at the knees , especially the middle one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please indicate, even indirectly who the offending party is?
Enough hints to merit consideration for future users' "avoid" or "embargo" decision.
Pretty pls.
The sooner any bad business goes teh way of the dodo bird, the better.
We're tired of scam and hyperaggressive businesses, just cut them off at the knees, especially the middle one...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136670</id>
	<title>Sh17</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266139620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Would like to keed to be Kreskin if desir3d, we REPRESENTS THE their hand...she gloves, condoms can be like your own towel in</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would like to keed to be Kreskin if desir3d , we REPRESENTS THE their hand...she gloves , condoms can be like your own towel in [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would like to keed to be Kreskin if desir3d, we REPRESENTS THE their hand...she gloves, condoms can be like your own towel in [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138022</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266148680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem with the DMCA is it's being used when the law only applies to America.</p><p>Youtube are the worst offenders, they stop / delete files when content was made in a different continent and some dick of a company comes around using the American DMCA law to take down a legit file.</p><p>I run my own site because youtube and their ilk are so bloody pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem with the DMCA is it 's being used when the law only applies to America.Youtube are the worst offenders , they stop / delete files when content was made in a different continent and some dick of a company comes around using the American DMCA law to take down a legit file.I run my own site because youtube and their ilk are so bloody pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem with the DMCA is it's being used when the law only applies to America.Youtube are the worst offenders, they stop / delete files when content was made in a different continent and some dick of a company comes around using the American DMCA law to take down a legit file.I run my own site because youtube and their ilk are so bloody pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142184</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Robot?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1266230340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Unless the law has changed recently, all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party.</i> <br> <br>In law a "signature" can be a corporate letterhead, a stamp, seal, etc. The term is not restricted to being someone's handwritten name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless the law has changed recently , all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party .
In law a " signature " can be a corporate letterhead , a stamp , seal , etc .
The term is not restricted to being someone 's handwritten name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless the law has changed recently, all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party.
In law a "signature" can be a corporate letterhead, a stamp, seal, etc.
The term is not restricted to being someone's handwritten name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135978</id>
	<title>Class Action Defamation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266177780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am definitely no lawyer, but couldn't a class action defamation or fraud suit be brought back against the IFPI for the incorrect reports?  People like this will continue to suffer overbearing copyright-related mistreatment as long as they do not take it to the courts as plaintiff.  The RPAA has made aggressive moves that can only be countered with swift action when they overstep their own bounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am definitely no lawyer , but could n't a class action defamation or fraud suit be brought back against the IFPI for the incorrect reports ?
People like this will continue to suffer overbearing copyright-related mistreatment as long as they do not take it to the courts as plaintiff .
The RPAA has made aggressive moves that can only be countered with swift action when they overstep their own bounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am definitely no lawyer, but couldn't a class action defamation or fraud suit be brought back against the IFPI for the incorrect reports?
People like this will continue to suffer overbearing copyright-related mistreatment as long as they do not take it to the courts as plaintiff.
The RPAA has made aggressive moves that can only be countered with swift action when they overstep their own bounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135882</id>
	<title>Music porn.</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1266176880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a shame the porn industry isn't as zealous as the music industry then maybe something meaningful would finally happen to end all this silliness that's been happening since Napster took off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame the porn industry is n't as zealous as the music industry then maybe something meaningful would finally happen to end all this silliness that 's been happening since Napster took off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame the porn industry isn't as zealous as the music industry then maybe something meaningful would finally happen to end all this silliness that's been happening since Napster took off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136456</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Robot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266138420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.</p></div><p>Well, the law \_does\_ make them illegal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are signing them , the fact that the law does n't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.Well , the law \ _does \ _ make them illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.Well, the law \_does\_ make them illegal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138614</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1266152520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that you can still get taken down by a DMCA notice unless you get your own Internet, I don't see your point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that you can still get taken down by a DMCA notice unless you get your own Internet , I do n't see your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that you can still get taken down by a DMCA notice unless you get your own Internet, I don't see your point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135846</id>
	<title>Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266176580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is nothing compared to corporate interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is nothing compared to corporate interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is nothing compared to corporate interests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266138180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, contrary to your claim there will be very serious repercussions if the blogger takes this case to court. <br> <br>
When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement. If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act. And since the blogger claims that he had the permission of the copyright holder, it seems that a criminal act happened (assuming the blogger is telling the truth). And I think damages would be awarded against the complainant anyway if the complaint was not justified (that is if the complainant had good reason to believe there was copyright infringement, but turned out to be wrong).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , contrary to your claim there will be very serious repercussions if the blogger takes this case to court .
When you file a DMCA complaint , you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder , and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement .
If that is not the case , then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act .
And since the blogger claims that he had the permission of the copyright holder , it seems that a criminal act happened ( assuming the blogger is telling the truth ) .
And I think damages would be awarded against the complainant anyway if the complaint was not justified ( that is if the complainant had good reason to believe there was copyright infringement , but turned out to be wrong ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, contrary to your claim there will be very serious repercussions if the blogger takes this case to court.
When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement.
If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.
And since the blogger claims that he had the permission of the copyright holder, it seems that a criminal act happened (assuming the blogger is telling the truth).
And I think damages would be awarded against the complainant anyway if the complaint was not justified (that is if the complainant had good reason to believe there was copyright infringement, but turned out to be wrong).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136222</id>
	<title>What no "News at 11" posts?</title>
	<author>TinBromide</author>
	<datestamp>1266180000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, here goes: {entity} assumes it owns all of {video, music, or other media} and issues a {DMCA or Copyright notice} takedown that hits someone who actually owns {video, music, or other media} outside of the {entity}'s control, thus furthering its own goals two-fold, by removing competition and by "reducing piracy". News at 11</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , here goes : { entity } assumes it owns all of { video , music , or other media } and issues a { DMCA or Copyright notice } takedown that hits someone who actually owns { video , music , or other media } outside of the { entity } 's control , thus furthering its own goals two-fold , by removing competition and by " reducing piracy " .
News at 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, here goes: {entity} assumes it owns all of {video, music, or other media} and issues a {DMCA or Copyright notice} takedown that hits someone who actually owns {video, music, or other media} outside of the {entity}'s control, thus furthering its own goals two-fold, by removing competition and by "reducing piracy".
News at 11</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136000</id>
	<title>Re:Not really a surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266177900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice troll idiot. We here are all just SO sure you got a warning from your ISP that downloading OpenOffice is illegal. Dork.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice troll idiot .
We here are all just SO sure you got a warning from your ISP that downloading OpenOffice is illegal .
Dork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice troll idiot.
We here are all just SO sure you got a warning from your ISP that downloading OpenOffice is illegal.
Dork.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266178080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree. A major problem is that our system rewards the most egregious control freaks with more and more power.<p>


We seem to operate out of a misplaced Puritan holdback of 'any freedom is evil' and 'humans are inherently evil and must be controlled lest they be themselves', which could only equal evil in this mindset. It's completely ass backwards and results in a total thwarting of creativity. </p><p>

Without an atmosphere of assumed trustworthiness, how can our society thrive and move forward at all? The music industry (and the film industry) are symptomatic of a much bigger problem. I believe it needs to be fought against aggressively and nipped in the bud before government usurps any more control by crushing individual freedom and creativity. But I don't have any good ideas of how to stop this nauseating trend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree .
A major problem is that our system rewards the most egregious control freaks with more and more power .
We seem to operate out of a misplaced Puritan holdback of 'any freedom is evil ' and 'humans are inherently evil and must be controlled lest they be themselves ' , which could only equal evil in this mindset .
It 's completely ass backwards and results in a total thwarting of creativity .
Without an atmosphere of assumed trustworthiness , how can our society thrive and move forward at all ?
The music industry ( and the film industry ) are symptomatic of a much bigger problem .
I believe it needs to be fought against aggressively and nipped in the bud before government usurps any more control by crushing individual freedom and creativity .
But I do n't have any good ideas of how to stop this nauseating trend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.
A major problem is that our system rewards the most egregious control freaks with more and more power.
We seem to operate out of a misplaced Puritan holdback of 'any freedom is evil' and 'humans are inherently evil and must be controlled lest they be themselves', which could only equal evil in this mindset.
It's completely ass backwards and results in a total thwarting of creativity.
Without an atmosphere of assumed trustworthiness, how can our society thrive and move forward at all?
The music industry (and the film industry) are symptomatic of a much bigger problem.
I believe it needs to be fought against aggressively and nipped in the bud before government usurps any more control by crushing individual freedom and creativity.
But I don't have any good ideas of how to stop this nauseating trend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142290</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266231540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any content creator can tell you that if the copyright act wasn't there, the production would have fallen over 9000\%<br>Copyright act reduced the fall from infinite to only 28\%</p><p>Copyright act is good!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any content creator can tell you that if the copyright act was n't there , the production would have fallen over 9000 \ % Copyright act reduced the fall from infinite to only 28 \ % Copyright act is good !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any content creator can tell you that if the copyright act wasn't there, the production would have fallen over 9000\%Copyright act reduced the fall from infinite to only 28\%Copyright act is good!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136402</id>
	<title>Non US based hosting</title>
	<author>future assassin</author>
	<datestamp>1266138120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well there's a market right there. Set up your site with a company that has no connections to the USA</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well there 's a market right there .
Set up your site with a company that has no connections to the USA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well there's a market right there.
Set up your site with a company that has no connections to the USA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31163514</id>
	<title>Who checks abuse of IP laws and chilling effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266332580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IP laws have been abused to stop critical opinions from being published.</p><p>A legal threat can simply allege Trademark violation even though fair use provisions legally protect such use in opinions and comment.</p><p>Legal threats serve the purpose, if the blog service provider (Google, Wordpress etc) responds by simply taking the blog offline. I think this is  what usually happens ?</p><p>What verifications do Google or Wordpress do ? Do they even check ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IP laws have been abused to stop critical opinions from being published.A legal threat can simply allege Trademark violation even though fair use provisions legally protect such use in opinions and comment.Legal threats serve the purpose , if the blog service provider ( Google , Wordpress etc ) responds by simply taking the blog offline .
I think this is what usually happens ? What verifications do Google or Wordpress do ?
Do they even check ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP laws have been abused to stop critical opinions from being published.A legal threat can simply allege Trademark violation even though fair use provisions legally protect such use in opinions and comment.Legal threats serve the purpose, if the blog service provider (Google, Wordpress etc) responds by simply taking the blog offline.
I think this is  what usually happens ?What verifications do Google or Wordpress do ?
Do they even check ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137678</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266146280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's what you get for delivering your message with other peoples computers instead of on your own.  Would it have killed em to run their own server?</p></div><p>That doesn't really solve the problem.</p><p>They can complain to your co-lo and have them pull you from the rack.<br>They can complain to the upstream provider and have your IP block dropped.<br>They can complain to your registrar and have your domain stop resolving (GoDaddy).<br>They can even complain to google and have you blocked from appearing in search results (Scientology).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what you get for delivering your message with other peoples computers instead of on your own .
Would it have killed em to run their own server ? That does n't really solve the problem.They can complain to your co-lo and have them pull you from the rack.They can complain to the upstream provider and have your IP block dropped.They can complain to your registrar and have your domain stop resolving ( GoDaddy ) .They can even complain to google and have you blocked from appearing in search results ( Scientology ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what you get for delivering your message with other peoples computers instead of on your own.
Would it have killed em to run their own server?That doesn't really solve the problem.They can complain to your co-lo and have them pull you from the rack.They can complain to the upstream provider and have your IP block dropped.They can complain to your registrar and have your domain stop resolving (GoDaddy).They can even complain to google and have you blocked from appearing in search results (Scientology).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136270</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1266180360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then they file a DMCA complaint with your hosting provider/ISP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they file a DMCA complaint with your hosting provider/ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they file a DMCA complaint with your hosting provider/ISP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141730</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1266267240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>However, ample evidence has shown that the legal system is well and truly broken, and that if you have sufficient money/power/political weight behind you, there will be no penalty regardless of the crime.</i> <br> <br>It also appears to be the case that these kind of laws are not much use against the "big boys". e.g. how often do you hear about takedowns against big software companies for pirating software or news media for using photographs without permission...</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , ample evidence has shown that the legal system is well and truly broken , and that if you have sufficient money/power/political weight behind you , there will be no penalty regardless of the crime .
It also appears to be the case that these kind of laws are not much use against the " big boys " .
e.g. how often do you hear about takedowns against big software companies for pirating software or news media for using photographs without permission.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, ample evidence has shown that the legal system is well and truly broken, and that if you have sufficient money/power/political weight behind you, there will be no penalty regardless of the crime.
It also appears to be the case that these kind of laws are not much use against the "big boys".
e.g. how often do you hear about takedowns against big software companies for pirating software or news media for using photographs without permission...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137754</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266146760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having processed hundreds of DMCA complaints for an online service provider, I'd estimate that 5\% or less of those copyright complaints would actually hold up in court.  I have yet, however, to hear of a single person who has filed a blatantly invalid notice of copyright infringement being brought to court over it, despite having to swear under penalty of perjury that their complaint is valid.  There's absolutely no expectation for companies to ever be brought to court over sending invalid copyright infringement notices.  There's also 1\% or less rate of people filing counter-notifications despite being informed of their right to do so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having processed hundreds of DMCA complaints for an online service provider , I 'd estimate that 5 \ % or less of those copyright complaints would actually hold up in court .
I have yet , however , to hear of a single person who has filed a blatantly invalid notice of copyright infringement being brought to court over it , despite having to swear under penalty of perjury that their complaint is valid .
There 's absolutely no expectation for companies to ever be brought to court over sending invalid copyright infringement notices .
There 's also 1 \ % or less rate of people filing counter-notifications despite being informed of their right to do so : -/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having processed hundreds of DMCA complaints for an online service provider, I'd estimate that 5\% or less of those copyright complaints would actually hold up in court.
I have yet, however, to hear of a single person who has filed a blatantly invalid notice of copyright infringement being brought to court over it, despite having to swear under penalty of perjury that their complaint is valid.
There's absolutely no expectation for companies to ever be brought to court over sending invalid copyright infringement notices.
There's also 1\% or less rate of people filing counter-notifications despite being informed of their right to do so :-/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136842</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266140820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you mean?  We're all perfectly free to act within the interests of the major corporations.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean ?
We 're all perfectly free to act within the interests of the major corporations .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean?
We're all perfectly free to act within the interests of the major corporations.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140266</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266164880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell me if I understand where you are going.</p><p>A person writes a song and rather than publishing it normally, he posts it on a music blog.</p><p>Recording industry files a complaint and shuts down the blog. </p><p>You, as the copyright holder, file suit against the recording industry because they infringed on your rights for distributing your song.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me if I understand where you are going.A person writes a song and rather than publishing it normally , he posts it on a music blog.Recording industry files a complaint and shuts down the blog .
You , as the copyright holder , file suit against the recording industry because they infringed on your rights for distributing your song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me if I understand where you are going.A person writes a song and rather than publishing it normally, he posts it on a music blog.Recording industry files a complaint and shuts down the blog.
You, as the copyright holder, file suit against the recording industry because they infringed on your rights for distributing your song.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136778</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1266140280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We seem to operate out of a misplaced Puritan holdback of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 'humans are inherently evil and must be controlled lest they be themselves', which could only equal evil in this mindset<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Without an atmosphere of assumed trustworthiness, how can our society thrive and move forward at all? The music industry (and the film industry) are symptomatic of a much bigger problem.</p></div><p>Are you saying society will be corrupted by the music industry?</p><p>OK, it would be better if the music industry trusted us, and vice versa I suppose.  Now, lets look at the rest of society and find me a trustworthy banker / mortgage broker / real estate agent / used car salesman / new car salesman / executive / anybody in marketing or sales / vehicle mechanic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I'd say, the music industry is being corrupted by society.  If all the "intelligent" or "hard working" jobs are outsourced to other companies, what is left but some combination of illegal / immoral / unethical or living in the margin?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We seem to operate out of a misplaced Puritan holdback of ... 'humans are inherently evil and must be controlled lest they be themselves ' , which could only equal evil in this mindset ... Without an atmosphere of assumed trustworthiness , how can our society thrive and move forward at all ?
The music industry ( and the film industry ) are symptomatic of a much bigger problem.Are you saying society will be corrupted by the music industry ? OK , it would be better if the music industry trusted us , and vice versa I suppose .
Now , lets look at the rest of society and find me a trustworthy banker / mortgage broker / real estate agent / used car salesman / new car salesman / executive / anybody in marketing or sales / vehicle mechanic ...I 'd say , the music industry is being corrupted by society .
If all the " intelligent " or " hard working " jobs are outsourced to other companies , what is left but some combination of illegal / immoral / unethical or living in the margin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We seem to operate out of a misplaced Puritan holdback of ... 'humans are inherently evil and must be controlled lest they be themselves', which could only equal evil in this mindset ... Without an atmosphere of assumed trustworthiness, how can our society thrive and move forward at all?
The music industry (and the film industry) are symptomatic of a much bigger problem.Are you saying society will be corrupted by the music industry?OK, it would be better if the music industry trusted us, and vice versa I suppose.
Now, lets look at the rest of society and find me a trustworthy banker / mortgage broker / real estate agent / used car salesman / new car salesman / executive / anybody in marketing or sales / vehicle mechanic ...I'd say, the music industry is being corrupted by society.
If all the "intelligent" or "hard working" jobs are outsourced to other companies, what is left but some combination of illegal / immoral / unethical or living in the margin?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135930</id>
	<title>That's nothing compared to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266177360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the fact that some religions outlaw... BACON.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the fact that some religions outlaw... BACON .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fact that some religions outlaw... BACON.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141232</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1266175320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just FYI, the rights holder's did file the claims in this instance -- they also gave permission for the song to be hosted.  In short, they have NFI what they're doing.  One branch of the company says "Sure, use this for promotional purposes" and the other is doing random Google searches for their IP and sees the mp3 up and fires off the complaint without another thought.  In other words, the complaint was filed in good, albeit very stupid, faith by the proper rights holder.</p><p>Google could have handled the situation a bit better, perhaps, but they're really stuck in the middle.  They must comply with the takedown notice UNLESS a counter-claim is filed or they become liable.   What Google *could* do is make it easier for people to file counter-claims when they receive takedown notices -- which effectively ends the issue unless the original claimant decides to take it to court.</p><p>But there's still only so much they can do.  At the end of the day, most people who receive a takedown notice for something they have the rights to post are going to just say "Pfft, whatever.  I have permission." and ignore it and then cry foul later when their stuff is removed.  They simply don't realize that the way the DMCA works is that it has put a burden of declaring their innocence upon them or they are presumed guilty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just FYI , the rights holder 's did file the claims in this instance -- they also gave permission for the song to be hosted .
In short , they have NFI what they 're doing .
One branch of the company says " Sure , use this for promotional purposes " and the other is doing random Google searches for their IP and sees the mp3 up and fires off the complaint without another thought .
In other words , the complaint was filed in good , albeit very stupid , faith by the proper rights holder.Google could have handled the situation a bit better , perhaps , but they 're really stuck in the middle .
They must comply with the takedown notice UNLESS a counter-claim is filed or they become liable .
What Google * could * do is make it easier for people to file counter-claims when they receive takedown notices -- which effectively ends the issue unless the original claimant decides to take it to court.But there 's still only so much they can do .
At the end of the day , most people who receive a takedown notice for something they have the rights to post are going to just say " Pfft , whatever .
I have permission .
" and ignore it and then cry foul later when their stuff is removed .
They simply do n't realize that the way the DMCA works is that it has put a burden of declaring their innocence upon them or they are presumed guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just FYI, the rights holder's did file the claims in this instance -- they also gave permission for the song to be hosted.
In short, they have NFI what they're doing.
One branch of the company says "Sure, use this for promotional purposes" and the other is doing random Google searches for their IP and sees the mp3 up and fires off the complaint without another thought.
In other words, the complaint was filed in good, albeit very stupid, faith by the proper rights holder.Google could have handled the situation a bit better, perhaps, but they're really stuck in the middle.
They must comply with the takedown notice UNLESS a counter-claim is filed or they become liable.
What Google *could* do is make it easier for people to file counter-claims when they receive takedown notices -- which effectively ends the issue unless the original claimant decides to take it to court.But there's still only so much they can do.
At the end of the day, most people who receive a takedown notice for something they have the rights to post are going to just say "Pfft, whatever.
I have permission.
" and ignore it and then cry foul later when their stuff is removed.
They simply don't realize that the way the DMCA works is that it has put a burden of declaring their innocence upon them or they are presumed guilty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140090</id>
	<title>Re:Fake it until you make it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266163200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that the government that made crossing the Berlin wall a crime has been dissolved for almost two decades, almost as long as the wall itself, probably not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that the government that made crossing the Berlin wall a crime has been dissolved for almost two decades , almost as long as the wall itself , probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that the government that made crossing the Berlin wall a crime has been dissolved for almost two decades, almost as long as the wall itself, probably not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136234</id>
	<title>One hand not knowing what the other is doing.</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266180120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since it appears it is a case of labels saying it is ok and a lawyer or someone just blindly getting everything taken down then I think it is about time we do something to protect the blogger's work.
<br> <br>
If music labels can get infinity billion dollars for copyright violation then surely the blogger should get similar compensation for having his website destroyed by careless lawyers. Everything is about having the right checks and balances and right now things are biased towards the companies. I definitely think it would be within reason for a blogger to expect a few hundred thousand lawyer or responsible party for having his site (and possibly only means of income) wiped out in an instant due to incompetence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it appears it is a case of labels saying it is ok and a lawyer or someone just blindly getting everything taken down then I think it is about time we do something to protect the blogger 's work .
If music labels can get infinity billion dollars for copyright violation then surely the blogger should get similar compensation for having his website destroyed by careless lawyers .
Everything is about having the right checks and balances and right now things are biased towards the companies .
I definitely think it would be within reason for a blogger to expect a few hundred thousand lawyer or responsible party for having his site ( and possibly only means of income ) wiped out in an instant due to incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it appears it is a case of labels saying it is ok and a lawyer or someone just blindly getting everything taken down then I think it is about time we do something to protect the blogger's work.
If music labels can get infinity billion dollars for copyright violation then surely the blogger should get similar compensation for having his website destroyed by careless lawyers.
Everything is about having the right checks and balances and right now things are biased towards the companies.
I definitely think it would be within reason for a blogger to expect a few hundred thousand lawyer or responsible party for having his site (and possibly only means of income) wiped out in an instant due to incompetence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141632</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1266266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So, I have copyright on MyDumbSong. And I am totally free to file DMCA against \_anyone\_ and everyone\_ and \_anything\_ and \_everything\_, claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong. And then it's their burden to prove they don't. And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality.</i> <br> <br>You don't even need to own the copyright (or represent the copyright holders). Takedowns of material in the public domain have happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I have copyright on MyDumbSong .
And I am totally free to file DMCA against \ _anyone \ _ and everyone \ _ and \ _anything \ _ and \ _everything \ _ , claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong .
And then it 's their burden to prove they do n't .
And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality .
You do n't even need to own the copyright ( or represent the copyright holders ) .
Takedowns of material in the public domain have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I have copyright on MyDumbSong.
And I am totally free to file DMCA against \_anyone\_ and everyone\_ and \_anything\_ and \_everything\_, claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong.
And then it's their burden to prove they don't.
And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality.
You don't even need to own the copyright (or represent the copyright holders).
Takedowns of material in the public domain have happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31143716</id>
	<title>The thing is, Google doesn't have a choice.</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1266247860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"If at any point during the process a human being actually clicked on the link and looked for the infringing content, then they would have realized it wasn't there," said Lipold. "Unfortunately, the bot the IFPI uses to flag piracy isn't that smart... This bot makes a report for security at the IFPI and they forward the whole list on to Google. Google seems to accept their list as is, no questions asked."</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing is, Google doesn't have a choice.</p></div><p>Actually, Google does have a choice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... once they are aware that the party making the complain has a track record of knowingly making flawed and/or fraudulent complaints.  Still, this will take a number of documented errors on the part of the IFPI.  It is still the IFPI, not Google, that needs to be sued in civil court to recover losses, and pursued for prosecution in criminal court for making repeated fraudulent claims.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If at any point during the process a human being actually clicked on the link and looked for the infringing content , then they would have realized it was n't there , " said Lipold .
" Unfortunately , the bot the IFPI uses to flag piracy is n't that smart... This bot makes a report for security at the IFPI and they forward the whole list on to Google .
Google seems to accept their list as is , no questions asked .
" The thing is , Google does n't have a choice.Actually , Google does have a choice ... once they are aware that the party making the complain has a track record of knowingly making flawed and/or fraudulent complaints .
Still , this will take a number of documented errors on the part of the IFPI .
It is still the IFPI , not Google , that needs to be sued in civil court to recover losses , and pursued for prosecution in criminal court for making repeated fraudulent claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If at any point during the process a human being actually clicked on the link and looked for the infringing content, then they would have realized it wasn't there," said Lipold.
"Unfortunately, the bot the IFPI uses to flag piracy isn't that smart... This bot makes a report for security at the IFPI and they forward the whole list on to Google.
Google seems to accept their list as is, no questions asked.
"The thing is, Google doesn't have a choice.Actually, Google does have a choice ... once they are aware that the party making the complain has a track record of knowingly making flawed and/or fraudulent complaints.
Still, this will take a number of documented errors on the part of the IFPI.
It is still the IFPI, not Google, that needs to be sued in civil court to recover losses, and pursued for prosecution in criminal court for making repeated fraudulent claims.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135924</id>
	<title>Another lesson from this</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep backups of everything. If it isn't on your server you don't know when you'll lose it. If you keep backups you can just move elsewhere if there's a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep backups of everything .
If it is n't on your server you do n't know when you 'll lose it .
If you keep backups you can just move elsewhere if there 's a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep backups of everything.
If it isn't on your server you don't know when you'll lose it.
If you keep backups you can just move elsewhere if there's a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137996</id>
	<title>Re:what's this whole do no evil thing?</title>
	<author>laughingcoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1266148440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't appear to me to be Google who is at fault here. For them to avoid liability, they have to comply with DMCA notices even if they <i>know</i> they're silly or unfounded. That's how Congress wrote OCILLA, and there's our first guilty party-the ones who made the DMCA (and sent the "C" in it so far out of control) in the first place. If Congress kept copyright law reasonable, we wouldn't have this mess.</p><p>The next issue is the music industry, who apparently sends out these notices in a shotgun blast without checking even the most basic of things, like if they gave someone permission to do what they're doing. That practice is illegal under OCILLA, but unfortunately the penalties for it are so small that they do not provide a meaningful remedy, especially when it is so frequently large corporations using it against individuals.</p><p>And the third party at fault, realistically, is the blogger. They should have filed an immediate counter notice (which the notice they would have received from Google explains exactly how to do), including the correspondence from the rights holders granting them permission, and proceeded to file a false DMCA notice counterclaim (OCILLA does provide damages and consequences for knowingly filing a false notice). If easy cases like that don't even result in consequences, people will just continue to do this type of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't appear to me to be Google who is at fault here .
For them to avoid liability , they have to comply with DMCA notices even if they know they 're silly or unfounded .
That 's how Congress wrote OCILLA , and there 's our first guilty party-the ones who made the DMCA ( and sent the " C " in it so far out of control ) in the first place .
If Congress kept copyright law reasonable , we would n't have this mess.The next issue is the music industry , who apparently sends out these notices in a shotgun blast without checking even the most basic of things , like if they gave someone permission to do what they 're doing .
That practice is illegal under OCILLA , but unfortunately the penalties for it are so small that they do not provide a meaningful remedy , especially when it is so frequently large corporations using it against individuals.And the third party at fault , realistically , is the blogger .
They should have filed an immediate counter notice ( which the notice they would have received from Google explains exactly how to do ) , including the correspondence from the rights holders granting them permission , and proceeded to file a false DMCA notice counterclaim ( OCILLA does provide damages and consequences for knowingly filing a false notice ) .
If easy cases like that do n't even result in consequences , people will just continue to do this type of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't appear to me to be Google who is at fault here.
For them to avoid liability, they have to comply with DMCA notices even if they know they're silly or unfounded.
That's how Congress wrote OCILLA, and there's our first guilty party-the ones who made the DMCA (and sent the "C" in it so far out of control) in the first place.
If Congress kept copyright law reasonable, we wouldn't have this mess.The next issue is the music industry, who apparently sends out these notices in a shotgun blast without checking even the most basic of things, like if they gave someone permission to do what they're doing.
That practice is illegal under OCILLA, but unfortunately the penalties for it are so small that they do not provide a meaningful remedy, especially when it is so frequently large corporations using it against individuals.And the third party at fault, realistically, is the blogger.
They should have filed an immediate counter notice (which the notice they would have received from Google explains exactly how to do), including the correspondence from the rights holders granting them permission, and proceeded to file a false DMCA notice counterclaim (OCILLA does provide damages and consequences for knowingly filing a false notice).
If easy cases like that don't even result in consequences, people will just continue to do this type of thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136210</id>
	<title>Don't the take down notices have a perjury clause?</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1266179940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the DCMA takedown notices that I've seen, not received just seen, like the Open Office notice that was sent out a few years ago, contain an "Under Penalty of Perjury" clause.  A few disbarment, and some jail terms for perjury might put a damper on that BS. </p><p>The only thing that would top going after the peons and lawyers sending out the notices would be RICO charges against the xAA; and member corporations for the crap that they're pulling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the DCMA takedown notices that I 've seen , not received just seen , like the Open Office notice that was sent out a few years ago , contain an " Under Penalty of Perjury " clause .
A few disbarment , and some jail terms for perjury might put a damper on that BS .
The only thing that would top going after the peons and lawyers sending out the notices would be RICO charges against the xAA ; and member corporations for the crap that they 're pulling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the DCMA takedown notices that I've seen, not received just seen, like the Open Office notice that was sent out a few years ago, contain an "Under Penalty of Perjury" clause.
A few disbarment, and some jail terms for perjury might put a damper on that BS.
The only thing that would top going after the peons and lawyers sending out the notices would be RICO charges against the xAA; and member corporations for the crap that they're pulling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138718</id>
	<title>And the answer is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266153300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That maybe you should not deal with music that is owned by labels that are looking to litigate against you after giving you permission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That maybe you should not deal with music that is owned by labels that are looking to litigate against you after giving you permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That maybe you should not deal with music that is owned by labels that are looking to litigate against you after giving you permission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136346</id>
	<title>Send a DMCA counterclaim</title>
	<author>wshs</author>
	<datestamp>1266180840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google doesn't delete stuff as a result of a DMCA notice. They block access to it. Send a DMCA counterclaim, and Google will put your blog back up in a week or less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't delete stuff as a result of a DMCA notice .
They block access to it .
Send a DMCA counterclaim , and Google will put your blog back up in a week or less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't delete stuff as a result of a DMCA notice.
They block access to it.
Send a DMCA counterclaim, and Google will put your blog back up in a week or less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly the spirit of the law</title>
	<author>Thoreauly Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1266138120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's completely ass backwards and results in a total thwarting of creativity.</p></div><p>I compiled some research recently to assess creative work ethic amongst musical artists from the 60s to the present. It had nothing to do with copyright originally, but the data can easily be arranged to show some interesting things about what effect increasing copyright lengths may or may not have on creativity.</p><p>Using album lengths of studio albums for these artists I came up with a figure I called CPY, which just stands for content per year, which is measured in minutes. For this post, I took my data and divided the artists between 2 groups: Pre 1978 &amp; Post 1978.  Jan 1, 1978 is when the 1976 Copyright Act took effect BTW.</p><p>The Pre 1978 group had an average CPY of 42.55 minutes<br>The Post 1978 group had an average CPY of 30.6 minutes</p><p>This is about a 28.1\% reduction in creative output after the copyright act took effect. Now, correlation does not imply causation, so it can't necessarily be said that this dramatic drop was caused by the copyright act. However, it can certainly be said that the copyright act definitely is NOT causing an increase in creative output. There is no evidence of such in the data whatsoever. In fact, creative output has held close to the margin of error from the 80s onward in my data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's completely ass backwards and results in a total thwarting of creativity.I compiled some research recently to assess creative work ethic amongst musical artists from the 60s to the present .
It had nothing to do with copyright originally , but the data can easily be arranged to show some interesting things about what effect increasing copyright lengths may or may not have on creativity.Using album lengths of studio albums for these artists I came up with a figure I called CPY , which just stands for content per year , which is measured in minutes .
For this post , I took my data and divided the artists between 2 groups : Pre 1978 &amp; Post 1978 .
Jan 1 , 1978 is when the 1976 Copyright Act took effect BTW.The Pre 1978 group had an average CPY of 42.55 minutesThe Post 1978 group had an average CPY of 30.6 minutesThis is about a 28.1 \ % reduction in creative output after the copyright act took effect .
Now , correlation does not imply causation , so it ca n't necessarily be said that this dramatic drop was caused by the copyright act .
However , it can certainly be said that the copyright act definitely is NOT causing an increase in creative output .
There is no evidence of such in the data whatsoever .
In fact , creative output has held close to the margin of error from the 80s onward in my data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's completely ass backwards and results in a total thwarting of creativity.I compiled some research recently to assess creative work ethic amongst musical artists from the 60s to the present.
It had nothing to do with copyright originally, but the data can easily be arranged to show some interesting things about what effect increasing copyright lengths may or may not have on creativity.Using album lengths of studio albums for these artists I came up with a figure I called CPY, which just stands for content per year, which is measured in minutes.
For this post, I took my data and divided the artists between 2 groups: Pre 1978 &amp; Post 1978.
Jan 1, 1978 is when the 1976 Copyright Act took effect BTW.The Pre 1978 group had an average CPY of 42.55 minutesThe Post 1978 group had an average CPY of 30.6 minutesThis is about a 28.1\% reduction in creative output after the copyright act took effect.
Now, correlation does not imply causation, so it can't necessarily be said that this dramatic drop was caused by the copyright act.
However, it can certainly be said that the copyright act definitely is NOT causing an increase in creative output.
There is no evidence of such in the data whatsoever.
In fact, creative output has held close to the margin of error from the 80s onward in my data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137318</id>
	<title>I'd charge him more than double</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266143820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He should be charged a lot more than double, look at the risk everyone one on the plane is taking, if it crashes he'd be the first one eating survivors.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He should be charged a lot more than double , look at the risk everyone one on the plane is taking , if it crashes he 'd be the first one eating survivors .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>He should be charged a lot more than double, look at the risk everyone one on the plane is taking, if it crashes he'd be the first one eating survivors.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31139352</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1266157620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.</p></div><p>Which has never in the history of the DMCA seen a single enforcement in criminal or civil court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that is not the case , then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.Which has never in the history of the DMCA seen a single enforcement in criminal or civil court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.Which has never in the history of the DMCA seen a single enforcement in criminal or civil court.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138996</id>
	<title>Re:This will keep happening...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266155160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement. If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.</i></p><p>Um... well, if you lie about being the copyright holder (or their agent) you've committed a criminal act (perjury).  Care to tell us what law is violated by failing to tell the truth elsewhere in the complaint?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you file a DMCA complaint , you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder , and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement .
If that is not the case , then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.Um... well , if you lie about being the copyright holder ( or their agent ) you 've committed a criminal act ( perjury ) .
Care to tell us what law is violated by failing to tell the truth elsewhere in the complaint ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement.
If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act.Um... well, if you lie about being the copyright holder (or their agent) you've committed a criminal act (perjury).
Care to tell us what law is violated by failing to tell the truth elsewhere in the complaint?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31144162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31139796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31178576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31139352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1824217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31178576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137712
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142290
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138050
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31144162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31139796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31139352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137172
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31138718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31140090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31141782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31142184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31137996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1824217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31135876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1824217.31136352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
