<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_18_2344239</id>
	<title>Tenenbaum's Final Brief &mdash; $675K Award Too High</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266494340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes <i>"The <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/sony\_tenenbaum\_100218DeftsReplyBrief.pdf">final brief</a> (PDF) filed by the defendant Joel Tenenbaum in <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=SONY\_v\_Tenenbaum">SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</a> seems to put the final nail in the coffin on the RIAA's argument that 'statutory damages' up to $150,000 can be awarded where the record company's lost profit is in the neighborhood of 35 cents. Not only do Tenenbaum's lawyers <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/02/tenenbaum-files-reply-brief-rebutting.html">accurately describe the applicable caselaw and scholarship</a>, something neither the RIAA nor the Department of Justice did in their briefs, but they point out to the Court that the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit &mdash; the appeals court controlling this matter &mdash; has itself ruled that statutory damages awards are reviewable for due process considerations under the guidelines of State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore. The brief is consistent with the amicus curiae brief <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/05/free-software-foundation-moves-for.html">filed in the case last year</a> by the Free Software Foundation."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " The final brief ( PDF ) filed by the defendant Joel Tenenbaum in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum seems to put the final nail in the coffin on the RIAA 's argument that 'statutory damages ' up to $ 150,000 can be awarded where the record company 's lost profit is in the neighborhood of 35 cents .
Not only do Tenenbaum 's lawyers accurately describe the applicable caselaw and scholarship , something neither the RIAA nor the Department of Justice did in their briefs , but they point out to the Court that the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit    the appeals court controlling this matter    has itself ruled that statutory damages awards are reviewable for due process considerations under the guidelines of State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore. The brief is consistent with the amicus curiae brief filed in the case last year by the Free Software Foundation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The final brief (PDF) filed by the defendant Joel Tenenbaum in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum seems to put the final nail in the coffin on the RIAA's argument that 'statutory damages' up to $150,000 can be awarded where the record company's lost profit is in the neighborhood of 35 cents.
Not only do Tenenbaum's lawyers accurately describe the applicable caselaw and scholarship, something neither the RIAA nor the Department of Justice did in their briefs, but they point out to the Court that the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit — the appeals court controlling this matter — has itself ruled that statutory damages awards are reviewable for due process considerations under the guidelines of State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore. The brief is consistent with the amicus curiae brief filed in the case last year by the Free Software Foundation.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>Secshunayt</author>
	<datestamp>1266501000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're failing to take into account how peer-to-peer works: most people have a share ratio of about 1:1. On average, any one person can only be held accountable for distributing one copy of something they seed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're failing to take into account how peer-to-peer works : most people have a share ratio of about 1 : 1 .
On average , any one person can only be held accountable for distributing one copy of something they seed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're failing to take into account how peer-to-peer works: most people have a share ratio of about 1:1.
On average, any one person can only be held accountable for distributing one copy of something they seed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31210658</id>
	<title>Flaming</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1266687900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To those commentators and moderators who criticized me for flaming.... I forgive you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To those commentators and moderators who criticized me for flaming.... I forgive you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To those commentators and moderators who criticized me for flaming.... I forgive you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194568</id>
	<title>Re:Nicely Written Brief</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1266505680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few thousand is a reasonable offer?<br>Seems like a thousand times the damages is a bit much to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few thousand is a reasonable offer ? Seems like a thousand times the damages is a bit much to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few thousand is a reasonable offer?Seems like a thousand times the damages is a bit much to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31208742</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1266659940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not even sure if that's relevant. I don't know if there's any precedent in the US, but in the Australian iiNet decision, each torrent was found to constitute a single instance of 'making available'.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> a person makes each film available online<br>only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits  each film only once<br>through that system</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.cnet.com.au/story\_media/339300831/26343177-Judgment-Summary-Roadshow-v-IiNet-2010-FCA-24-2.pdf" title="cnet.com.au"> - Section 10 of the Summary</a> [cnet.com.au]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not even sure if that 's relevant .
I do n't know if there 's any precedent in the US , but in the Australian iiNet decision , each torrent was found to constitute a single instance of 'making available' .
a person makes each film available onlineonly once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only oncethrough that system - Section 10 of the Summary [ cnet.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not even sure if that's relevant.
I don't know if there's any precedent in the US, but in the Australian iiNet decision, each torrent was found to constitute a single instance of 'making available'.
a person makes each film available onlineonly once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits  each film only oncethrough that system  - Section 10 of the Summary [cnet.com.au]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194466</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266504960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If his share ratio was like most people, it was probably less than 1..... which means he never uploaded a whole song.  He uploaded, say, 0.7 of a song which would be unplayable and therefore no harm done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If his share ratio was like most people , it was probably less than 1..... which means he never uploaded a whole song .
He uploaded , say , 0.7 of a song which would be unplayable and therefore no harm done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If his share ratio was like most people, it was probably less than 1..... which means he never uploaded a whole song.
He uploaded, say, 0.7 of a song which would be unplayable and therefore no harm done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194044</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266502320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I don't buy the black and white argument, but the logic does strongly bias towards teh first seeder.  Quite literally, to borrow from Will Smith, "If you don't start nothin', there won't be nothin'!"  No seeders, no sharing, no infringements.</p><p>Obviously the sharers have a piece of the liability too, since if they didn't request and didn't hang around the seeders wouldn't be sharing with anyone.  But that is much that same as the drug dealer and the drug user problem, or looking for who started and participated in a bar brawl.  They are in a symbiotic relationship, but the "offenses" of each party are somewhat different.</p><p>To put a number on it, I'd say the relationship is a declining harmonic progression, with the seeder carrying weight 1, and each successive participant in the torrent carrying weight 1/n.  The millionth guy, Tenenbaum, may be the straw that broke the RIAA's back, but his actual contribution is near meaningless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I do n't buy the black and white argument , but the logic does strongly bias towards teh first seeder .
Quite literally , to borrow from Will Smith , " If you do n't start nothin ' , there wo n't be nothin ' !
" No seeders , no sharing , no infringements.Obviously the sharers have a piece of the liability too , since if they did n't request and did n't hang around the seeders would n't be sharing with anyone .
But that is much that same as the drug dealer and the drug user problem , or looking for who started and participated in a bar brawl .
They are in a symbiotic relationship , but the " offenses " of each party are somewhat different.To put a number on it , I 'd say the relationship is a declining harmonic progression , with the seeder carrying weight 1 , and each successive participant in the torrent carrying weight 1/n .
The millionth guy , Tenenbaum , may be the straw that broke the RIAA 's back , but his actual contribution is near meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I don't buy the black and white argument, but the logic does strongly bias towards teh first seeder.
Quite literally, to borrow from Will Smith, "If you don't start nothin', there won't be nothin'!
"  No seeders, no sharing, no infringements.Obviously the sharers have a piece of the liability too, since if they didn't request and didn't hang around the seeders wouldn't be sharing with anyone.
But that is much that same as the drug dealer and the drug user problem, or looking for who started and participated in a bar brawl.
They are in a symbiotic relationship, but the "offenses" of each party are somewhat different.To put a number on it, I'd say the relationship is a declining harmonic progression, with the seeder carrying weight 1, and each successive participant in the torrent carrying weight 1/n.
The millionth guy, Tenenbaum, may be the straw that broke the RIAA's back, but his actual contribution is near meaningless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194236</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1266503700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that the defendant has made an argument isn't news.</p> </div><p>I beg to differ, especially in this case. This was the first time that either of the parties directly confronted the central issue. If you look at the table of authorities you'll see that most of the cases and other authorities that were cited were never cited by either side in any prior brief, and that the discussion of Gore and Campbell is likewise totally new. Also the revelation that the 1st Circuit has already applied Gore &amp; Campbell to statutory damages is crucial. It means.... Judge Gertner will be doing likewise. <br> <br>I.e., bye bye RIAA damages theory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the defendant has made an argument is n't news .
I beg to differ , especially in this case .
This was the first time that either of the parties directly confronted the central issue .
If you look at the table of authorities you 'll see that most of the cases and other authorities that were cited were never cited by either side in any prior brief , and that the discussion of Gore and Campbell is likewise totally new .
Also the revelation that the 1st Circuit has already applied Gore &amp; Campbell to statutory damages is crucial .
It means.... Judge Gertner will be doing likewise .
I.e. , bye bye RIAA damages theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that the defendant has made an argument isn't news.
I beg to differ, especially in this case.
This was the first time that either of the parties directly confronted the central issue.
If you look at the table of authorities you'll see that most of the cases and other authorities that were cited were never cited by either side in any prior brief, and that the discussion of Gore and Campbell is likewise totally new.
Also the revelation that the 1st Circuit has already applied Gore &amp; Campbell to statutory damages is crucial.
It means.... Judge Gertner will be doing likewise.
I.e., bye bye RIAA damages theory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194994</id>
	<title>Re:Tenenbaum deserves to lose again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266508380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He didn't steal anything.  Madoff stole actual money (imagine enough stacks of hundred to fill a library of congress)...This guy copied a string of ones and zeros ('product') that the RIAA didn't even create; hell they don't even represent the creator.</p><p>This is not a case about theft.</p><p>This is about placing a string of ones and zeros from a place that holds strings of ones and zeros to another place that holds ones and zeros.</p><p>This has been inevitable since September 16th, 1948 (or if you want to be pedantic: August 1962).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't steal anything .
Madoff stole actual money ( imagine enough stacks of hundred to fill a library of congress ) ...This guy copied a string of ones and zeros ( 'product ' ) that the RIAA did n't even create ; hell they do n't even represent the creator.This is not a case about theft.This is about placing a string of ones and zeros from a place that holds strings of ones and zeros to another place that holds ones and zeros.This has been inevitable since September 16th , 1948 ( or if you want to be pedantic : August 1962 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't steal anything.
Madoff stole actual money (imagine enough stacks of hundred to fill a library of congress)...This guy copied a string of ones and zeros ('product') that the RIAA didn't even create; hell they don't even represent the creator.This is not a case about theft.This is about placing a string of ones and zeros from a place that holds strings of ones and zeros to another place that holds ones and zeros.This has been inevitable since September 16th, 1948 (or if you want to be pedantic: August 1962).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31206438</id>
	<title>Re:441,000 times for statutory damages precedent!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266586320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's why his constitutional argument, relying on an alleged $.30 per song, fails at the outset - he never presented any evidence that that was the <b>actual damages</b>.</p></div><p>Probably because there wasn't any.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why his constitutional argument , relying on an alleged $ .30 per song , fails at the outset - he never presented any evidence that that was the actual damages.Probably because there was n't any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why his constitutional argument, relying on an alleged $.30 per song, fails at the outset - he never presented any evidence that that was the actual damages.Probably because there wasn't any.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714</id>
	<title>NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1266500160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NewYorkCountryLawyer insists that "damages" don't include the money lost through OTHER people downloading that the plaintiff offered up for sharing. He thinks that damages should only count the original download. Unfortunately</p><p>* This contradicts existing case law<br>* It contradicts what the text of the law actually says<br>* It contradicts how judges have interpreted the law</p><p>I think he's doing us all a disservice by sticking his hands in his ears and shouting "la la la". There are interesting arguments to be made, and he's not making them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer insists that " damages " do n't include the money lost through OTHER people downloading that the plaintiff offered up for sharing .
He thinks that damages should only count the original download .
Unfortunately * This contradicts existing case law * It contradicts what the text of the law actually says * It contradicts how judges have interpreted the lawI think he 's doing us all a disservice by sticking his hands in his ears and shouting " la la la " .
There are interesting arguments to be made , and he 's not making them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer insists that "damages" don't include the money lost through OTHER people downloading that the plaintiff offered up for sharing.
He thinks that damages should only count the original download.
Unfortunately* This contradicts existing case law* It contradicts what the text of the law actually says* It contradicts how judges have interpreted the lawI think he's doing us all a disservice by sticking his hands in his ears and shouting "la la la".
There are interesting arguments to be made, and he's not making them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31198764</id>
	<title>Going Joseph Stack ?</title>
	<author>ballpoint</author>
	<datestamp>1266592680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a feeling that sooner or later a victim of the practices of the RIAA (or their ilk) might be going Joseph Stack on them, for lack of a better option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a feeling that sooner or later a victim of the practices of the RIAA ( or their ilk ) might be going Joseph Stack on them , for lack of a better option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a feeling that sooner or later a victim of the practices of the RIAA (or their ilk) might be going Joseph Stack on them, for lack of a better option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31198160</id>
	<title>Re:441,000 times for statutory damages precedent!</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1266588420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real key is in showing true damages.   Now, iTunes...how much goes to the artists, and how much goes to the record label?    Or a CD.   Now, how much is the physical medium, and how much is the cost of reproduction and distribution, since reproduction and distribution costs can be deducted since the record labels have to treat those as expenses, and not profits.</p><p>And then, the argument for the musicians being harmed is flawed since they get so little, and in some cases nothing from the online distribution of music in the first place.</p><p>You also can't count legal fees and such, since the lawyers would be paid if the case were going on or not.   It is like insurance, you pay in case you need it, but even if you don't, you have to pay.    Trumped up cases by the RIAA may increase the fees payed to lawyers, but if the RIAA wasn't trying to just exploit the system, these cases would never go to court in the first place because people wouldn't necessarily contest it if the charges were actually fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real key is in showing true damages .
Now , iTunes...how much goes to the artists , and how much goes to the record label ?
Or a CD .
Now , how much is the physical medium , and how much is the cost of reproduction and distribution , since reproduction and distribution costs can be deducted since the record labels have to treat those as expenses , and not profits.And then , the argument for the musicians being harmed is flawed since they get so little , and in some cases nothing from the online distribution of music in the first place.You also ca n't count legal fees and such , since the lawyers would be paid if the case were going on or not .
It is like insurance , you pay in case you need it , but even if you do n't , you have to pay .
Trumped up cases by the RIAA may increase the fees payed to lawyers , but if the RIAA was n't trying to just exploit the system , these cases would never go to court in the first place because people would n't necessarily contest it if the charges were actually fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real key is in showing true damages.
Now, iTunes...how much goes to the artists, and how much goes to the record label?
Or a CD.
Now, how much is the physical medium, and how much is the cost of reproduction and distribution, since reproduction and distribution costs can be deducted since the record labels have to treat those as expenses, and not profits.And then, the argument for the musicians being harmed is flawed since they get so little, and in some cases nothing from the online distribution of music in the first place.You also can't count legal fees and such, since the lawyers would be paid if the case were going on or not.
It is like insurance, you pay in case you need it, but even if you don't, you have to pay.
Trumped up cases by the RIAA may increase the fees payed to lawyers, but if the RIAA wasn't trying to just exploit the system, these cases would never go to court in the first place because people wouldn't necessarily contest it if the charges were actually fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195484</id>
	<title>A bit disappointing</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1266512280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was disappointed to see that Tenenbaum did not include another, more solid ground for having the damages award looked over.  During the case, the plaintiff's attorneys proposed a jury instruction to the effect that the statutory damages should be calculated per infringement. The judge agreed, and that was how the jury was ultimately instructed. However, the statute is very specific that statutory infringements are calculated per work, not per infringement. Given that the final award was an even multiple -- a nice, round number, in fact -- of the minimum that could be awarded, there is a possibility that the jury meant to award the minimum, but then mistakenly multiplied the award by the number of times the works were infringed.</p><p>I, and at least one other person in the gallery at the trial were very surprised that the plaintiffs proposed that instruction, and that the defendant didn't object to it. Well, not too surprised; the defense attorneys didn't seem very good at this. But you'd think they would have brought it up by now.</p><p>Oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was disappointed to see that Tenenbaum did not include another , more solid ground for having the damages award looked over .
During the case , the plaintiff 's attorneys proposed a jury instruction to the effect that the statutory damages should be calculated per infringement .
The judge agreed , and that was how the jury was ultimately instructed .
However , the statute is very specific that statutory infringements are calculated per work , not per infringement .
Given that the final award was an even multiple -- a nice , round number , in fact -- of the minimum that could be awarded , there is a possibility that the jury meant to award the minimum , but then mistakenly multiplied the award by the number of times the works were infringed.I , and at least one other person in the gallery at the trial were very surprised that the plaintiffs proposed that instruction , and that the defendant did n't object to it .
Well , not too surprised ; the defense attorneys did n't seem very good at this .
But you 'd think they would have brought it up by now.Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was disappointed to see that Tenenbaum did not include another, more solid ground for having the damages award looked over.
During the case, the plaintiff's attorneys proposed a jury instruction to the effect that the statutory damages should be calculated per infringement.
The judge agreed, and that was how the jury was ultimately instructed.
However, the statute is very specific that statutory infringements are calculated per work, not per infringement.
Given that the final award was an even multiple -- a nice, round number, in fact -- of the minimum that could be awarded, there is a possibility that the jury meant to award the minimum, but then mistakenly multiplied the award by the number of times the works were infringed.I, and at least one other person in the gallery at the trial were very surprised that the plaintiffs proposed that instruction, and that the defendant didn't object to it.
Well, not too surprised; the defense attorneys didn't seem very good at this.
But you'd think they would have brought it up by now.Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358</id>
	<title>Fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266498120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I certainly hope in the end Tenenbaum gets awarded fees, or this'll just be a gain for society at Tenenbaum's expense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly hope in the end Tenenbaum gets awarded fees , or this 'll just be a gain for society at Tenenbaum 's expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly hope in the end Tenenbaum gets awarded fees, or this'll just be a gain for society at Tenenbaum's expense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31199092</id>
	<title>How to determine if you're a thief ...</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1266594180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like this concept has gotten fuzzy.  I hope this simple three step Q and A clears things up for everyone.</p><p>1) Do you now have something that you didn't have a minute ago?<br>Examples might include cars, sneakers, or perhaps an MP3 audio file of a song and the enjoyment that you experience when you listen to that song.</p><p>2) Is this thing the product of someone else's hard work and financial investment?<br>Examples might include the years of heart ache and hard work that a songwriter puts into his craft in order to create something that enriches other people's lives. It might also include the years of rejection sweat and tears that go into a performer's craft.</p><p>3) Does the creator make, or hope to make their living by selling this thing? If so, did you take it without paying?<br>Examples might include a farmer who expects to be paid for the corn he grows, but you went out in the field and cut some yourself. Or a songwriter who only makes 4 cents off each sale of his song, but you downloaded it from Limewire instead of paying 99 cents on iTunes before driving down to Starbucks where you paid $4 for a cup of coffee.</p><p>If you answered "yes" to all three questions then you have stolen something that you were not permitted to take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like this concept has gotten fuzzy .
I hope this simple three step Q and A clears things up for everyone.1 ) Do you now have something that you did n't have a minute ago ? Examples might include cars , sneakers , or perhaps an MP3 audio file of a song and the enjoyment that you experience when you listen to that song.2 ) Is this thing the product of someone else 's hard work and financial investment ? Examples might include the years of heart ache and hard work that a songwriter puts into his craft in order to create something that enriches other people 's lives .
It might also include the years of rejection sweat and tears that go into a performer 's craft.3 ) Does the creator make , or hope to make their living by selling this thing ?
If so , did you take it without paying ? Examples might include a farmer who expects to be paid for the corn he grows , but you went out in the field and cut some yourself .
Or a songwriter who only makes 4 cents off each sale of his song , but you downloaded it from Limewire instead of paying 99 cents on iTunes before driving down to Starbucks where you paid $ 4 for a cup of coffee.If you answered " yes " to all three questions then you have stolen something that you were not permitted to take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like this concept has gotten fuzzy.
I hope this simple three step Q and A clears things up for everyone.1) Do you now have something that you didn't have a minute ago?Examples might include cars, sneakers, or perhaps an MP3 audio file of a song and the enjoyment that you experience when you listen to that song.2) Is this thing the product of someone else's hard work and financial investment?Examples might include the years of heart ache and hard work that a songwriter puts into his craft in order to create something that enriches other people's lives.
It might also include the years of rejection sweat and tears that go into a performer's craft.3) Does the creator make, or hope to make their living by selling this thing?
If so, did you take it without paying?Examples might include a farmer who expects to be paid for the corn he grows, but you went out in the field and cut some yourself.
Or a songwriter who only makes 4 cents off each sale of his song, but you downloaded it from Limewire instead of paying 99 cents on iTunes before driving down to Starbucks where you paid $4 for a cup of coffee.If you answered "yes" to all three questions then you have stolen something that you were not permitted to take.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>pookemon</author>
	<datestamp>1266501780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm intersted in knowing how RIAA know that he distributed the songs to "millions of people".  And what was his share ratio on these songs?  Eg. If his share ratio on these songs were 1,000,000 then it could be said that he's passed those songs onto a million people.  If it were 1.5 then it can be said that he passed it on to 1 person and half of it onto another person (and then there'd need to be discussion as to how much was lost by passing half an MP3 onto someone).<br> <br>
Just my 2c.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm intersted in knowing how RIAA know that he distributed the songs to " millions of people " .
And what was his share ratio on these songs ?
Eg. If his share ratio on these songs were 1,000,000 then it could be said that he 's passed those songs onto a million people .
If it were 1.5 then it can be said that he passed it on to 1 person and half of it onto another person ( and then there 'd need to be discussion as to how much was lost by passing half an MP3 onto someone ) .
Just my 2c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm intersted in knowing how RIAA know that he distributed the songs to "millions of people".
And what was his share ratio on these songs?
Eg. If his share ratio on these songs were 1,000,000 then it could be said that he's passed those songs onto a million people.
If it were 1.5 then it can be said that he passed it on to 1 person and half of it onto another person (and then there'd need to be discussion as to how much was lost by passing half an MP3 onto someone).
Just my 2c.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193638</id>
	<title>Nicely Written Brief</title>
	<author>notaspy</author>
	<datestamp>1266499620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I especially like this side note:<br>"For additional absurdity, imagine further that the Industry actually got<br>judgments of $18 million in damages from roughly 30,000 teenagers, which is<br>approximately the number of lawsuits they filed against consumers until the end of 2008.<br>That would mean they had outstanding judgments for $540 billion dollars - or more than<br>the total revenue the recording industry can expect to earn in about 50 years at its current<br>size of $11 billion per year."</p><p>And yet, in view of so many incomprehensible RIAA decisions to date, it's hard to be hopeful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I especially like this side note : " For additional absurdity , imagine further that the Industry actually gotjudgments of $ 18 million in damages from roughly 30,000 teenagers , which isapproximately the number of lawsuits they filed against consumers until the end of 2008.That would mean they had outstanding judgments for $ 540 billion dollars - or more thanthe total revenue the recording industry can expect to earn in about 50 years at its currentsize of $ 11 billion per year .
" And yet , in view of so many incomprehensible RIAA decisions to date , it 's hard to be hopeful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I especially like this side note:"For additional absurdity, imagine further that the Industry actually gotjudgments of $18 million in damages from roughly 30,000 teenagers, which isapproximately the number of lawsuits they filed against consumers until the end of 2008.That would mean they had outstanding judgments for $540 billion dollars - or more thanthe total revenue the recording industry can expect to earn in about 50 years at its currentsize of $11 billion per year.
"And yet, in view of so many incomprehensible RIAA decisions to date, it's hard to be hopeful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31201280</id>
	<title>Re:Fees</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1266604020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The C&amp;P Clause applies only in criminal contexts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The C&amp;P Clause applies only in criminal contexts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The C&amp;P Clause applies only in criminal contexts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194328</id>
	<title>Re:Fees</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266504300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;How many proceedings does it take to realize what any idiot can discern?</p><p>It's too bad the guy with the airplane did not bomb the RIAA headquarters instead.  (Yes I think these people are tyrants and deserve to die - just like what happened to Mussolini, King Louis of France and Emperor Nero.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; How many proceedings does it take to realize what any idiot can discern ? It 's too bad the guy with the airplane did not bomb the RIAA headquarters instead .
( Yes I think these people are tyrants and deserve to die - just like what happened to Mussolini , King Louis of France and Emperor Nero .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;How many proceedings does it take to realize what any idiot can discern?It's too bad the guy with the airplane did not bomb the RIAA headquarters instead.
(Yes I think these people are tyrants and deserve to die - just like what happened to Mussolini, King Louis of France and Emperor Nero.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195470</id>
	<title>A harsh indictment of the judge's behavior.</title>
	<author>dweller\_below</author>
	<datestamp>1266512220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That brief was a fun read. And very accessible. Everybody should have a look.</p><p>I have to wonder though, if it is good strategy to call the judge an idiot in such clear and ringing tones. What is the end goal? Are they trying to get the judge to do something stupid, so it will be easier to overturn later?</p><p>Don't laugh, I swear Microsoft used this tactic during their big antitrust case.</p><p>Miles</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That brief was a fun read .
And very accessible .
Everybody should have a look.I have to wonder though , if it is good strategy to call the judge an idiot in such clear and ringing tones .
What is the end goal ?
Are they trying to get the judge to do something stupid , so it will be easier to overturn later ? Do n't laugh , I swear Microsoft used this tactic during their big antitrust case.Miles</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That brief was a fun read.
And very accessible.
Everybody should have a look.I have to wonder though, if it is good strategy to call the judge an idiot in such clear and ringing tones.
What is the end goal?
Are they trying to get the judge to do something stupid, so it will be easier to overturn later?Don't laugh, I swear Microsoft used this tactic during their big antitrust case.Miles</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195712</id>
	<title>Re:Tenenbaum deserves to lose again</title>
	<author>pcfixup4ua</author>
	<datestamp>1266514740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is he not being criminally prosecuted as well?  What would be the criminal penalties if he were?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is he not being criminally prosecuted as well ?
What would be the criminal penalties if he were ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is he not being criminally prosecuted as well?
What would be the criminal penalties if he were?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194162</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>MindCheese</author>
	<datestamp>1266503220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on. You think that every single time that one user downloads a song from another user on a P2P network means a sale was lost?</p><p>At best, these users either have no intention of buying music, or they don't believe the music is worth what they're being asked to pay. Sidestepping the issue of whether or not their actions are morally or legally correct for a moment, these users STILL have no intention of ever buying music. These lawsuits are simply a means for the recording industry to wring outrageous profits from a demographic of the population who they wouldn't be able to make money from otherwise, under the guise of a law that was enacted when printing presses were the technological boogeymen du jour.</p><p>The argument that the unknown, indeterminable, unquantifiable amount of music that Tenenbaum actually "distributed" impacted RIAA sales in any significant way (much less than to the tune of $675K) is total lunacy, case law be damned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on .
You think that every single time that one user downloads a song from another user on a P2P network means a sale was lost ? At best , these users either have no intention of buying music , or they do n't believe the music is worth what they 're being asked to pay .
Sidestepping the issue of whether or not their actions are morally or legally correct for a moment , these users STILL have no intention of ever buying music .
These lawsuits are simply a means for the recording industry to wring outrageous profits from a demographic of the population who they would n't be able to make money from otherwise , under the guise of a law that was enacted when printing presses were the technological boogeymen du jour.The argument that the unknown , indeterminable , unquantifiable amount of music that Tenenbaum actually " distributed " impacted RIAA sales in any significant way ( much less than to the tune of $ 675K ) is total lunacy , case law be damned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on.
You think that every single time that one user downloads a song from another user on a P2P network means a sale was lost?At best, these users either have no intention of buying music, or they don't believe the music is worth what they're being asked to pay.
Sidestepping the issue of whether or not their actions are morally or legally correct for a moment, these users STILL have no intention of ever buying music.
These lawsuits are simply a means for the recording industry to wring outrageous profits from a demographic of the population who they wouldn't be able to make money from otherwise, under the guise of a law that was enacted when printing presses were the technological boogeymen du jour.The argument that the unknown, indeterminable, unquantifiable amount of music that Tenenbaum actually "distributed" impacted RIAA sales in any significant way (much less than to the tune of $675K) is total lunacy, case law be damned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194298</id>
	<title>Re:441,000 times for statutory damages precedent!</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1266504180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe every court should use this as a precedent.  Four hundred forty one thousand times the actual damages should be the statutory award.  That makes total sense.</p></div><p>Under copyright law, plaintiffs don't have to prove actual damages if they opt for statutory damages. And they didn't. OTOH, the defendant can show evidence of actual damages to <i>mitigate</i> or reduce the statutory damages. But Tenenbaum didn't. That's why his constitutional argument, relying on an alleged $.30 per song, fails at the outset - he never presented any evidence that that was the actual damages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe every court should use this as a precedent .
Four hundred forty one thousand times the actual damages should be the statutory award .
That makes total sense.Under copyright law , plaintiffs do n't have to prove actual damages if they opt for statutory damages .
And they did n't .
OTOH , the defendant can show evidence of actual damages to mitigate or reduce the statutory damages .
But Tenenbaum did n't .
That 's why his constitutional argument , relying on an alleged $ .30 per song , fails at the outset - he never presented any evidence that that was the actual damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe every court should use this as a precedent.
Four hundred forty one thousand times the actual damages should be the statutory award.
That makes total sense.Under copyright law, plaintiffs don't have to prove actual damages if they opt for statutory damages.
And they didn't.
OTOH, the defendant can show evidence of actual damages to mitigate or reduce the statutory damages.
But Tenenbaum didn't.
That's why his constitutional argument, relying on an alleged $.30 per song, fails at the outset - he never presented any evidence that that was the actual damages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31206186</id>
	<title>A more realistic discussion of "harm"</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1266584160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a lot of electrons wasted talking about how "piracy" harms society. What nobody seems to recognize is how bad law and industry cartels harm society. I'll try to show some non-imaginary harms to society that result directly from the activities of the RIAA and it's member companies.</p><p>
First is the distortion of law that's taken place at the behest of the RIAA and other media cartels. The balance of interests that copyright was based upon has been forgotten - we allowed creators exclusive use of their works for a time in exchange for those works being released to the public domain. In this way, not only the copyright holder but society at large would benefit. The benefit to society is almost (if not completely) eliminated - Walt Disney has been dead for many, many years but Mickey Mouse is still under copyright. Any benefit to the creator is exhausted and society still can not make use of that material.</p><p>
Another loss to society is the creators of musical (and other works) are also being exploited by the RIAA companies and many, many works are not being released. Why bother when you'll never see a penny from your creation? I personally know of many composers who continue to write music but archive their works for a future date when they can find (hopefully) a chance of having some control over their creation and make some money from it, too.</p><p>
As the well funded media cartels (funded by the work of the artists who don't get paid) work to distort law to support their anti-social activities, they set an example for other corporations. Put rootkits on a few hundred thousand CDs? Naughty Sony, pay a small (to them) fine and don't do that again. Now people here are complaining about games that die when there is no network connection, or operating systems that assume you're a "pirate" when they don't get to check in with the mothership. These excesses are a direct result of the DMCA (that's what "self help" means) and they're just getting started. It'll keep getting worse and worse until society as a whole says "enough" - but our "elected" representatives aren't listening to us because those media company dollars are so nice and so easy to collect.</p><p>
Will the legal system finally make the "shake down the general public" lawsuit machine no longer workable? Maybe it will eventually - but those cartels won't go away so easily and they'll be lobbying hard for an even more draconian "solution".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot of electrons wasted talking about how " piracy " harms society .
What nobody seems to recognize is how bad law and industry cartels harm society .
I 'll try to show some non-imaginary harms to society that result directly from the activities of the RIAA and it 's member companies .
First is the distortion of law that 's taken place at the behest of the RIAA and other media cartels .
The balance of interests that copyright was based upon has been forgotten - we allowed creators exclusive use of their works for a time in exchange for those works being released to the public domain .
In this way , not only the copyright holder but society at large would benefit .
The benefit to society is almost ( if not completely ) eliminated - Walt Disney has been dead for many , many years but Mickey Mouse is still under copyright .
Any benefit to the creator is exhausted and society still can not make use of that material .
Another loss to society is the creators of musical ( and other works ) are also being exploited by the RIAA companies and many , many works are not being released .
Why bother when you 'll never see a penny from your creation ?
I personally know of many composers who continue to write music but archive their works for a future date when they can find ( hopefully ) a chance of having some control over their creation and make some money from it , too .
As the well funded media cartels ( funded by the work of the artists who do n't get paid ) work to distort law to support their anti-social activities , they set an example for other corporations .
Put rootkits on a few hundred thousand CDs ?
Naughty Sony , pay a small ( to them ) fine and do n't do that again .
Now people here are complaining about games that die when there is no network connection , or operating systems that assume you 're a " pirate " when they do n't get to check in with the mothership .
These excesses are a direct result of the DMCA ( that 's what " self help " means ) and they 're just getting started .
It 'll keep getting worse and worse until society as a whole says " enough " - but our " elected " representatives are n't listening to us because those media company dollars are so nice and so easy to collect .
Will the legal system finally make the " shake down the general public " lawsuit machine no longer workable ?
Maybe it will eventually - but those cartels wo n't go away so easily and they 'll be lobbying hard for an even more draconian " solution " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot of electrons wasted talking about how "piracy" harms society.
What nobody seems to recognize is how bad law and industry cartels harm society.
I'll try to show some non-imaginary harms to society that result directly from the activities of the RIAA and it's member companies.
First is the distortion of law that's taken place at the behest of the RIAA and other media cartels.
The balance of interests that copyright was based upon has been forgotten - we allowed creators exclusive use of their works for a time in exchange for those works being released to the public domain.
In this way, not only the copyright holder but society at large would benefit.
The benefit to society is almost (if not completely) eliminated - Walt Disney has been dead for many, many years but Mickey Mouse is still under copyright.
Any benefit to the creator is exhausted and society still can not make use of that material.
Another loss to society is the creators of musical (and other works) are also being exploited by the RIAA companies and many, many works are not being released.
Why bother when you'll never see a penny from your creation?
I personally know of many composers who continue to write music but archive their works for a future date when they can find (hopefully) a chance of having some control over their creation and make some money from it, too.
As the well funded media cartels (funded by the work of the artists who don't get paid) work to distort law to support their anti-social activities, they set an example for other corporations.
Put rootkits on a few hundred thousand CDs?
Naughty Sony, pay a small (to them) fine and don't do that again.
Now people here are complaining about games that die when there is no network connection, or operating systems that assume you're a "pirate" when they don't get to check in with the mothership.
These excesses are a direct result of the DMCA (that's what "self help" means) and they're just getting started.
It'll keep getting worse and worse until society as a whole says "enough" - but our "elected" representatives aren't listening to us because those media company dollars are so nice and so easy to collect.
Will the legal system finally make the "shake down the general public" lawsuit machine no longer workable?
Maybe it will eventually - but those cartels won't go away so easily and they'll be lobbying hard for an even more draconian "solution".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194406</id>
	<title>Re:Fees</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266504720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt; "From Hell's heart I stab at thee<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; "For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."</p><p>And with my sharpshooter I have your RIAA office in my sights.<br>Are you sure you don't want to drop the case Mr. RIAA employee?  (click)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; " From Hell 's heart I stab at thee &gt; &gt; &gt; " For hate 's sake , I spit my last breath at thee .
" And with my sharpshooter I have your RIAA office in my sights.Are you sure you do n't want to drop the case Mr. RIAA employee ?
( click )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt; "From Hell's heart I stab at thee&gt;&gt;&gt; "For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
"And with my sharpshooter I have your RIAA office in my sights.Are you sure you don't want to drop the case Mr. RIAA employee?
(click)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194088</id>
	<title>Re:I'm still holding my breath</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1266502680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because they hired Wolfram and Hart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because they hired Wolfram and Hart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because they hired Wolfram and Hart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31205932</id>
	<title>You don't have the guts to read this post.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266582720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm willing to bet that within 15 seconds this post will be called a "troll" and modded down into oblivion.</p><p>It's sad that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has become such a closed minded community, but maybe one of you at least will have the guts to actually learn about the subject you're discussing.</p><p>http://www.copyrightalliance.org/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm willing to bet that within 15 seconds this post will be called a " troll " and modded down into oblivion.It 's sad that / .
has become such a closed minded community , but maybe one of you at least will have the guts to actually learn about the subject you 're discussing.http : //www.copyrightalliance.org/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm willing to bet that within 15 seconds this post will be called a "troll" and modded down into oblivion.It's sad that /.
has become such a closed minded community, but maybe one of you at least will have the guts to actually learn about the subject you're discussing.http://www.copyrightalliance.org/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196244</id>
	<title>Re:I'm still holding my breath</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266522360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems to me that every time it looks like somebody has the RIAA staring down the barrel of a metaphorical shotgun, they somehow manage to find a friendly judge, or some implausible artifact of the legal system gets in the way.</p></div><p>Well, it's the two recurring topics that are bread and butter of Slashdot - the imminent legal defeat of RIAA and the likes any moment now (remember TPB case?), and the year of Linux on the desktop.</p><p>Make your bets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that every time it looks like somebody has the RIAA staring down the barrel of a metaphorical shotgun , they somehow manage to find a friendly judge , or some implausible artifact of the legal system gets in the way.Well , it 's the two recurring topics that are bread and butter of Slashdot - the imminent legal defeat of RIAA and the likes any moment now ( remember TPB case ?
) , and the year of Linux on the desktop.Make your bets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that every time it looks like somebody has the RIAA staring down the barrel of a metaphorical shotgun, they somehow manage to find a friendly judge, or some implausible artifact of the legal system gets in the way.Well, it's the two recurring topics that are bread and butter of Slashdot - the imminent legal defeat of RIAA and the likes any moment now (remember TPB case?
), and the year of Linux on the desktop.Make your bets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194064</id>
	<title>Re:I'm still holding my breath</title>
	<author>Mad Leper</author>
	<datestamp>1266502500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the defendant is an idiot, the defence lawyers are fools and the judges don't care for grandstanding morons trying to turn a clear cut case of copyright infringement into a reboot of the Rosa Parks case.</p><p>Bit I like you thinking, sounds much more exciting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the defendant is an idiot , the defence lawyers are fools and the judges do n't care for grandstanding morons trying to turn a clear cut case of copyright infringement into a reboot of the Rosa Parks case.Bit I like you thinking , sounds much more exciting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the defendant is an idiot, the defence lawyers are fools and the judges don't care for grandstanding morons trying to turn a clear cut case of copyright infringement into a reboot of the Rosa Parks case.Bit I like you thinking, sounds much more exciting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468</id>
	<title>I'm still holding my breath</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266498720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> It seems to me that every time it looks like somebody has the RIAA staring down the barrel of a metaphorical shotgun, they somehow manage to find a friendly judge, or some implausible artifact of the legal system gets in the way. </p><p> I truly hope that this time justice prevails, and the RIAA loses its main means of intimidating guilty pleas out of the poor and vulnerable. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that every time it looks like somebody has the RIAA staring down the barrel of a metaphorical shotgun , they somehow manage to find a friendly judge , or some implausible artifact of the legal system gets in the way .
I truly hope that this time justice prevails , and the RIAA loses its main means of intimidating guilty pleas out of the poor and vulnerable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It seems to me that every time it looks like somebody has the RIAA staring down the barrel of a metaphorical shotgun, they somehow manage to find a friendly judge, or some implausible artifact of the legal system gets in the way.
I truly hope that this time justice prevails, and the RIAA loses its main means of intimidating guilty pleas out of the poor and vulnerable. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31202428</id>
	<title>Anyone wondering....</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1266610500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why the distribution troll has so much time to spend on this thread, constantly repeating misinformation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why the distribution troll has so much time to spend on this thread , constantly repeating misinformation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why the distribution troll has so much time to spend on this thread, constantly repeating misinformation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193444</id>
	<title>Re:Fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266498600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>RIAA's argument that 'statutory damages' up to $150,000 can be awarded where the record company's lost profit is in the neighborhood of 35 cents</p></div></blockquote><p>
It's amazing how many trials, hearings, lawyers, and documentation is required before anyone official is willing to consider that this might be unjust.  Does not the Constitution forbid "cruel and unusual" punishment?  This punishment is grossly excessive and therefore cruel.  How many proceedings does it take to realize what any idiot can discern?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA 's argument that 'statutory damages ' up to $ 150,000 can be awarded where the record company 's lost profit is in the neighborhood of 35 cents It 's amazing how many trials , hearings , lawyers , and documentation is required before anyone official is willing to consider that this might be unjust .
Does not the Constitution forbid " cruel and unusual " punishment ?
This punishment is grossly excessive and therefore cruel .
How many proceedings does it take to realize what any idiot can discern ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA's argument that 'statutory damages' up to $150,000 can be awarded where the record company's lost profit is in the neighborhood of 35 cents
It's amazing how many trials, hearings, lawyers, and documentation is required before anyone official is willing to consider that this might be unjust.
Does not the Constitution forbid "cruel and unusual" punishment?
This punishment is grossly excessive and therefore cruel.
How many proceedings does it take to realize what any idiot can discern?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193894</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>ahabswhale</author>
	<datestamp>1266501420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please show me in his post where he says that damages should only count for the original download.  You seem to be putting words in his mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please show me in his post where he says that damages should only count for the original download .
You seem to be putting words in his mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please show me in his post where he says that damages should only count for the original download.
You seem to be putting words in his mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194326</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1266504300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're failing to take into account how peer-to-peer works: most people have a share ratio of about 1:1. On average, any one person can only be held accountable for distributing one copy of something they seed.</p></div><p>Shhhhh. The RIAA doesn't want people (especially judges) to know that. If you say something like that here, word might get out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're failing to take into account how peer-to-peer works : most people have a share ratio of about 1 : 1 .
On average , any one person can only be held accountable for distributing one copy of something they seed.Shhhhh .
The RIAA does n't want people ( especially judges ) to know that .
If you say something like that here , word might get out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're failing to take into account how peer-to-peer works: most people have a share ratio of about 1:1.
On average, any one person can only be held accountable for distributing one copy of something they seed.Shhhhh.
The RIAA doesn't want people (especially judges) to know that.
If you say something like that here, word might get out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195534</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>Dogbertius</author>
	<datestamp>1266512760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the defendant's apparently. Oh wait, let's do scalar multiplication by 6500 first, just for kicks, and lobbying brib...., errr, fees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the defendant 's apparently .
Oh wait , let 's do scalar multiplication by 6500 first , just for kicks , and lobbying brib.... , errr , fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the defendant's apparently.
Oh wait, let's do scalar multiplication by 6500 first, just for kicks, and lobbying brib...., errr, fees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31200080</id>
	<title>Re:Fees</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1266598860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll just extradite him.  Do you really think he wants to spend the rest of his life hiding in Brazil?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll just extradite him .
Do you really think he wants to spend the rest of his life hiding in Brazil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll just extradite him.
Do you really think he wants to spend the rest of his life hiding in Brazil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194184</id>
	<title>Re:Fees</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1266503340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; This punishment is grossly excessive and therefore cruel.<br><br>Yes, but is it cruel AND unusual, or is it in fact cruel and commonplace, something they've been doing to people for a good while now?<br><br>(However, I think it ought to qualify as an "excessive fine", though IANAL.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; This punishment is grossly excessive and therefore cruel.Yes , but is it cruel AND unusual , or is it in fact cruel and commonplace , something they 've been doing to people for a good while now ?
( However , I think it ought to qualify as an " excessive fine " , though IANAL .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; This punishment is grossly excessive and therefore cruel.Yes, but is it cruel AND unusual, or is it in fact cruel and commonplace, something they've been doing to people for a good while now?
(However, I think it ought to qualify as an "excessive fine", though IANAL.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194836</id>
	<title>Re:Fees</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1266507180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just leave the country, and refuse to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just leave the country , and refuse to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just leave the country, and refuse to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194918</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266507840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But then that person will go on to share it to another person, and so on.</p><p>You could argue that this would be like a gun salesman being tried for the crimes of someone who stole the gun from the original buyer. But remeber: this is intellectualy property, and we're not allowed to make analogies to physical property!</p><p>And besides that, the salesman <i>would</i> actually be tried for aiding and abetting if he sold it to the first buyer knowing they didn't have a gun licence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But then that person will go on to share it to another person , and so on.You could argue that this would be like a gun salesman being tried for the crimes of someone who stole the gun from the original buyer .
But remeber : this is intellectualy property , and we 're not allowed to make analogies to physical property ! And besides that , the salesman would actually be tried for aiding and abetting if he sold it to the first buyer knowing they did n't have a gun licence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then that person will go on to share it to another person, and so on.You could argue that this would be like a gun salesman being tried for the crimes of someone who stole the gun from the original buyer.
But remeber: this is intellectualy property, and we're not allowed to make analogies to physical property!And besides that, the salesman would actually be tried for aiding and abetting if he sold it to the first buyer knowing they didn't have a gun licence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195480</id>
	<title>What bothers me...</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1266512280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What bothers me is that everybody assumes that judges are not corrupt, if something has been determined is that last 20 years a lot of participants in the US legal system are at least dubious.</p><p>In the US everybody has their price, is a more realistic view of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What bothers me is that everybody assumes that judges are not corrupt , if something has been determined is that last 20 years a lot of participants in the US legal system are at least dubious.In the US everybody has their price , is a more realistic view of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What bothers me is that everybody assumes that judges are not corrupt, if something has been determined is that last 20 years a lot of participants in the US legal system are at least dubious.In the US everybody has their price, is a more realistic view of things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31199782</id>
	<title>Re:Nicely Written Brief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266597660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People have got to stop thinking of file sharing, torrents and sharing networks as a free for all. Imagine how useful all of this sharing infrastructure would be if the RIAA hadn't been forced by circumstance to try to stop it?</p></div><p>I'm sorry, what? Forced by circumstance? I call bull on that.</p><p>The RIAA has had many years to enter the 21st century with reasonably priced digital goods without DRM but have not. In fact they do whatever they can to keep the price of digital goods as close to the price of the physical one as possible. This is ridiculous. The RIAA just refuses to acknowledge the need for a new business model. Digital downloads should cost less than buying a CD. The entire thing is about profits, "hey we can save money by offering it online. That means more profits!" rather than "Hey, we can save money. We can bring the price down so that since it's cheaper more people will buy and we can make more money." Hmm....which one is better?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have got to stop thinking of file sharing , torrents and sharing networks as a free for all .
Imagine how useful all of this sharing infrastructure would be if the RIAA had n't been forced by circumstance to try to stop it ? I 'm sorry , what ?
Forced by circumstance ?
I call bull on that.The RIAA has had many years to enter the 21st century with reasonably priced digital goods without DRM but have not .
In fact they do whatever they can to keep the price of digital goods as close to the price of the physical one as possible .
This is ridiculous .
The RIAA just refuses to acknowledge the need for a new business model .
Digital downloads should cost less than buying a CD .
The entire thing is about profits , " hey we can save money by offering it online .
That means more profits !
" rather than " Hey , we can save money .
We can bring the price down so that since it 's cheaper more people will buy and we can make more money .
" Hmm....which one is better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have got to stop thinking of file sharing, torrents and sharing networks as a free for all.
Imagine how useful all of this sharing infrastructure would be if the RIAA hadn't been forced by circumstance to try to stop it?I'm sorry, what?
Forced by circumstance?
I call bull on that.The RIAA has had many years to enter the 21st century with reasonably priced digital goods without DRM but have not.
In fact they do whatever they can to keep the price of digital goods as close to the price of the physical one as possible.
This is ridiculous.
The RIAA just refuses to acknowledge the need for a new business model.
Digital downloads should cost less than buying a CD.
The entire thing is about profits, "hey we can save money by offering it online.
That means more profits!
" rather than "Hey, we can save money.
We can bring the price down so that since it's cheaper more people will buy and we can make more money.
" Hmm....which one is better?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31202216</id>
	<title>Re:I'm still holding my breath</title>
	<author>J Story</author>
	<datestamp>1266609060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read the brief, and it is interesting, but it seems to me that the authors are punching above their weight.</p><p>In I(A) they assert that Tenenbaum's share folder had no impact on the availability of the songs to other downloaders, but they cite no case law in support. I'm guessing that they cannot directly introduce an economic treatise on marginal utility, but there must be favourable cases that involve this concept. Without such a reference their assertion rings hollow.</p><p>Elsewhere, I see the hand-waving word "surely". That word, to my mind, along with "obviously", "undoubtedly", etc., are flags that sections of proof have probably been skipped.</p><p>Finally, the brief uses emotionally charged words in reference to the plaintiffs: "railing", "bridle", "bellow". While not an error in itself, it nevertheless suggests that the brief's authors are emotionally entangled, possibly clouding their judgement and use of case law.</p><p>In contrast to this brief, head over to groklaw and review some of IBM's briefs in its dispute with SCO. These are clear, thorough, and leave no doubt that they are playing in the big leagues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read the brief , and it is interesting , but it seems to me that the authors are punching above their weight.In I ( A ) they assert that Tenenbaum 's share folder had no impact on the availability of the songs to other downloaders , but they cite no case law in support .
I 'm guessing that they can not directly introduce an economic treatise on marginal utility , but there must be favourable cases that involve this concept .
Without such a reference their assertion rings hollow.Elsewhere , I see the hand-waving word " surely " .
That word , to my mind , along with " obviously " , " undoubtedly " , etc. , are flags that sections of proof have probably been skipped.Finally , the brief uses emotionally charged words in reference to the plaintiffs : " railing " , " bridle " , " bellow " .
While not an error in itself , it nevertheless suggests that the brief 's authors are emotionally entangled , possibly clouding their judgement and use of case law.In contrast to this brief , head over to groklaw and review some of IBM 's briefs in its dispute with SCO .
These are clear , thorough , and leave no doubt that they are playing in the big leagues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read the brief, and it is interesting, but it seems to me that the authors are punching above their weight.In I(A) they assert that Tenenbaum's share folder had no impact on the availability of the songs to other downloaders, but they cite no case law in support.
I'm guessing that they cannot directly introduce an economic treatise on marginal utility, but there must be favourable cases that involve this concept.
Without such a reference their assertion rings hollow.Elsewhere, I see the hand-waving word "surely".
That word, to my mind, along with "obviously", "undoubtedly", etc., are flags that sections of proof have probably been skipped.Finally, the brief uses emotionally charged words in reference to the plaintiffs: "railing", "bridle", "bellow".
While not an error in itself, it nevertheless suggests that the brief's authors are emotionally entangled, possibly clouding their judgement and use of case law.In contrast to this brief, head over to groklaw and review some of IBM's briefs in its dispute with SCO.
These are clear, thorough, and leave no doubt that they are playing in the big leagues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196868</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1266573900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good question.  It seems a lot of people on Slashdot don't quite get the argument so I could imagine it's possible the court will miss it as well.  <br> <br>
There is another reasonble interpretation.  Either only the original uploader is liable or each uploader is only liable for the files they personally uploaded.  This actually makes a little more sense to me since otherwise why not put the blame on the group who made it available in the first place (i.e. the record company).  Clearly a ludicrous argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good question .
It seems a lot of people on Slashdot do n't quite get the argument so I could imagine it 's possible the court will miss it as well .
There is another reasonble interpretation .
Either only the original uploader is liable or each uploader is only liable for the files they personally uploaded .
This actually makes a little more sense to me since otherwise why not put the blame on the group who made it available in the first place ( i.e .
the record company ) .
Clearly a ludicrous argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good question.
It seems a lot of people on Slashdot don't quite get the argument so I could imagine it's possible the court will miss it as well.
There is another reasonble interpretation.
Either only the original uploader is liable or each uploader is only liable for the files they personally uploaded.
This actually makes a little more sense to me since otherwise why not put the blame on the group who made it available in the first place (i.e.
the record company).
Clearly a ludicrous argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194192</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266503340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's talk in terms of marijuana.

If you are the distribution source of marijuana, you will get a harsher punishment than that of the user of marijuana who shares with his "peers" (with regard to amount).

P.S. We need more seeders!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's talk in terms of marijuana .
If you are the distribution source of marijuana , you will get a harsher punishment than that of the user of marijuana who shares with his " peers " ( with regard to amount ) .
P.S. We need more seeders !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's talk in terms of marijuana.
If you are the distribution source of marijuana, you will get a harsher punishment than that of the user of marijuana who shares with his "peers" (with regard to amount).
P.S. We need more seeders!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193524</id>
	<title>Re:Fees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266499020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this was me, I'd do the same thing as Tenenbaum. Fuck it, you're already looking at bankruptcy, why not burn everything you have in the off chance that you take them with you?</p><p>"From Hell's heart I stab at thee /<br>For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was me , I 'd do the same thing as Tenenbaum .
Fuck it , you 're already looking at bankruptcy , why not burn everything you have in the off chance that you take them with you ?
" From Hell 's heart I stab at thee /For hate 's sake , I spit my last breath at thee .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was me, I'd do the same thing as Tenenbaum.
Fuck it, you're already looking at bankruptcy, why not burn everything you have in the off chance that you take them with you?
"From Hell's heart I stab at thee /For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194280</id>
	<title>Re:Fees</title>
	<author>arielCo</author>
	<datestamp>1266504060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, that'll teach them! They're going to weep all the way from the courthouse to their next case, with their shiny new precedent as their only consolation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that 'll teach them !
They 're going to weep all the way from the courthouse to their next case , with their shiny new precedent as their only consolation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that'll teach them!
They're going to weep all the way from the courthouse to their next case, with their shiny new precedent as their only consolation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31197314</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1266578640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The issue came up in this exact case when the 'fair use' argument was put forward - the Judge made a comment on the issue as part of her rejection of that argument:<p><div class="quote"><p>Gertner concludes, "While the Court recognizes that not every unauthorized download would represent a lost sale, it seems clear that some portion of paying consumers would shift to free downloads if this activity were deemed a fair use. Based on this finding, the private purpose of this use, the substantiality and lack of transformation, and those additional factors the Court is entitled to consider, the Court holds that Tenenbaum's alleged infringement was not a fair use."</p></div><p>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/judge-rejects-fair-use-defense-as-tenenbaum-p2p-trial-begins.ars</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue came up in this exact case when the 'fair use ' argument was put forward - the Judge made a comment on the issue as part of her rejection of that argument : Gertner concludes , " While the Court recognizes that not every unauthorized download would represent a lost sale , it seems clear that some portion of paying consumers would shift to free downloads if this activity were deemed a fair use .
Based on this finding , the private purpose of this use , the substantiality and lack of transformation , and those additional factors the Court is entitled to consider , the Court holds that Tenenbaum 's alleged infringement was not a fair use .
" http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/judge-rejects-fair-use-defense-as-tenenbaum-p2p-trial-begins.ars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue came up in this exact case when the 'fair use' argument was put forward - the Judge made a comment on the issue as part of her rejection of that argument:Gertner concludes, "While the Court recognizes that not every unauthorized download would represent a lost sale, it seems clear that some portion of paying consumers would shift to free downloads if this activity were deemed a fair use.
Based on this finding, the private purpose of this use, the substantiality and lack of transformation, and those additional factors the Court is entitled to consider, the Court holds that Tenenbaum's alleged infringement was not a fair use.
"http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/judge-rejects-fair-use-defense-as-tenenbaum-p2p-trial-begins.ars
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196288</id>
	<title>To be perfectly honest...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1266523020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You can be fined a thousand dollars just for trying to steal a single candy bar, which actually costs the grocery store maybe 25c.
</p><p>
My point being that what the item actually costs the person pressing charges doesn't have to even remotely match up with the size of the penalty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can be fined a thousand dollars just for trying to steal a single candy bar , which actually costs the grocery store maybe 25c .
My point being that what the item actually costs the person pressing charges does n't have to even remotely match up with the size of the penalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You can be fined a thousand dollars just for trying to steal a single candy bar, which actually costs the grocery store maybe 25c.
My point being that what the item actually costs the person pressing charges doesn't have to even remotely match up with the size of the penalty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31197350</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1266579000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being able to cite song lyrics as precedent would make legal proceedings a whole lot more interesting.</p><p>"I would like to cite De La Rocha/Rage Against The Machine, 01.02.03:25: "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being able to cite song lyrics as precedent would make legal proceedings a whole lot more interesting .
" I would like to cite De La Rocha/Rage Against The Machine , 01.02.03 : 25 : " Fuck you , I wo n't do what you tell me " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being able to cite song lyrics as precedent would make legal proceedings a whole lot more interesting.
"I would like to cite De La Rocha/Rage Against The Machine, 01.02.03:25: "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194534</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266505440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. That's the interesting discussion that we SHOULD be having. In particular,</p><p>(1) The courts say "We don't know how many people downloaded it so we'll pick an arbitrary number in the THOUSANDS when we calculate damages". That reasoning needs to be challenged.</p><p>(2) The courts say "Distributing just a part of the song counts just as bad as distributing the whole of it". That reasoning needs to be challenged.</p><p>I'd really like to have a legal advocate on the technie's side who can make these arguments. These are BAD precedents that the courts are setting and which need to fought.</p><p>(NewYorkCountryLawyer's fight that "Tannenbaum didn't even distribute" is counter-productive.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
That 's the interesting discussion that we SHOULD be having .
In particular , ( 1 ) The courts say " We do n't know how many people downloaded it so we 'll pick an arbitrary number in the THOUSANDS when we calculate damages " .
That reasoning needs to be challenged .
( 2 ) The courts say " Distributing just a part of the song counts just as bad as distributing the whole of it " .
That reasoning needs to be challenged.I 'd really like to have a legal advocate on the technie 's side who can make these arguments .
These are BAD precedents that the courts are setting and which need to fought .
( NewYorkCountryLawyer 's fight that " Tannenbaum did n't even distribute " is counter-productive .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
That's the interesting discussion that we SHOULD be having.
In particular,(1) The courts say "We don't know how many people downloaded it so we'll pick an arbitrary number in the THOUSANDS when we calculate damages".
That reasoning needs to be challenged.
(2) The courts say "Distributing just a part of the song counts just as bad as distributing the whole of it".
That reasoning needs to be challenged.I'd really like to have a legal advocate on the technie's side who can make these arguments.
These are BAD precedents that the courts are setting and which need to fought.
(NewYorkCountryLawyer's fight that "Tannenbaum didn't even distribute" is counter-productive.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498</id>
	<title>Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266498900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[P]laintiffs say, by including these songs in his share folder, Tenenbaum distributed them to millions of people, causing the record companies "incalculable" damages.  This is completely false hyperbole.  Not a single person who downloaded these songs using Kazaa would have been impeded from obtaining them had Tenenbaum blocked access to his share folder.  Tenenbaum was not a seeder of any of these songs.  Whatever damage was caused by the distribution of these thirty immensely popular songs on the peer-to-peer networks was caused by the initial seeders . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div></blockquote><p>Will the courts really buy this argument?  Does it really matter whether one rips a track from a CD and shares it on a P2P network instead of downloaded an existing track from a P2P network before re-sharing the track?  Is a CD ripper-and-sharer so much more culpable than an MP3 downloader-and-re-sharer that all of the blame for downstream economic harm should be pegged to the CD ripper-and-sharer?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ P ] laintiffs say , by including these songs in his share folder , Tenenbaum distributed them to millions of people , causing the record companies " incalculable " damages .
This is completely false hyperbole .
Not a single person who downloaded these songs using Kazaa would have been impeded from obtaining them had Tenenbaum blocked access to his share folder .
Tenenbaum was not a seeder of any of these songs .
Whatever damage was caused by the distribution of these thirty immensely popular songs on the peer-to-peer networks was caused by the initial seeders .
. .Will the courts really buy this argument ?
Does it really matter whether one rips a track from a CD and shares it on a P2P network instead of downloaded an existing track from a P2P network before re-sharing the track ?
Is a CD ripper-and-sharer so much more culpable than an MP3 downloader-and-re-sharer that all of the blame for downstream economic harm should be pegged to the CD ripper-and-sharer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[P]laintiffs say, by including these songs in his share folder, Tenenbaum distributed them to millions of people, causing the record companies "incalculable" damages.
This is completely false hyperbole.
Not a single person who downloaded these songs using Kazaa would have been impeded from obtaining them had Tenenbaum blocked access to his share folder.
Tenenbaum was not a seeder of any of these songs.
Whatever damage was caused by the distribution of these thirty immensely popular songs on the peer-to-peer networks was caused by the initial seeders .
. .Will the courts really buy this argument?
Does it really matter whether one rips a track from a CD and shares it on a P2P network instead of downloaded an existing track from a P2P network before re-sharing the track?
Is a CD ripper-and-sharer so much more culpable than an MP3 downloader-and-re-sharer that all of the blame for downstream economic harm should be pegged to the CD ripper-and-sharer?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194402</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1266504660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Come on. You think that every single time that one user downloads a song from another user on a P2P network means a sale was lost?

At best, these users either have no intention of buying music, or they don't believe the music is worth what they're being asked to pay. Sidestepping the issue of whether or not their actions are morally or legally correct for a moment, these users STILL have no intention of ever buying music. These lawsuits are simply a means for the recording industry to wring outrageous profits from a demographic of the population who they wouldn't be able to make money from otherwise, under the guise of a law that was enacted when printing presses were the technological boogeymen du jour.

The argument that the unknown, indeterminable, unquantifiable amount of music that Tenenbaum actually "distributed" impacted RIAA sales in any significant way (much less than to the tune of $675K) is total lunacy...</p></div><p>Well, in the only case in which I am aware of the issue having come up, the judge agreed with you -- not with them. <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/01/riaas-download-equals-lost-sale-theory.html" title="blogspot.com">USA v. Dove</a> [blogspot.com] held that it is absurd to argue that each unauthorized download represents a lost sale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on .
You think that every single time that one user downloads a song from another user on a P2P network means a sale was lost ?
At best , these users either have no intention of buying music , or they do n't believe the music is worth what they 're being asked to pay .
Sidestepping the issue of whether or not their actions are morally or legally correct for a moment , these users STILL have no intention of ever buying music .
These lawsuits are simply a means for the recording industry to wring outrageous profits from a demographic of the population who they would n't be able to make money from otherwise , under the guise of a law that was enacted when printing presses were the technological boogeymen du jour .
The argument that the unknown , indeterminable , unquantifiable amount of music that Tenenbaum actually " distributed " impacted RIAA sales in any significant way ( much less than to the tune of $ 675K ) is total lunacy...Well , in the only case in which I am aware of the issue having come up , the judge agreed with you -- not with them .
USA v. Dove [ blogspot.com ] held that it is absurd to argue that each unauthorized download represents a lost sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on.
You think that every single time that one user downloads a song from another user on a P2P network means a sale was lost?
At best, these users either have no intention of buying music, or they don't believe the music is worth what they're being asked to pay.
Sidestepping the issue of whether or not their actions are morally or legally correct for a moment, these users STILL have no intention of ever buying music.
These lawsuits are simply a means for the recording industry to wring outrageous profits from a demographic of the population who they wouldn't be able to make money from otherwise, under the guise of a law that was enacted when printing presses were the technological boogeymen du jour.
The argument that the unknown, indeterminable, unquantifiable amount of music that Tenenbaum actually "distributed" impacted RIAA sales in any significant way (much less than to the tune of $675K) is total lunacy...Well, in the only case in which I am aware of the issue having come up, the judge agreed with you -- not with them.
USA v. Dove [blogspot.com] held that it is absurd to argue that each unauthorized download represents a lost sale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194492</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1266505140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is a CD ripper-and-sharer so much more culpable than an MP3 downloader-and-re-sharer that all of the blame for downstream economic harm should be pegged to the CD ripper-and-sharer?</p></div></blockquote><p>They'll just make it joint-and-several -- that is, everyone in the swarm is 100\% liable for every download.</p><p>Never underestimate the amount of injustice the courts can dish out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is a CD ripper-and-sharer so much more culpable than an MP3 downloader-and-re-sharer that all of the blame for downstream economic harm should be pegged to the CD ripper-and-sharer ? They 'll just make it joint-and-several -- that is , everyone in the swarm is 100 \ % liable for every download.Never underestimate the amount of injustice the courts can dish out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is a CD ripper-and-sharer so much more culpable than an MP3 downloader-and-re-sharer that all of the blame for downstream economic harm should be pegged to the CD ripper-and-sharer?They'll just make it joint-and-several -- that is, everyone in the swarm is 100\% liable for every download.Never underestimate the amount of injustice the courts can dish out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696</id>
	<title>Tenenbaum deserves to lose again</title>
	<author>OSPolicy</author>
	<datestamp>1266506400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post is long because the brief is long.</p><p>First, keep in mind that RIAA doesn't write the law.  Don't hate RIAA for using laws that Disney and others bought Congresscritters to enact into law.  Hate the Congresscritters.</p><p>The first basic argument is that the companies lost nothing because even if Tenenbaum had not shared the music then someone else would have.  However, the companies lose sales to illegal downloading.  There's a question of how many sales, but no question that there are lost sales.  So they suffer loss from one person making downloads available.  If only one person made the files available, they could recover their losses by suing that person.  Defendant's argument is that because many people do it, the companies cannot recover.  That's like saying that if you get beaten up then you can sue your attacker, but if you get lynched by a mob then you have no recourse.  The fact that many people are doing it... you know, if you have to read that here to learn it, you can't learn it.  Let's move on to the next point.</p><p>From the brief:  &ldquo;[N]umerous courts have held that assessed statutory damages should bear some relation to the actual damages suffered.&rdquo;  When the Supreme Court has spoken, it makes no difference what other courts have said or how numerous they are.  The Supremes get the last word.  And here's the word:  The "excessiveness inquiry appropriately begins with an identification of the state interests that a punitive award is designed to serve."  Here, the interest is in deterring people from granting themselves licenses to engage in unlimited and uncompensated distribution of very valuable copyrighted works.  Such distribution not only costs the original copyright owner money but the availability of such goods depresses or destroys secondary markets and harms, for example, used CD stores.  For these and countless other reasons, the state obviously has a very large interest in deterring the conduct.</p><p>They go on to say that "we do not doubt that Congress has ample authority to enact such a policy for the entire Nation."  They note that "evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while knowing or suspecting that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is required to cure the defendant's disrespect for the law."  Is there argument that Tenenbaum thought that his conduct was lawful?  There is not.  There is, in fact, his sworn testimony that he knew that the time that it was illegal.</p><p>Finally, the case that *defendant* cites states, ""While petitioner stresses the shocking disparity between the punitive award and the compensatory award, that shock dissipates when one considers the potential loss to respondents, in terms of reduced or eliminated royalties payments."  What is the potential loss from granting a license for unlimited uncompensated distribution of all of those works?  Tennenbaum got tagged for $675K and the courts routinely award 4:1 damages, so the relevant question here is whether the potential loss was more or less than $675K / 30 songs / 4:1 damage ratio = $5625/song and the answer is that such a license would clearly cost more.  A helluva lot more.  A whole helluva lot more.  And it wouldn't matter that others also had licenses, it would still cost a helluva lot more.  Tennenbaum is getting off dirt cheap.</p><p>Despite defendant's repeated claims that compensatory and punitive damages have similar jurisprudence, defendant's own brief cites State Farm v. Campbell which states, "We recognized<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that in our judicial system compensatory and punitive damages<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... serve different purposes."  In case you're not a lawyer, let me help you out:  it never, ever gets clearer than that for any reason.  Defendant's claims that the court should conflate compensatory and punitive damages are totally and unconditionally wrong at best.</p><p>Defeendant argues that even if $5625 is dirt cheap for a license for unlimited distribution of a song worth at least</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post is long because the brief is long.First , keep in mind that RIAA does n't write the law .
Do n't hate RIAA for using laws that Disney and others bought Congresscritters to enact into law .
Hate the Congresscritters.The first basic argument is that the companies lost nothing because even if Tenenbaum had not shared the music then someone else would have .
However , the companies lose sales to illegal downloading .
There 's a question of how many sales , but no question that there are lost sales .
So they suffer loss from one person making downloads available .
If only one person made the files available , they could recover their losses by suing that person .
Defendant 's argument is that because many people do it , the companies can not recover .
That 's like saying that if you get beaten up then you can sue your attacker , but if you get lynched by a mob then you have no recourse .
The fact that many people are doing it... you know , if you have to read that here to learn it , you ca n't learn it .
Let 's move on to the next point.From the brief :    [ N ] umerous courts have held that assessed statutory damages should bear some relation to the actual damages suffered.    When the Supreme Court has spoken , it makes no difference what other courts have said or how numerous they are .
The Supremes get the last word .
And here 's the word : The " excessiveness inquiry appropriately begins with an identification of the state interests that a punitive award is designed to serve .
" Here , the interest is in deterring people from granting themselves licenses to engage in unlimited and uncompensated distribution of very valuable copyrighted works .
Such distribution not only costs the original copyright owner money but the availability of such goods depresses or destroys secondary markets and harms , for example , used CD stores .
For these and countless other reasons , the state obviously has a very large interest in deterring the conduct.They go on to say that " we do not doubt that Congress has ample authority to enact such a policy for the entire Nation .
" They note that " evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while knowing or suspecting that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is required to cure the defendant 's disrespect for the law .
" Is there argument that Tenenbaum thought that his conduct was lawful ?
There is not .
There is , in fact , his sworn testimony that he knew that the time that it was illegal.Finally , the case that * defendant * cites states , " " While petitioner stresses the shocking disparity between the punitive award and the compensatory award , that shock dissipates when one considers the potential loss to respondents , in terms of reduced or eliminated royalties payments .
" What is the potential loss from granting a license for unlimited uncompensated distribution of all of those works ?
Tennenbaum got tagged for $ 675K and the courts routinely award 4 : 1 damages , so the relevant question here is whether the potential loss was more or less than $ 675K / 30 songs / 4 : 1 damage ratio = $ 5625/song and the answer is that such a license would clearly cost more .
A helluva lot more .
A whole helluva lot more .
And it would n't matter that others also had licenses , it would still cost a helluva lot more .
Tennenbaum is getting off dirt cheap.Despite defendant 's repeated claims that compensatory and punitive damages have similar jurisprudence , defendant 's own brief cites State Farm v. Campbell which states , " We recognized ... that in our judicial system compensatory and punitive damages ... serve different purposes .
" In case you 're not a lawyer , let me help you out : it never , ever gets clearer than that for any reason .
Defendant 's claims that the court should conflate compensatory and punitive damages are totally and unconditionally wrong at best.Defeendant argues that even if $ 5625 is dirt cheap for a license for unlimited distribution of a song worth at least</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post is long because the brief is long.First, keep in mind that RIAA doesn't write the law.
Don't hate RIAA for using laws that Disney and others bought Congresscritters to enact into law.
Hate the Congresscritters.The first basic argument is that the companies lost nothing because even if Tenenbaum had not shared the music then someone else would have.
However, the companies lose sales to illegal downloading.
There's a question of how many sales, but no question that there are lost sales.
So they suffer loss from one person making downloads available.
If only one person made the files available, they could recover their losses by suing that person.
Defendant's argument is that because many people do it, the companies cannot recover.
That's like saying that if you get beaten up then you can sue your attacker, but if you get lynched by a mob then you have no recourse.
The fact that many people are doing it... you know, if you have to read that here to learn it, you can't learn it.
Let's move on to the next point.From the brief:  “[N]umerous courts have held that assessed statutory damages should bear some relation to the actual damages suffered.”  When the Supreme Court has spoken, it makes no difference what other courts have said or how numerous they are.
The Supremes get the last word.
And here's the word:  The "excessiveness inquiry appropriately begins with an identification of the state interests that a punitive award is designed to serve.
"  Here, the interest is in deterring people from granting themselves licenses to engage in unlimited and uncompensated distribution of very valuable copyrighted works.
Such distribution not only costs the original copyright owner money but the availability of such goods depresses or destroys secondary markets and harms, for example, used CD stores.
For these and countless other reasons, the state obviously has a very large interest in deterring the conduct.They go on to say that "we do not doubt that Congress has ample authority to enact such a policy for the entire Nation.
"  They note that "evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while knowing or suspecting that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is required to cure the defendant's disrespect for the law.
"  Is there argument that Tenenbaum thought that his conduct was lawful?
There is not.
There is, in fact, his sworn testimony that he knew that the time that it was illegal.Finally, the case that *defendant* cites states, ""While petitioner stresses the shocking disparity between the punitive award and the compensatory award, that shock dissipates when one considers the potential loss to respondents, in terms of reduced or eliminated royalties payments.
"  What is the potential loss from granting a license for unlimited uncompensated distribution of all of those works?
Tennenbaum got tagged for $675K and the courts routinely award 4:1 damages, so the relevant question here is whether the potential loss was more or less than $675K / 30 songs / 4:1 damage ratio = $5625/song and the answer is that such a license would clearly cost more.
A helluva lot more.
A whole helluva lot more.
And it wouldn't matter that others also had licenses, it would still cost a helluva lot more.
Tennenbaum is getting off dirt cheap.Despite defendant's repeated claims that compensatory and punitive damages have similar jurisprudence, defendant's own brief cites State Farm v. Campbell which states, "We recognized ... that in our judicial system compensatory and punitive damages ... serve different purposes.
"  In case you're not a lawyer, let me help you out:  it never, ever gets clearer than that for any reason.
Defendant's claims that the court should conflate compensatory and punitive damages are totally and unconditionally wrong at best.Defeendant argues that even if $5625 is dirt cheap for a license for unlimited distribution of a song worth at least</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196510</id>
	<title>Re:Tenenbaum deserves to lose again</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1266612240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The first basic argument is that the companies lost nothing because even if Tenenbaum had not shared the music then someone else would have. However, the companies lose sales to illegal downloading. There's a question of how many sales, but no question that there are lost sales. So they suffer loss from one person making downloads available. If only one person made the files available, they could recover their losses by suing that person. Defendant's argument is that because many people do it, the companies cannot recover. That's like saying that if you get beaten up then you can sue your attacker, but if you get lynched by a mob then you have no recourse. The fact that many people are doing it... you know, if you have to read that here to learn it, you can't learn it. Let's move on to the next point.</p></div><p>No. The first basic argument is essentially that because Tenenbaum is not the original seeder, the works would still have been just as available whether he had shared his music folders personally or not. The "many other people are doing it" part plays off that. Here is the portion of the brief pertaining to it: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>But, the plaintiffs say, by including these songs in his share folder, Tenenbaum distributed them to millions of people, causing the record comapnies "incalculable" damages. This is completely false hyperbole. Not a single person who downloaded these songs using Kazaa would have been impeded from obtaining them had Tenenbaum blocked acess to his share folder. Tenenbaum was not a seeder of any of these songs. Whatever damage was caused by distribution of these thirty immensely popular songs on the peer-to-peer networks was caused by the initial seeders.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first basic argument is that the companies lost nothing because even if Tenenbaum had not shared the music then someone else would have .
However , the companies lose sales to illegal downloading .
There 's a question of how many sales , but no question that there are lost sales .
So they suffer loss from one person making downloads available .
If only one person made the files available , they could recover their losses by suing that person .
Defendant 's argument is that because many people do it , the companies can not recover .
That 's like saying that if you get beaten up then you can sue your attacker , but if you get lynched by a mob then you have no recourse .
The fact that many people are doing it... you know , if you have to read that here to learn it , you ca n't learn it .
Let 's move on to the next point.No .
The first basic argument is essentially that because Tenenbaum is not the original seeder , the works would still have been just as available whether he had shared his music folders personally or not .
The " many other people are doing it " part plays off that .
Here is the portion of the brief pertaining to it : But , the plaintiffs say , by including these songs in his share folder , Tenenbaum distributed them to millions of people , causing the record comapnies " incalculable " damages .
This is completely false hyperbole .
Not a single person who downloaded these songs using Kazaa would have been impeded from obtaining them had Tenenbaum blocked acess to his share folder .
Tenenbaum was not a seeder of any of these songs .
Whatever damage was caused by distribution of these thirty immensely popular songs on the peer-to-peer networks was caused by the initial seeders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first basic argument is that the companies lost nothing because even if Tenenbaum had not shared the music then someone else would have.
However, the companies lose sales to illegal downloading.
There's a question of how many sales, but no question that there are lost sales.
So they suffer loss from one person making downloads available.
If only one person made the files available, they could recover their losses by suing that person.
Defendant's argument is that because many people do it, the companies cannot recover.
That's like saying that if you get beaten up then you can sue your attacker, but if you get lynched by a mob then you have no recourse.
The fact that many people are doing it... you know, if you have to read that here to learn it, you can't learn it.
Let's move on to the next point.No.
The first basic argument is essentially that because Tenenbaum is not the original seeder, the works would still have been just as available whether he had shared his music folders personally or not.
The "many other people are doing it" part plays off that.
Here is the portion of the brief pertaining to it: But, the plaintiffs say, by including these songs in his share folder, Tenenbaum distributed them to millions of people, causing the record comapnies "incalculable" damages.
This is completely false hyperbole.
Not a single person who downloaded these songs using Kazaa would have been impeded from obtaining them had Tenenbaum blocked acess to his share folder.
Tenenbaum was not a seeder of any of these songs.
Whatever damage was caused by distribution of these thirty immensely popular songs on the peer-to-peer networks was caused by the initial seeders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31197078</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>Plekto</author>
	<datestamp>1266576360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>If it were 1.5 then it can be said that he passed it on to 1 person and half of it onto another person (and then there'd need to be discussion as to how much was lost by passing half an MP3 onto someone).</b></p><p><b><b>It is possible to configure bittorrent (as an example) to not seed at all and to limit it to 1 connection at 1kb/sec.  They don't like telling you HOW to do this, as it "isn't fair", but it's a necessary tactic for anyone who still has a modem.  Unfortunately there isn't a client that I know of where it can be turned off completely.</b></b></p><p><b><b>If you can prove that you only shared a small fraction of one file to one person, AND the amount was less than the number of seconds that would constitute "fair use"(say the amount added up to 20 seconds of music), then would it be considered distribution?  It seems like if you took this approach, you would at most be liable for one instance of infringement, which would lower the damages significantly.  You might even have a good defense against the claim of distribution, since the original laws implied mass distribution by criminal means and not giving away a single copy to someone.</b></b></p><p><b><b>I guess the moral of the story is to just not use these file sharing programs until there is a leech only option that works.  Yes, it's not "fair" to others.  So what.  If you had chose between the RIAA and a miserable seed ratio, I know what one most people would chose.  As a side note - I hate videos(NOT the same as in a theater and who has $2000+ to spend on a proper HT setup?  That's a LOT of movie tickets.  I also don't d/l or buy MP3s - the sound quality is rubbish compared to a good CD.  And used CDs are a few dollars if you know where to shop.  Why pay ITunes 99 cents a song when you can get the entire CD used for $5 or less?</b></b></p><p><b><b><a href="http://www.amoeba.com/content/blowouts.html" title="amoeba.com">http://www.amoeba.com/content/blowouts.html</a> [amoeba.com]<br>Only fools bother with any of this online minefield when real CDs are this inexpensive.</b></b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were 1.5 then it can be said that he passed it on to 1 person and half of it onto another person ( and then there 'd need to be discussion as to how much was lost by passing half an MP3 onto someone ) .It is possible to configure bittorrent ( as an example ) to not seed at all and to limit it to 1 connection at 1kb/sec .
They do n't like telling you HOW to do this , as it " is n't fair " , but it 's a necessary tactic for anyone who still has a modem .
Unfortunately there is n't a client that I know of where it can be turned off completely.If you can prove that you only shared a small fraction of one file to one person , AND the amount was less than the number of seconds that would constitute " fair use " ( say the amount added up to 20 seconds of music ) , then would it be considered distribution ?
It seems like if you took this approach , you would at most be liable for one instance of infringement , which would lower the damages significantly .
You might even have a good defense against the claim of distribution , since the original laws implied mass distribution by criminal means and not giving away a single copy to someone.I guess the moral of the story is to just not use these file sharing programs until there is a leech only option that works .
Yes , it 's not " fair " to others .
So what .
If you had chose between the RIAA and a miserable seed ratio , I know what one most people would chose .
As a side note - I hate videos ( NOT the same as in a theater and who has $ 2000 + to spend on a proper HT setup ?
That 's a LOT of movie tickets .
I also do n't d/l or buy MP3s - the sound quality is rubbish compared to a good CD .
And used CDs are a few dollars if you know where to shop .
Why pay ITunes 99 cents a song when you can get the entire CD used for $ 5 or less ? http : //www.amoeba.com/content/blowouts.html [ amoeba.com ] Only fools bother with any of this online minefield when real CDs are this inexpensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it were 1.5 then it can be said that he passed it on to 1 person and half of it onto another person (and then there'd need to be discussion as to how much was lost by passing half an MP3 onto someone).It is possible to configure bittorrent (as an example) to not seed at all and to limit it to 1 connection at 1kb/sec.
They don't like telling you HOW to do this, as it "isn't fair", but it's a necessary tactic for anyone who still has a modem.
Unfortunately there isn't a client that I know of where it can be turned off completely.If you can prove that you only shared a small fraction of one file to one person, AND the amount was less than the number of seconds that would constitute "fair use"(say the amount added up to 20 seconds of music), then would it be considered distribution?
It seems like if you took this approach, you would at most be liable for one instance of infringement, which would lower the damages significantly.
You might even have a good defense against the claim of distribution, since the original laws implied mass distribution by criminal means and not giving away a single copy to someone.I guess the moral of the story is to just not use these file sharing programs until there is a leech only option that works.
Yes, it's not "fair" to others.
So what.
If you had chose between the RIAA and a miserable seed ratio, I know what one most people would chose.
As a side note - I hate videos(NOT the same as in a theater and who has $2000+ to spend on a proper HT setup?
That's a LOT of movie tickets.
I also don't d/l or buy MP3s - the sound quality is rubbish compared to a good CD.
And used CDs are a few dollars if you know where to shop.
Why pay ITunes 99 cents a song when you can get the entire CD used for $5 or less?http://www.amoeba.com/content/blowouts.html [amoeba.com]Only fools bother with any of this online minefield when real CDs are this inexpensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31202096</id>
	<title>Re:Tenenbaum deserves to lose again</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1266608400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Tenenbaum didn't appropriate any sort of license.  If he had a license, by whatever means, it would be legal to distribute, and it wasn't.  Any testimony of his about distribution would be irrelevant.
</p><p>
What he did was illegally distribute several copies of songs.  Without a license.  Any argument about a license is irrelevant.
</p><p>
Look at it this way:  I have the right to exclude people from my property.  Now, suppose a man breaks down a fence and walks across my back yard without my permission.  Have I lost any property rights?  Should I sue the trespasser for the value of my back yard, or for the damage to the fence?  After all, other people could walk through the hole in the fence, so by your reasoning he appropriated rights over my property.
</p><p>
Also, I missed the case where Madoff was nailed for copyright violation, which is definitely not the same as fraud.  Similarities between two people, one facing criminal charges for associated illegal financial misdoings by which he appropriated tremendous amounts of money, and one facing a civil case involving illegal copying of copyrighted work, are going to be a bit strained.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tenenbaum did n't appropriate any sort of license .
If he had a license , by whatever means , it would be legal to distribute , and it was n't .
Any testimony of his about distribution would be irrelevant .
What he did was illegally distribute several copies of songs .
Without a license .
Any argument about a license is irrelevant .
Look at it this way : I have the right to exclude people from my property .
Now , suppose a man breaks down a fence and walks across my back yard without my permission .
Have I lost any property rights ?
Should I sue the trespasser for the value of my back yard , or for the damage to the fence ?
After all , other people could walk through the hole in the fence , so by your reasoning he appropriated rights over my property .
Also , I missed the case where Madoff was nailed for copyright violation , which is definitely not the same as fraud .
Similarities between two people , one facing criminal charges for associated illegal financial misdoings by which he appropriated tremendous amounts of money , and one facing a civil case involving illegal copying of copyrighted work , are going to be a bit strained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Tenenbaum didn't appropriate any sort of license.
If he had a license, by whatever means, it would be legal to distribute, and it wasn't.
Any testimony of his about distribution would be irrelevant.
What he did was illegally distribute several copies of songs.
Without a license.
Any argument about a license is irrelevant.
Look at it this way:  I have the right to exclude people from my property.
Now, suppose a man breaks down a fence and walks across my back yard without my permission.
Have I lost any property rights?
Should I sue the trespasser for the value of my back yard, or for the damage to the fence?
After all, other people could walk through the hole in the fence, so by your reasoning he appropriated rights over my property.
Also, I missed the case where Madoff was nailed for copyright violation, which is definitely not the same as fraud.
Similarities between two people, one facing criminal charges for associated illegal financial misdoings by which he appropriated tremendous amounts of money, and one facing a civil case involving illegal copying of copyrighted work, are going to be a bit strained.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195676</id>
	<title>Re:Only initial seeders liable?</title>
	<author>RIAAShill</author>
	<datestamp>1266514200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Obviously the sharers have a piece of the liability too, since if they didn't request and didn't hang around the seeders wouldn't be sharing with anyone. But that is much that same as the drug dealer and the drug user problem, or looking for who started and participated in a bar brawl. They are in a symbiotic relationship, but the "offenses" of each party are somewhat different.</p></div></blockquote><p>All this talk about who is and who should be liable has me thinking about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indemnity" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">indemnity</a> [wikipedia.org].  What would happen if someone created a new file sharing protocol in which someone downloading a file has to first agree to indemnify the individual uploading the file for any damages resulting from the distribution?  That is, the seeder, or intermediate file-sharer, refuses to distribute the file to anyone who doesn't agree to cover copyright infringement damages.  The uploading file-sharer would (automatically, of course) record the downloader's assent to those terms, the downloader's IP address, and the time of the download.</p><p>Chances are that few would be willing to participate in a file-sharing network like that.  But, if they did, it would be fascinating to watch the lawsuits that take place.  The investigation company's download of the file might prove problematic as a basis for proving distribution because of the indemnity agreement.  However, the log of downloads would be discoverable and would provide evidence of distribution (or lack thereof).  The defendant could use that log to file a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution\_claim\_(legal)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution\_claim\_(legal)</a> [wikipedia.org]&gt;contribution claim against everyone to whom the file was distributed.  If the defendant managed to identify all of the downloaders, then theoretically the defendant could have all damages covered (lawyers fees and servicing costs might be tad high though).</p><p>Of course, the copyright holder could then go after all of those identified by the original defendant.  This kind of software might seem like something that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">names names</a> [wikipedia.org].  So, I don't expect anyone to run with this idea soon.  But, I think it would have interesting consequences if something like that was developed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the sharers have a piece of the liability too , since if they did n't request and did n't hang around the seeders would n't be sharing with anyone .
But that is much that same as the drug dealer and the drug user problem , or looking for who started and participated in a bar brawl .
They are in a symbiotic relationship , but the " offenses " of each party are somewhat different.All this talk about who is and who should be liable has me thinking about indemnity [ wikipedia.org ] .
What would happen if someone created a new file sharing protocol in which someone downloading a file has to first agree to indemnify the individual uploading the file for any damages resulting from the distribution ?
That is , the seeder , or intermediate file-sharer , refuses to distribute the file to anyone who does n't agree to cover copyright infringement damages .
The uploading file-sharer would ( automatically , of course ) record the downloader 's assent to those terms , the downloader 's IP address , and the time of the download.Chances are that few would be willing to participate in a file-sharing network like that .
But , if they did , it would be fascinating to watch the lawsuits that take place .
The investigation company 's download of the file might prove problematic as a basis for proving distribution because of the indemnity agreement .
However , the log of downloads would be discoverable and would provide evidence of distribution ( or lack thereof ) .
The defendant could use that log to file a http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution \ _claim \ _ ( legal ) [ wikipedia.org ] &gt; contribution claim against everyone to whom the file was distributed .
If the defendant managed to identify all of the downloaders , then theoretically the defendant could have all damages covered ( lawyers fees and servicing costs might be tad high though ) .Of course , the copyright holder could then go after all of those identified by the original defendant .
This kind of software might seem like something that names names [ wikipedia.org ] .
So , I do n't expect anyone to run with this idea soon .
But , I think it would have interesting consequences if something like that was developed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the sharers have a piece of the liability too, since if they didn't request and didn't hang around the seeders wouldn't be sharing with anyone.
But that is much that same as the drug dealer and the drug user problem, or looking for who started and participated in a bar brawl.
They are in a symbiotic relationship, but the "offenses" of each party are somewhat different.All this talk about who is and who should be liable has me thinking about indemnity [wikipedia.org].
What would happen if someone created a new file sharing protocol in which someone downloading a file has to first agree to indemnify the individual uploading the file for any damages resulting from the distribution?
That is, the seeder, or intermediate file-sharer, refuses to distribute the file to anyone who doesn't agree to cover copyright infringement damages.
The uploading file-sharer would (automatically, of course) record the downloader's assent to those terms, the downloader's IP address, and the time of the download.Chances are that few would be willing to participate in a file-sharing network like that.
But, if they did, it would be fascinating to watch the lawsuits that take place.
The investigation company's download of the file might prove problematic as a basis for proving distribution because of the indemnity agreement.
However, the log of downloads would be discoverable and would provide evidence of distribution (or lack thereof).
The defendant could use that log to file a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution\_claim\_(legal) [wikipedia.org]&gt;contribution claim against everyone to whom the file was distributed.
If the defendant managed to identify all of the downloaders, then theoretically the defendant could have all damages covered (lawyers fees and servicing costs might be tad high though).Of course, the copyright holder could then go after all of those identified by the original defendant.
This kind of software might seem like something that names names [wikipedia.org].
So, I don't expect anyone to run with this idea soon.
But, I think it would have interesting consequences if something like that was developed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193522</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266499020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that the defendant has made an argument isn't news. Anyone can make an argument, and the amicus curiae system even allows strangers like me to submit an argument on this case to the court. When the judge decides in favor of one party or the other, that's going to be the significant event. I would give some latitude if this were a pivotal Supreme Court case, but so far it's just a filesharing trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the defendant has made an argument is n't news .
Anyone can make an argument , and the amicus curiae system even allows strangers like me to submit an argument on this case to the court .
When the judge decides in favor of one party or the other , that 's going to be the significant event .
I would give some latitude if this were a pivotal Supreme Court case , but so far it 's just a filesharing trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that the defendant has made an argument isn't news.
Anyone can make an argument, and the amicus curiae system even allows strangers like me to submit an argument on this case to the court.
When the judge decides in favor of one party or the other, that's going to be the significant event.
I would give some latitude if this were a pivotal Supreme Court case, but so far it's just a filesharing trial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195170</id>
	<title>Re:Tenenbaum deserves to lose again</title>
	<author>bmacs27</author>
	<datestamp>1266509640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not a lawyer, but what is the argument that he appropriated unto himself a license for unlimited free distribution.  Why didn't he simply appropriate unto himself a license for however many he distributed.  I think that's the gap I see in the logic.  If he had gone and stole however many physical media at a store, then handed those out, he wouldn't be getting tagged with "appropriation of a license for unlimited free distribution."  He would have been charged with however many discs he stole and distributed.  It would be just as easy for someone else to go and rip/distribute the media afterwards if its on a disc, or on the internet.  What's the difference?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a lawyer , but what is the argument that he appropriated unto himself a license for unlimited free distribution .
Why did n't he simply appropriate unto himself a license for however many he distributed .
I think that 's the gap I see in the logic .
If he had gone and stole however many physical media at a store , then handed those out , he would n't be getting tagged with " appropriation of a license for unlimited free distribution .
" He would have been charged with however many discs he stole and distributed .
It would be just as easy for someone else to go and rip/distribute the media afterwards if its on a disc , or on the internet .
What 's the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a lawyer, but what is the argument that he appropriated unto himself a license for unlimited free distribution.
Why didn't he simply appropriate unto himself a license for however many he distributed.
I think that's the gap I see in the logic.
If he had gone and stole however many physical media at a store, then handed those out, he wouldn't be getting tagged with "appropriation of a license for unlimited free distribution.
"  He would have been charged with however many discs he stole and distributed.
It would be just as easy for someone else to go and rip/distribute the media afterwards if its on a disc, or on the internet.
What's the difference?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195530</id>
	<title>Re:Tenenbaum deserves to lose again</title>
	<author>Whomp-Ass</author>
	<datestamp>1266512760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should also point out that he received no (zero) renumeration for his offhand, casual, action that he probably forgot about within several seconds of doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should also point out that he received no ( zero ) renumeration for his offhand , casual , action that he probably forgot about within several seconds of doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should also point out that he received no (zero) renumeration for his offhand, casual, action that he probably forgot about within several seconds of doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31204042</id>
	<title>Trolls?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266573660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's extremely sad to me that anyone who disagrees with the group mentality here is automatically labeled a "troll" and dismissed.  Most of all because that's exactly the sort of narrow minded unbending behavior these same people accuse other of everyday on these boards.</p><p>It's just sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's extremely sad to me that anyone who disagrees with the group mentality here is automatically labeled a " troll " and dismissed .
Most of all because that 's exactly the sort of narrow minded unbending behavior these same people accuse other of everyday on these boards.It 's just sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's extremely sad to me that anyone who disagrees with the group mentality here is automatically labeled a "troll" and dismissed.
Most of all because that's exactly the sort of narrow minded unbending behavior these same people accuse other of everyday on these boards.It's just sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194468</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266505020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on that thought then the RIAA should have rounded up all of the seeds (for a popular song that can be hundreds of thousands) and make them all liable for the damages.  on that thought, $150 k of damages for 150 k of people would be a dollar a person.  makes alot more sense.  trying to pin the whole swarm on one person is like making a small time kneebreaker responsible for the collective misdeeds of the entire mafia.</p><p>but the RIAA doesn't want real justice, they want a witch hunt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on that thought then the RIAA should have rounded up all of the seeds ( for a popular song that can be hundreds of thousands ) and make them all liable for the damages .
on that thought , $ 150 k of damages for 150 k of people would be a dollar a person .
makes alot more sense .
trying to pin the whole swarm on one person is like making a small time kneebreaker responsible for the collective misdeeds of the entire mafia.but the RIAA does n't want real justice , they want a witch hunt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on that thought then the RIAA should have rounded up all of the seeds (for a popular song that can be hundreds of thousands) and make them all liable for the damages.
on that thought, $150 k of damages for 150 k of people would be a dollar a person.
makes alot more sense.
trying to pin the whole swarm on one person is like making a small time kneebreaker responsible for the collective misdeeds of the entire mafia.but the RIAA doesn't want real justice, they want a witch hunt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194082</id>
	<title>Re:Nicely Written Brief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266502620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The high levels of deterrents are in place to deter, not to punish. Which is why the RIAA has been offering very reasonable settlements in the order of a few thousand dollars, which even most college students can borrow from their parents until they become productive members of society. And that's really the point here, the RIAA are producing content, employing people and building economic bridges around the world. Kids like Tenenbaum are tearing down those bridges and why? For a few free tracks.</p><p>People have got to stop thinking of file sharing, torrents and sharing networks as a free for all. Imagine how useful all of this sharing infrastructure would be if the RIAA hadn't been forced by circumstance to try to stop it?</p><p>It's this rampant sharing which is taring the internet a new one. Very soon, political leaders will have the tools to control free speech, an industry group funding their lobbying for the tools and a completely valid excuse to implement them. Why? Because Joel wanted to listen to the latest music industry rubbish without paying. Just throw the book at him already, he's guilty and should not be revered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The high levels of deterrents are in place to deter , not to punish .
Which is why the RIAA has been offering very reasonable settlements in the order of a few thousand dollars , which even most college students can borrow from their parents until they become productive members of society .
And that 's really the point here , the RIAA are producing content , employing people and building economic bridges around the world .
Kids like Tenenbaum are tearing down those bridges and why ?
For a few free tracks.People have got to stop thinking of file sharing , torrents and sharing networks as a free for all .
Imagine how useful all of this sharing infrastructure would be if the RIAA had n't been forced by circumstance to try to stop it ? It 's this rampant sharing which is taring the internet a new one .
Very soon , political leaders will have the tools to control free speech , an industry group funding their lobbying for the tools and a completely valid excuse to implement them .
Why ? Because Joel wanted to listen to the latest music industry rubbish without paying .
Just throw the book at him already , he 's guilty and should not be revered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The high levels of deterrents are in place to deter, not to punish.
Which is why the RIAA has been offering very reasonable settlements in the order of a few thousand dollars, which even most college students can borrow from their parents until they become productive members of society.
And that's really the point here, the RIAA are producing content, employing people and building economic bridges around the world.
Kids like Tenenbaum are tearing down those bridges and why?
For a few free tracks.People have got to stop thinking of file sharing, torrents and sharing networks as a free for all.
Imagine how useful all of this sharing infrastructure would be if the RIAA hadn't been forced by circumstance to try to stop it?It's this rampant sharing which is taring the internet a new one.
Very soon, political leaders will have the tools to control free speech, an industry group funding their lobbying for the tools and a completely valid excuse to implement them.
Why? Because Joel wanted to listen to the latest music industry rubbish without paying.
Just throw the book at him already, he's guilty and should not be revered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194378</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is dishonest</title>
	<author>zappepcs</author>
	<datestamp>1266504540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely right. There is no reasonable estimation, never mind recorded volume of distribution. It in fact could be zero. Since the chances are as likely to have been zero as to have been 150,000, there is no reason to rule to the benefit of the RIAA. That is sort of like handing out a jay-walking ticket that carries a fine of 150000 times normal in case the offender has jaywalked in the past but did not get caught. Argument about the actual damages are moot, there is no way to show what the number of downloads or distributions actually is, hence, one copy is all that can be proved... or about 35 cents per song.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely right .
There is no reasonable estimation , never mind recorded volume of distribution .
It in fact could be zero .
Since the chances are as likely to have been zero as to have been 150,000 , there is no reason to rule to the benefit of the RIAA .
That is sort of like handing out a jay-walking ticket that carries a fine of 150000 times normal in case the offender has jaywalked in the past but did not get caught .
Argument about the actual damages are moot , there is no way to show what the number of downloads or distributions actually is , hence , one copy is all that can be proved... or about 35 cents per song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely right.
There is no reasonable estimation, never mind recorded volume of distribution.
It in fact could be zero.
Since the chances are as likely to have been zero as to have been 150,000, there is no reason to rule to the benefit of the RIAA.
That is sort of like handing out a jay-walking ticket that carries a fine of 150000 times normal in case the offender has jaywalked in the past but did not get caught.
Argument about the actual damages are moot, there is no way to show what the number of downloads or distributions actually is, hence, one copy is all that can be proved... or about 35 cents per song.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194826</id>
	<title>You probably voted for this, so shut up!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266507120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People somehow seems not to connect who they vote for and what laws get threaded down over their head. You voted for the party (fill in republican *or* democrats) that promised to do this. Now they hired a bunch of RIAA lawyers to work in the justice department, and they file briefs in support of the RIAA. You watched the election where a lot of musicians, movie stars and attorneys donated a lot of money to the campaign, and were invited to the inauguration.</p><p>If you are upset the laws awards the RIAA with $150.000 if you breach their copyright on a $0.35 product, just shut up and kick your own ass. You are to blame.</p><p>Wake up and press the red button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People somehow seems not to connect who they vote for and what laws get threaded down over their head .
You voted for the party ( fill in republican * or * democrats ) that promised to do this .
Now they hired a bunch of RIAA lawyers to work in the justice department , and they file briefs in support of the RIAA .
You watched the election where a lot of musicians , movie stars and attorneys donated a lot of money to the campaign , and were invited to the inauguration.If you are upset the laws awards the RIAA with $ 150.000 if you breach their copyright on a $ 0.35 product , just shut up and kick your own ass .
You are to blame.Wake up and press the red button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People somehow seems not to connect who they vote for and what laws get threaded down over their head.
You voted for the party (fill in republican *or* democrats) that promised to do this.
Now they hired a bunch of RIAA lawyers to work in the justice department, and they file briefs in support of the RIAA.
You watched the election where a lot of musicians, movie stars and attorneys donated a lot of money to the campaign, and were invited to the inauguration.If you are upset the laws awards the RIAA with $150.000 if you breach their copyright on a $0.35 product, just shut up and kick your own ass.
You are to blame.Wake up and press the red button.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31198724</id>
	<title>Re:441,000 times for statutory damages precedent!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266592500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but doesn't the actual knowledge of the damages rely upon the RIAA's membership being honest with what a digital copy of the music costs?  I don't recall that the RIAA has been forthcoming on the subject of actual damages.  I think that the upper limit of the cost could be estimated to be no more than $1.00 as itunes sells many songs at that value.  But the RIAA could argue that songs are sold on itunes at a loss in order to advertise - or something similar.  Without the RIAA membership providing the actual figures the facts of actual damages will be difficult to present.  Anything that is not the actual fact is speculation and probably isn't admissible as evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but does n't the actual knowledge of the damages rely upon the RIAA 's membership being honest with what a digital copy of the music costs ?
I do n't recall that the RIAA has been forthcoming on the subject of actual damages .
I think that the upper limit of the cost could be estimated to be no more than $ 1.00 as itunes sells many songs at that value .
But the RIAA could argue that songs are sold on itunes at a loss in order to advertise - or something similar .
Without the RIAA membership providing the actual figures the facts of actual damages will be difficult to present .
Anything that is not the actual fact is speculation and probably is n't admissible as evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but doesn't the actual knowledge of the damages rely upon the RIAA's membership being honest with what a digital copy of the music costs?
I don't recall that the RIAA has been forthcoming on the subject of actual damages.
I think that the upper limit of the cost could be estimated to be no more than $1.00 as itunes sells many songs at that value.
But the RIAA could argue that songs are sold on itunes at a loss in order to advertise - or something similar.
Without the RIAA membership providing the actual figures the facts of actual damages will be difficult to present.
Anything that is not the actual fact is speculation and probably isn't admissible as evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193462</id>
	<title>441,000 times for statutory damages precedent!</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1266498720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe every court should use this as a precedent.  Four hundred forty one thousand times the actual damages should be the statutory award.  That makes total sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe every court should use this as a precedent .
Four hundred forty one thousand times the actual damages should be the statutory award .
That makes total sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe every court should use this as a precedent.
Four hundred forty one thousand times the actual damages should be the statutory award.
That makes total sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194962</id>
	<title>Re:Tenenbaum deserves to lose again</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1266508200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First, keep in mind that RIAA doesn't write the law. Don't hate RIAA for using laws that Disney and others bought Congresscritters to enact into law. Hate the Congresscritters.</i></p><p>First, keep in mind that John Doe doesn't make the guns. Don't hate John Doe for using gunss that Disney and others bought Congresscritters to make. Hate the Congresscritters.</p><p>Using a tool, any tool in an immoral manner makes the user immoral. Does not matter if it is a gun a law or a hammer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , keep in mind that RIAA does n't write the law .
Do n't hate RIAA for using laws that Disney and others bought Congresscritters to enact into law .
Hate the Congresscritters.First , keep in mind that John Doe does n't make the guns .
Do n't hate John Doe for using gunss that Disney and others bought Congresscritters to make .
Hate the Congresscritters.Using a tool , any tool in an immoral manner makes the user immoral .
Does not matter if it is a gun a law or a hammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, keep in mind that RIAA doesn't write the law.
Don't hate RIAA for using laws that Disney and others bought Congresscritters to enact into law.
Hate the Congresscritters.First, keep in mind that John Doe doesn't make the guns.
Don't hate John Doe for using gunss that Disney and others bought Congresscritters to make.
Hate the Congresscritters.Using a tool, any tool in an immoral manner makes the user immoral.
Does not matter if it is a gun a law or a hammer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31200080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31198160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31201280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31197078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31202216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31202096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31197314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31206438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31198724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31208742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31197350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31199782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_2344239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31202428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31197350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31197078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31208742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31198724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31206438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31198160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31199782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31202216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31201280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194836
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31200080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31197314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31193850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31202096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31195530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31199092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31198764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31194826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_2344239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_2344239.31196288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
