<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_0133240</id>
	<title>EU Privacy Chief Says ACTA Violates European Law</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266930480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, has issued a 20-page opinion <a href="http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2010/10-02-22\_ACTA\_EN.pdf">expressing concern about ACTA</a> (PDF). Michael Geist's <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4809/125/">summary of the opinion</a> notes that it concludes that the prospect of a three-strikes and you're out system may violate European privacy law, that the possibility of cross-border enforcement raises serious privacy issues, and that ACTA transparency is needed now."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Peter Hustinx , the European Data Protection Supervisor , has issued a 20-page opinion expressing concern about ACTA ( PDF ) .
Michael Geist 's summary of the opinion notes that it concludes that the prospect of a three-strikes and you 're out system may violate European privacy law , that the possibility of cross-border enforcement raises serious privacy issues , and that ACTA transparency is needed now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, has issued a 20-page opinion expressing concern about ACTA (PDF).
Michael Geist's summary of the opinion notes that it concludes that the prospect of a three-strikes and you're out system may violate European privacy law, that the possibility of cross-border enforcement raises serious privacy issues, and that ACTA transparency is needed now.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248812</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>mattsday</author>
	<datestamp>1266957300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>That's great. How do you propose we go about it? Just sitting around in a Facebook group bitching won't accomplish anything.</i> </p><p>It influenced the Christmas Number 1 in the UK massively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great .
How do you propose we go about it ?
Just sitting around in a Facebook group bitching wo n't accomplish anything .
It influenced the Christmas Number 1 in the UK massively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's great.
How do you propose we go about it?
Just sitting around in a Facebook group bitching won't accomplish anything.
It influenced the Christmas Number 1 in the UK massively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245582</id>
	<title>he knows enough</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1266946380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he knows a few items like 3 strikes, mandatory isp policing and surveillance and sentencing, and these all conflict with fundamental laws, not only in eu, but also international. human rights declaration, geneva convention, free speech principles. and he speaks on those.</p><p>if you dont know enough about europe, these laws and rules are fundamental to everything in eu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he knows a few items like 3 strikes , mandatory isp policing and surveillance and sentencing , and these all conflict with fundamental laws , not only in eu , but also international .
human rights declaration , geneva convention , free speech principles .
and he speaks on those.if you dont know enough about europe , these laws and rules are fundamental to everything in eu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he knows a few items like 3 strikes, mandatory isp policing and surveillance and sentencing, and these all conflict with fundamental laws, not only in eu, but also international.
human rights declaration, geneva convention, free speech principles.
and he speaks on those.if you dont know enough about europe, these laws and rules are fundamental to everything in eu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244532</id>
	<title>Something is wrong here...</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1266940740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't the minister of privacy supposed to spy on you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't the minister of privacy supposed to spy on you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't the minister of privacy supposed to spy on you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244614</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>derekg52</author>
	<datestamp>1266941160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's nice to see someone who didn't drink the US govt koolaid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to see someone who did n't drink the US govt koolaid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to see someone who didn't drink the US govt koolaid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244212</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1266939180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Not really. The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it's justified as "being tough on crooks".<br></i></p><p>Like how we manipulated Mexico and Central America to be our battlegrounds in our "War On Drugs?" Smooth move! One would think Europeans would be too smart to fall for this though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it 's justified as " being tough on crooks " .Like how we manipulated Mexico and Central America to be our battlegrounds in our " War On Drugs ?
" Smooth move !
One would think Europeans would be too smart to fall for this though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it's justified as "being tough on crooks".Like how we manipulated Mexico and Central America to be our battlegrounds in our "War On Drugs?
" Smooth move!
One would think Europeans would be too smart to fall for this though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31257744</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1265114640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lower prices to 10c / song and I'll immediately spend $200.</p></div></blockquote><p>I never did understand the logic of that. What is it that would encourage you to spend $200 for 2000 somethings that you don't need, when you wouldn't spend the $200 for one of those things that you don't need.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lower prices to 10c / song and I 'll immediately spend $ 200.I never did understand the logic of that .
What is it that would encourage you to spend $ 200 for 2000 somethings that you do n't need , when you would n't spend the $ 200 for one of those things that you do n't need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lower prices to 10c / song and I'll immediately spend $200.I never did understand the logic of that.
What is it that would encourage you to spend $200 for 2000 somethings that you don't need, when you wouldn't spend the $200 for one of those things that you don't need.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31247874</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1266954240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always wondered when (sadly not if) this is implemented, will we unwashed masses be allowed to file three baseless, unprovable counts of piracy against all the members of the MAFIAA, their famlies, their lawyers, their lawyers' familes, and every spinless lagdog politician that lied down for this?  Or are automatic exemptions already built-in to ACTA for this ruling class?<br> <br>And when we are booted off the net in perpetuity by falsified 3-strikes with no allowance to face our accusers, does Big Media really think any of us will buy or rent any song, movie, or TV show ever again?  What are those quarterly statements going to start to look like?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered when ( sadly not if ) this is implemented , will we unwashed masses be allowed to file three baseless , unprovable counts of piracy against all the members of the MAFIAA , their famlies , their lawyers , their lawyers ' familes , and every spinless lagdog politician that lied down for this ?
Or are automatic exemptions already built-in to ACTA for this ruling class ?
And when we are booted off the net in perpetuity by falsified 3-strikes with no allowance to face our accusers , does Big Media really think any of us will buy or rent any song , movie , or TV show ever again ?
What are those quarterly statements going to start to look like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered when (sadly not if) this is implemented, will we unwashed masses be allowed to file three baseless, unprovable counts of piracy against all the members of the MAFIAA, their famlies, their lawyers, their lawyers' familes, and every spinless lagdog politician that lied down for this?
Or are automatic exemptions already built-in to ACTA for this ruling class?
And when we are booted off the net in perpetuity by falsified 3-strikes with no allowance to face our accusers, does Big Media really think any of us will buy or rent any song, movie, or TV show ever again?
What are those quarterly statements going to start to look like?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243492</id>
	<title>Probably</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266934920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> it concludes that the prospect of a three-strikes and you're out system may violate European privacy law</p></div><p>I reckon that y'all aint even playin baseball 'cross the pond, so three strikes seems plum-tuckered out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it concludes that the prospect of a three-strikes and you 're out system may violate European privacy lawI reckon that y'all aint even playin baseball 'cross the pond , so three strikes seems plum-tuckered out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it concludes that the prospect of a three-strikes and you're out system may violate European privacy lawI reckon that y'all aint even playin baseball 'cross the pond, so three strikes seems plum-tuckered out.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245716</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1266946920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>after reading a bit of his "opinion" piece (written way more formally than any opinion piece I've read)</i></p><p>That will be because it is his opinion as the European Data Protection Supervisor; he is not just speaking personally, he is speaking in his official capacity. That rather requires a certain degree of formality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after reading a bit of his " opinion " piece ( written way more formally than any opinion piece I 've read ) That will be because it is his opinion as the European Data Protection Supervisor ; he is not just speaking personally , he is speaking in his official capacity .
That rather requires a certain degree of formality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after reading a bit of his "opinion" piece (written way more formally than any opinion piece I've read)That will be because it is his opinion as the European Data Protection Supervisor; he is not just speaking personally, he is speaking in his official capacity.
That rather requires a certain degree of formality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244856</id>
	<title>Re:Secret laws are illegal anyway</title>
	<author>afc\_wimbledon</author>
	<datestamp>1266942600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Those laws of course will be public.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Not entirely the case in the UK.  The proposed law that is going through parliament gives the relevant minister the right to change the scope and penalties in the future without coming back to parliament.  So no, we (and more to the point, our representatives, when the vote for it) <b>won't</b> know what the law will be in the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those laws of course will be public .
Not entirely the case in the UK .
The proposed law that is going through parliament gives the relevant minister the right to change the scope and penalties in the future without coming back to parliament .
So no , we ( and more to the point , our representatives , when the vote for it ) wo n't know what the law will be in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those laws of course will be public.
Not entirely the case in the UK.
The proposed law that is going through parliament gives the relevant minister the right to change the scope and penalties in the future without coming back to parliament.
So no, we (and more to the point, our representatives, when the vote for it) won't know what the law will be in the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245528</id>
	<title>Yay</title>
	<author>Uranium-238</author>
	<datestamp>1266946140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>an official that finally realises that ACTA is f**king rediculous and should never ever happen. This sort of restores my faith in politicians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>an official that finally realises that ACTA is f * * king rediculous and should never ever happen .
This sort of restores my faith in politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an official that finally realises that ACTA is f**king rediculous and should never ever happen.
This sort of restores my faith in politicians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244092</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266938640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or more importantly, with the one sided extradition treaty between the UK and USA running, can I be extradited to East Texas and put on a chain gang for breaking some cock-eyed patent claim filed over there? Once they make breaking software patents a criminal offense, patent trolls will be able to have any programmer on the planet that annoys them locked up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or more importantly , with the one sided extradition treaty between the UK and USA running , can I be extradited to East Texas and put on a chain gang for breaking some cock-eyed patent claim filed over there ?
Once they make breaking software patents a criminal offense , patent trolls will be able to have any programmer on the planet that annoys them locked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or more importantly, with the one sided extradition treaty between the UK and USA running, can I be extradited to East Texas and put on a chain gang for breaking some cock-eyed patent claim filed over there?
Once they make breaking software patents a criminal offense, patent trolls will be able to have any programmer on the planet that annoys them locked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414</id>
	<title>Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1266934440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the points he makes, which is a good one, is that data-sharing for enforcement purposes among countries that have different criminal punishments for copyright law is hard to justify.  It also makes me wonder if--for example--I live in a country with fair use and a country with more stringent fair use policies wants to go after me for copyright infringement... well, you see the issues.  Will the country with the most stringent policies suddenly be the equivalent of the patent troll district in Texas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the points he makes , which is a good one , is that data-sharing for enforcement purposes among countries that have different criminal punishments for copyright law is hard to justify .
It also makes me wonder if--for example--I live in a country with fair use and a country with more stringent fair use policies wants to go after me for copyright infringement... well , you see the issues .
Will the country with the most stringent policies suddenly be the equivalent of the patent troll district in Texas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the points he makes, which is a good one, is that data-sharing for enforcement purposes among countries that have different criminal punishments for copyright law is hard to justify.
It also makes me wonder if--for example--I live in a country with fair use and a country with more stringent fair use policies wants to go after me for copyright infringement... well, you see the issues.
Will the country with the most stringent policies suddenly be the equivalent of the patent troll district in Texas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244172</id>
	<title>baseball analogies...</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1266939000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3 Strikes and your out!</p><p>Um, thats out for that time at bat.  Not out of the game.</p><p>So if I was the baseball commission, i'd sue over the improper use of the term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 Strikes and your out ! Um , thats out for that time at bat .
Not out of the game.So if I was the baseball commission , i 'd sue over the improper use of the term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 Strikes and your out!Um, thats out for that time at bat.
Not out of the game.So if I was the baseball commission, i'd sue over the improper use of the term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248648</id>
	<title>Re:No Kiddin'</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266956880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not Antarctica! We&rsquo;re way too cool for that shit! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Antarctica !
We    re way too cool for that shit !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Antarctica!
We’re way too cool for that shit!
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31246754</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1266950340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think he is thinking of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne\_Convention\_for\_the\_Protection\_of\_Literary\_and\_Artistic\_Works" title="wikipedia.org">Berne convention</a> [wikipedia.org], since this discussion is <em>supposed</em> to be about copyright law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he is thinking of the Berne convention [ wikipedia.org ] , since this discussion is supposed to be about copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he is thinking of the Berne convention [wikipedia.org], since this discussion is supposed to be about copyright law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248630</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1266956820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU seems to be acting a lot like early America IMO - highly resistant to interstate power sharing. Give 'em a couple of hundred years and the bad guys will beat 'em down to as bad as the States or worse.</p><p>As for bands handling copyright infringement themselves, a major problem for the labels is that a lot of bands simply don't care or actually like it. You've heard of big bands like Metallica going off and suing people, but how often do you see indie bands with a few thousand fans doing it? Most of the guys got screwed on their record contract and make their money on touring so they don't give a shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU seems to be acting a lot like early America IMO - highly resistant to interstate power sharing .
Give 'em a couple of hundred years and the bad guys will beat 'em down to as bad as the States or worse.As for bands handling copyright infringement themselves , a major problem for the labels is that a lot of bands simply do n't care or actually like it .
You 've heard of big bands like Metallica going off and suing people , but how often do you see indie bands with a few thousand fans doing it ?
Most of the guys got screwed on their record contract and make their money on touring so they do n't give a shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU seems to be acting a lot like early America IMO - highly resistant to interstate power sharing.
Give 'em a couple of hundred years and the bad guys will beat 'em down to as bad as the States or worse.As for bands handling copyright infringement themselves, a major problem for the labels is that a lot of bands simply don't care or actually like it.
You've heard of big bands like Metallica going off and suing people, but how often do you see indie bands with a few thousand fans doing it?
Most of the guys got screwed on their record contract and make their money on touring so they don't give a shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243722</id>
	<title>Re:Secret laws are illegal anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but treaties seem to be a way around this.  Governments don't need public approval for treaties.  The treaties just obligate them to make appropriate laws. The public can have input into the laws after the treaty is signed but have considerably less say over it.  <br> <br>
Of course, the US (presumably other countries) often avoids treaty obligations because the constitution makes it impossible to write laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but treaties seem to be a way around this .
Governments do n't need public approval for treaties .
The treaties just obligate them to make appropriate laws .
The public can have input into the laws after the treaty is signed but have considerably less say over it .
Of course , the US ( presumably other countries ) often avoids treaty obligations because the constitution makes it impossible to write laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but treaties seem to be a way around this.
Governments don't need public approval for treaties.
The treaties just obligate them to make appropriate laws.
The public can have input into the laws after the treaty is signed but have considerably less say over it.
Of course, the US (presumably other countries) often avoids treaty obligations because the constitution makes it impossible to write laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243768</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266936900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>it seems that without reading the full extent of ACTA he is dead set against it.</i></p><p>How is one supposed to read the full extent of a paper that is not only secret but unfinished? How about this:</p><ol> <li>We are for the legalization of rape</li><li>We support the use of undocumented aliens</li><li>We support wages of one dollar per hour</li></ol><p> <i>(rest of list redacted)</i><br>How can I be against this list when I've only seen three items?</p><p>If what you see of a list is 100\% evil, it is fair to assume that not only is the rest of the list evil, but so are the people writing the list.</p><p>The very fact that MNOs are writing laws for the world's governments puts ME squarely against it, even if they're supporting sunshine and flowers. NOTHING matters to an MNO except profits; they are amoral and nonsocial. They do not care about human rights, only profits, and any politician in any country that supportst this travesty should be voted out of office.</p><p><i> will say that my representative and senators had better damn well represent the majority of the population and I hope that majority is with me on this. </i></p><p>I agree completely. But even if the majority of my state's voters are for inhumane copyright legislation, I personally will vote against any politician that votes for it.</p><p>The corporations have too much power; they should have none at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it seems that without reading the full extent of ACTA he is dead set against it.How is one supposed to read the full extent of a paper that is not only secret but unfinished ?
How about this : We are for the legalization of rapeWe support the use of undocumented aliensWe support wages of one dollar per hour ( rest of list redacted ) How can I be against this list when I 've only seen three items ? If what you see of a list is 100 \ % evil , it is fair to assume that not only is the rest of the list evil , but so are the people writing the list.The very fact that MNOs are writing laws for the world 's governments puts ME squarely against it , even if they 're supporting sunshine and flowers .
NOTHING matters to an MNO except profits ; they are amoral and nonsocial .
They do not care about human rights , only profits , and any politician in any country that supportst this travesty should be voted out of office .
will say that my representative and senators had better damn well represent the majority of the population and I hope that majority is with me on this .
I agree completely .
But even if the majority of my state 's voters are for inhumane copyright legislation , I personally will vote against any politician that votes for it.The corporations have too much power ; they should have none at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it seems that without reading the full extent of ACTA he is dead set against it.How is one supposed to read the full extent of a paper that is not only secret but unfinished?
How about this: We are for the legalization of rapeWe support the use of undocumented aliensWe support wages of one dollar per hour (rest of list redacted)How can I be against this list when I've only seen three items?If what you see of a list is 100\% evil, it is fair to assume that not only is the rest of the list evil, but so are the people writing the list.The very fact that MNOs are writing laws for the world's governments puts ME squarely against it, even if they're supporting sunshine and flowers.
NOTHING matters to an MNO except profits; they are amoral and nonsocial.
They do not care about human rights, only profits, and any politician in any country that supportst this travesty should be voted out of office.
will say that my representative and senators had better damn well represent the majority of the population and I hope that majority is with me on this.
I agree completely.
But even if the majority of my state's voters are for inhumane copyright legislation, I personally will vote against any politician that votes for it.The corporations have too much power; they should have none at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244090</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>alecwood</author>
	<datestamp>1266938640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I agree with the guy, and he holds a powerful position within the EU, but in reality it's not that powerful in comparison to the collective interests of the US government, the RIAA, MPAA etc</p><p>Representatives and Senators will keep big business happy, that's who puts the dollars in their campaign funds after all.
</p><p>It's probable that it'll just be like all the rest of the recent "international" laws - there'll be safeguards to ensure no US citizens have to answer to any non-US IP holder, while US IP holders get free reign to stomp all over the rest of us in a similar fashion to how the USA doesn't hand over suspects wanted in other countries but on pain of sanction and embargo demands we all hand our citizens over to them without due process in their country of origin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I agree with the guy , and he holds a powerful position within the EU , but in reality it 's not that powerful in comparison to the collective interests of the US government , the RIAA , MPAA etcRepresentatives and Senators will keep big business happy , that 's who puts the dollars in their campaign funds after all .
It 's probable that it 'll just be like all the rest of the recent " international " laws - there 'll be safeguards to ensure no US citizens have to answer to any non-US IP holder , while US IP holders get free reign to stomp all over the rest of us in a similar fashion to how the USA does n't hand over suspects wanted in other countries but on pain of sanction and embargo demands we all hand our citizens over to them without due process in their country of origin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I agree with the guy, and he holds a powerful position within the EU, but in reality it's not that powerful in comparison to the collective interests of the US government, the RIAA, MPAA etcRepresentatives and Senators will keep big business happy, that's who puts the dollars in their campaign funds after all.
It's probable that it'll just be like all the rest of the recent "international" laws - there'll be safeguards to ensure no US citizens have to answer to any non-US IP holder, while US IP holders get free reign to stomp all over the rest of us in a similar fashion to how the USA doesn't hand over suspects wanted in other countries but on pain of sanction and embargo demands we all hand our citizens over to them without due process in their country of origin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243932</id>
	<title>Does any of this matter?</title>
	<author>bornagainpenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1266937800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're all serfs any way.</p><p>--bornagainpenguin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all serfs any way.--bornagainpenguin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all serfs any way.--bornagainpenguin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243744</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Without even reading all of it,</p></div></blockquote><p>No one needs to read a whole document once you find one illegality. Just that one makes the whole document illegal. No need to read further.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without even reading all of it,No one needs to read a whole document once you find one illegality .
Just that one makes the whole document illegal .
No need to read further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without even reading all of it,No one needs to read a whole document once you find one illegality.
Just that one makes the whole document illegal.
No need to read further.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31250338</id>
	<title>Obliged, not obligated.</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1266919560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lameness filter fna fna fna fna fna</htmltext>
<tokenext>lameness filter fna fna fna fna fna</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lameness filter fna fna fna fna fna</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244540</id>
	<title>No Kiddin'</title>
	<author>epp\_b</author>
	<datestamp>1266940800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure it violates law in pretty well every continent where it's planned to be implemented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure it violates law in pretty well every continent where it 's planned to be implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure it violates law in pretty well every continent where it's planned to be implemented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244920</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1266942960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.</p> </div><p>With 5m members willing to vote, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Parliament\_election,\_1999\_(United\_Kingdom)" title="wikipedia.org">you could get more seats in European Parliament than Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, and the Green Party <b>combined</b> </a> [wikipedia.org] Many more than the Conservatives hold by themselves, and the same as Labour and Conservative together.<br> <br>I believe you with your 5m people making a difference, but a facebook group isn't the way. Get <b>voters</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA .
With 5m members willing to vote , you could get more seats in European Parliament than Labour , Liberal Democrats , UKIP , and the Green Party combined [ wikipedia.org ] Many more than the Conservatives hold by themselves , and the same as Labour and Conservative together .
I believe you with your 5m people making a difference , but a facebook group is n't the way .
Get voters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.
With 5m members willing to vote, you could get more seats in European Parliament than Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, and the Green Party combined  [wikipedia.org] Many more than the Conservatives hold by themselves, and the same as Labour and Conservative together.
I believe you with your 5m people making a difference, but a facebook group isn't the way.
Get voters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244476</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1266940440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hopefully EU non-participation can be some kind of dealbreaker. but who knows, the other parties in the ACTA talks might go ahead without the EU and then attempt embargoes against the and things like that against the EU after passing ACTA.</p><p>that or maybe the ACTA committees will water down certain parts to assuage the EU, getting it passed with certain "understandings" for EU nations. let's hope not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hopefully EU non-participation can be some kind of dealbreaker .
but who knows , the other parties in the ACTA talks might go ahead without the EU and then attempt embargoes against the and things like that against the EU after passing ACTA.that or maybe the ACTA committees will water down certain parts to assuage the EU , getting it passed with certain " understandings " for EU nations .
let 's hope not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hopefully EU non-participation can be some kind of dealbreaker.
but who knows, the other parties in the ACTA talks might go ahead without the EU and then attempt embargoes against the and things like that against the EU after passing ACTA.that or maybe the ACTA committees will water down certain parts to assuage the EU, getting it passed with certain "understandings" for EU nations.
let's hope not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248194</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>ubercam</author>
	<datestamp>1266955500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Further, most countries have laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters, such as to protect against collective punishment, which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.</p></div><p>Sucks to be the guy who lives alone I guess...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , most countries have laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters , such as to protect against collective punishment , which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.Sucks to be the guy who lives alone I guess.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, most countries have laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters, such as to protect against collective punishment, which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.Sucks to be the guy who lives alone I guess...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244160</id>
	<title>Network 23?</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1266939000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all starting to remind me of "Max Headroom"--that circa 1980s TV show that featured a gigitize floating head in a world that was basically run by major corporations.  The corporations had control of everything, including the media.<br> <br>One interesting point of trivia regarding the show, which ran on ABC: the primary antagonist, Network 23, was a direct slam against one of ABC's primary rivals.  Take the first letter of "Network" (N), and then the "23" actually represented the second and third letters of the alphabet (BC).  Put it together and you see the alleged future villian: Network 23 == NBC!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all starting to remind me of " Max Headroom " --that circa 1980s TV show that featured a gigitize floating head in a world that was basically run by major corporations .
The corporations had control of everything , including the media .
One interesting point of trivia regarding the show , which ran on ABC : the primary antagonist , Network 23 , was a direct slam against one of ABC 's primary rivals .
Take the first letter of " Network " ( N ) , and then the " 23 " actually represented the second and third letters of the alphabet ( BC ) .
Put it together and you see the alleged future villian : Network 23 = = NBC !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all starting to remind me of "Max Headroom"--that circa 1980s TV show that featured a gigitize floating head in a world that was basically run by major corporations.
The corporations had control of everything, including the media.
One interesting point of trivia regarding the show, which ran on ABC: the primary antagonist, Network 23, was a direct slam against one of ABC's primary rivals.
Take the first letter of "Network" (N), and then the "23" actually represented the second and third letters of the alphabet (BC).
Put it together and you see the alleged future villian: Network 23 == NBC!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31246776</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1266950400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I recall correctly, currently the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office\_of\_the\_United\_States\_Trade\_Representative" title="wikipedia.org">US Trade Representative</a> [wikipedia.org] is acting as the United States representative* to the ACTA talks (officially). That said, you can find the office of the US Trade Rep <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/" title="ustr.gov">here</a> [ustr.gov]. Currently, the man serving on that post is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron\_Kirk" title="wikipedia.org">Ron Kirk</a> [wikipedia.org]. You can find contact information for the USTR <a href="http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/contact-us" title="ustr.gov">here</a> [ustr.gov]. A further Google search for, "US ACTA representative," turns up <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=US+ACTA+representative&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.com">these results</a> [google.com], the first of which appears to be a boingboing site requesting public input regarding ACTA (I cannot confirm this as I cannot access boingboing from work).
<br> <br>
That should get you started. If you want more information, I suggest using Google and improving your Google-Fu friend. The intrawebz are your friend<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
<br> <br>
*: I am making the assumption that you are a United States citizen. This, of course, is based on absolutely no facts, as you have revealed nothing regarding your nationality. If you are not from the US, you can still probably use Google and Wikipedia to do your own search regarding your ACTA representatives. Say what you will that such an assumption is based on hedonism and/or nationalism, but I have nothing better to go off as you have revealed no information regarding the country of your residence/origin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , currently the US Trade Representative [ wikipedia.org ] is acting as the United States representative * to the ACTA talks ( officially ) .
That said , you can find the office of the US Trade Rep here [ ustr.gov ] .
Currently , the man serving on that post is Ron Kirk [ wikipedia.org ] .
You can find contact information for the USTR here [ ustr.gov ] .
A further Google search for , " US ACTA representative , " turns up these results [ google.com ] , the first of which appears to be a boingboing site requesting public input regarding ACTA ( I can not confirm this as I can not access boingboing from work ) .
That should get you started .
If you want more information , I suggest using Google and improving your Google-Fu friend .
The intrawebz are your friend ; ) * : I am making the assumption that you are a United States citizen .
This , of course , is based on absolutely no facts , as you have revealed nothing regarding your nationality .
If you are not from the US , you can still probably use Google and Wikipedia to do your own search regarding your ACTA representatives .
Say what you will that such an assumption is based on hedonism and/or nationalism , but I have nothing better to go off as you have revealed no information regarding the country of your residence/origin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, currently the US Trade Representative [wikipedia.org] is acting as the United States representative* to the ACTA talks (officially).
That said, you can find the office of the US Trade Rep here [ustr.gov].
Currently, the man serving on that post is Ron Kirk [wikipedia.org].
You can find contact information for the USTR here [ustr.gov].
A further Google search for, "US ACTA representative," turns up these results [google.com], the first of which appears to be a boingboing site requesting public input regarding ACTA (I cannot confirm this as I cannot access boingboing from work).
That should get you started.
If you want more information, I suggest using Google and improving your Google-Fu friend.
The intrawebz are your friend ;)
 
*: I am making the assumption that you are a United States citizen.
This, of course, is based on absolutely no facts, as you have revealed nothing regarding your nationality.
If you are not from the US, you can still probably use Google and Wikipedia to do your own search regarding your ACTA representatives.
Say what you will that such an assumption is based on hedonism and/or nationalism, but I have nothing better to go off as you have revealed no information regarding the country of your residence/origin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244134</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266938820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Further, if any U.N. police show up on my doorstep or anyone representing the laws of another country for the purpose of enforcement, they will leave horizontally. Any legislation leading to this event make its practitioners subject to revolt as implied by second amendment rights. This ACTA bullshit is not very well thought out.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; With the antics brought about in this 4 years, I predict the next major election will be quite disappointing for both Democrat and Republican parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , if any U.N. police show up on my doorstep or anyone representing the laws of another country for the purpose of enforcement , they will leave horizontally .
Any legislation leading to this event make its practitioners subject to revolt as implied by second amendment rights .
This ACTA bullshit is not very well thought out .
          With the antics brought about in this 4 years , I predict the next major election will be quite disappointing for both Democrat and Republican parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, if any U.N. police show up on my doorstep or anyone representing the laws of another country for the purpose of enforcement, they will leave horizontally.
Any legislation leading to this event make its practitioners subject to revolt as implied by second amendment rights.
This ACTA bullshit is not very well thought out.
          With the antics brought about in this 4 years, I predict the next major election will be quite disappointing for both Democrat and Republican parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243668</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But this is the problem. We've got these top secret negotations that are clearly secret, because there will be massive opposition to them, (else there'd be no reason to keep them secret) and the hope is that they can slip these laws into each country without the populace even noticing. If even half the law makers aren't party to the negotiations they can only go by what is available.</p><p>These sorts of laws like 3-strikes really do breach the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also specifically in terms of the right to fair trial, and the reasonable right to privacy. Further, most countries have laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters, such as to protect against collective punishment, which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.</p><p>So we've got this situation where governments are trying to pass these laws regardless, even though they are clearly in conflict with existing, more fundamental laws. In Europe, this has happened repeatedly this last decade with the likes of the British government's DNA database storing DNA of the innocent and so forth, and the end result is always the same - the law gets deemed illegal in itself by the European Court of Human Rights and change has to happen, or governments will face penalty, but in the meantime it is citizens who have to deal with all the shit.</p><p>So regardless of whether this guy is right or wrong, it doesn't really matter, he's making comments based on what he does know, and that's really key, because if at least he can make the point heard that it's about time they start thinking of the consequences and repercussions of the laws, and whether they are legal BEFORE they implement them, then that's a good thing. I don't however, hold much faith, because those passing such laws seem to do so on the hope that no one will notice said laws have been passed- but we do notice, because we're the ones they potentially effect.</p><p>Good on him for making the point regardless, they need to know that we are listening, we do know about it, and that these laws will end up just being shot down by the courts anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But this is the problem .
We 've got these top secret negotations that are clearly secret , because there will be massive opposition to them , ( else there 'd be no reason to keep them secret ) and the hope is that they can slip these laws into each country without the populace even noticing .
If even half the law makers are n't party to the negotiations they can only go by what is available.These sorts of laws like 3-strikes really do breach the European Convention on Human Rights , and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also specifically in terms of the right to fair trial , and the reasonable right to privacy .
Further , most countries have laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters , such as to protect against collective punishment , which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.So we 've got this situation where governments are trying to pass these laws regardless , even though they are clearly in conflict with existing , more fundamental laws .
In Europe , this has happened repeatedly this last decade with the likes of the British government 's DNA database storing DNA of the innocent and so forth , and the end result is always the same - the law gets deemed illegal in itself by the European Court of Human Rights and change has to happen , or governments will face penalty , but in the meantime it is citizens who have to deal with all the shit.So regardless of whether this guy is right or wrong , it does n't really matter , he 's making comments based on what he does know , and that 's really key , because if at least he can make the point heard that it 's about time they start thinking of the consequences and repercussions of the laws , and whether they are legal BEFORE they implement them , then that 's a good thing .
I do n't however , hold much faith , because those passing such laws seem to do so on the hope that no one will notice said laws have been passed- but we do notice , because we 're the ones they potentially effect.Good on him for making the point regardless , they need to know that we are listening , we do know about it , and that these laws will end up just being shot down by the courts anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this is the problem.
We've got these top secret negotations that are clearly secret, because there will be massive opposition to them, (else there'd be no reason to keep them secret) and the hope is that they can slip these laws into each country without the populace even noticing.
If even half the law makers aren't party to the negotiations they can only go by what is available.These sorts of laws like 3-strikes really do breach the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also specifically in terms of the right to fair trial, and the reasonable right to privacy.
Further, most countries have laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters, such as to protect against collective punishment, which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.So we've got this situation where governments are trying to pass these laws regardless, even though they are clearly in conflict with existing, more fundamental laws.
In Europe, this has happened repeatedly this last decade with the likes of the British government's DNA database storing DNA of the innocent and so forth, and the end result is always the same - the law gets deemed illegal in itself by the European Court of Human Rights and change has to happen, or governments will face penalty, but in the meantime it is citizens who have to deal with all the shit.So regardless of whether this guy is right or wrong, it doesn't really matter, he's making comments based on what he does know, and that's really key, because if at least he can make the point heard that it's about time they start thinking of the consequences and repercussions of the laws, and whether they are legal BEFORE they implement them, then that's a good thing.
I don't however, hold much faith, because those passing such laws seem to do so on the hope that no one will notice said laws have been passed- but we do notice, because we're the ones they potentially effect.Good on him for making the point regardless, they need to know that we are listening, we do know about it, and that these laws will end up just being shot down by the courts anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243630</id>
	<title>Re:Secret laws are illegal anyway</title>
	<author>c-reus</author>
	<datestamp>1266935940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure it will be available for the public to read - but only after it has been signed into law. ACTA is still being negotiated, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it will be available for the public to read - but only after it has been signed into law .
ACTA is still being negotiated , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it will be available for the public to read - but only after it has been signed into law.
ACTA is still being negotiated, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;data-sharing for enforcement purposes among countries that have different criminal punishments for copyright law is hard to justify</p><p>Not really.  The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it's justified as "being tough on crooks".  The EU member states will likely do the same, if not now, then in the near future.</p><p>What I'm surprised he did not address is the violation of the Right to a trial by your peers (jury).  The 3-strike law presumes guilt without any requirement that the state prove its case FIRST.  Although this may sound harmless, I can easily imagine the state government, or a progressive leader, using the 3-strike law to silence bloggers/reporters he doesn't like by making false 3-strike claims.  In such a case the connection gets cut automatically (presumed guilt), the blogger is silenced, and the leader smiles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; data-sharing for enforcement purposes among countries that have different criminal punishments for copyright law is hard to justifyNot really .
The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it 's justified as " being tough on crooks " .
The EU member states will likely do the same , if not now , then in the near future.What I 'm surprised he did not address is the violation of the Right to a trial by your peers ( jury ) .
The 3-strike law presumes guilt without any requirement that the state prove its case FIRST .
Although this may sound harmless , I can easily imagine the state government , or a progressive leader , using the 3-strike law to silence bloggers/reporters he does n't like by making false 3-strike claims .
In such a case the connection gets cut automatically ( presumed guilt ) , the blogger is silenced , and the leader smiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;data-sharing for enforcement purposes among countries that have different criminal punishments for copyright law is hard to justifyNot really.
The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it's justified as "being tough on crooks".
The EU member states will likely do the same, if not now, then in the near future.What I'm surprised he did not address is the violation of the Right to a trial by your peers (jury).
The 3-strike law presumes guilt without any requirement that the state prove its case FIRST.
Although this may sound harmless, I can easily imagine the state government, or a progressive leader, using the 3-strike law to silence bloggers/reporters he doesn't like by making false 3-strike claims.
In such a case the connection gets cut automatically (presumed guilt), the blogger is silenced, and the leader smiles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243930</id>
	<title>ACTA is illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266937800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ACTA is the attempt to eradicate free communication. The ultimate chilling effect. It's the return to government and industry controlled dissemination of propaganda. The establishment is fed up with grass-roots resistance to corporate control and is readying the big guns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ACTA is the attempt to eradicate free communication .
The ultimate chilling effect .
It 's the return to government and industry controlled dissemination of propaganda .
The establishment is fed up with grass-roots resistance to corporate control and is readying the big guns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ACTA is the attempt to eradicate free communication.
The ultimate chilling effect.
It's the return to government and industry controlled dissemination of propaganda.
The establishment is fed up with grass-roots resistance to corporate control and is readying the big guns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245338</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266945180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Not really. The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it's justified as "being tough on crooks".  The EU member states will likely do the same, if not now, then in the near future.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;Like how we manipulated Mexico and Central America</p><p>Neither Mexico nor central America are member states of the U.S., so your point has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Not really .
The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it 's justified as " being tough on crooks " .
The EU member states will likely do the same , if not now , then in the near future. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Like how we manipulated Mexico and Central AmericaNeither Mexico nor central America are member states of the U.S. , so your point has absolutely nothing to do with what I said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Not really.
The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it's justified as "being tough on crooks".
The EU member states will likely do the same, if not now, then in the near future.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Like how we manipulated Mexico and Central AmericaNeither Mexico nor central America are member states of the U.S., so your point has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>El Jynx</author>
	<datestamp>1266936480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point. I certainly hope not. Copyright is already problematic in that copying is built into nature, so going against it is swimming upriver - they're better off going with either a pledge-money-for-band-X's-new-album system or else lowering prices so far that downloading illegally just doesn't make sense anymore (especially if you can get it automatically sorted into the right folders with ID3 tags just they way you want 'em). Lower prices to 10c / song and I'll immediately spend $200. Add the right to re-download whenever you want and you've got a business model. Although on a practical note, there's no reason bands can't do tat themselves. There's plenty of platforms available for it.<br> <br>

On the side: There's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness, with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments. Feel free to join, it's called <b>We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
I certainly hope not .
Copyright is already problematic in that copying is built into nature , so going against it is swimming upriver - they 're better off going with either a pledge-money-for-band-X 's-new-album system or else lowering prices so far that downloading illegally just does n't make sense anymore ( especially if you can get it automatically sorted into the right folders with ID3 tags just they way you want 'em ) .
Lower prices to 10c / song and I 'll immediately spend $ 200 .
Add the right to re-download whenever you want and you 've got a business model .
Although on a practical note , there 's no reason bands ca n't do tat themselves .
There 's plenty of platforms available for it .
On the side : There 's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness , with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments .
Feel free to join , it 's called We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
I certainly hope not.
Copyright is already problematic in that copying is built into nature, so going against it is swimming upriver - they're better off going with either a pledge-money-for-band-X's-new-album system or else lowering prices so far that downloading illegally just doesn't make sense anymore (especially if you can get it automatically sorted into the right folders with ID3 tags just they way you want 'em).
Lower prices to 10c / song and I'll immediately spend $200.
Add the right to re-download whenever you want and you've got a business model.
Although on a practical note, there's no reason bands can't do tat themselves.
There's plenty of platforms available for it.
On the side: There's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness, with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments.
Feel free to join, it's called We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243582</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266935520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, whatever the majority wants.  Wanna lynch a few pesky minorities too, while you're at it?</p><p>I could care less about what the majority wants.  Simply put ACTA is a political scam, like everything else politics, and he damn well has every right to be dead-set against whatever they're doing because it sure as hell isn't going to be good.  The fact that it's behind closed doors should tell you that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , whatever the majority wants .
Wan na lynch a few pesky minorities too , while you 're at it ? I could care less about what the majority wants .
Simply put ACTA is a political scam , like everything else politics , and he damn well has every right to be dead-set against whatever they 're doing because it sure as hell is n't going to be good .
The fact that it 's behind closed doors should tell you that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, whatever the majority wants.
Wanna lynch a few pesky minorities too, while you're at it?I could care less about what the majority wants.
Simply put ACTA is a political scam, like everything else politics, and he damn well has every right to be dead-set against whatever they're doing because it sure as hell isn't going to be good.
The fact that it's behind closed doors should tell you that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</id>
	<title>I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1266934500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So after reading a bit of his "opinion" piece (written way more formally than any opinion piece I've read), it seems that without reading the full extent of ACTA he is dead set against it.  Any aspect he <i>has</i> heard of (most likely through Doctorow or Geist) he makes a case for it being a violation of privacy.  Without even reading all of it, he knows it's illegal.  His title sounds like he should have been invited to these proceedings but I think I can decipher why he wasn't invited<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  <br> <br>

I agree with him but it sounds like he would be opposed to anything they could dream up.  And maybe that's the way it should be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe privacy and international IP/copyright enforcement are inseparable.  Not being an expert, I cannot say.  I am fairly certain, however, that each country has to pass this into law once the countries agree on a basis.  I will say that my representative and senators had better damn well represent the majority of the population and I hope that majority is with me on this.  What the EDPS should do is continue to demand transparency but also get the citizens and all the members of the EU to promise not to pass this into legislation without transparency <i>right now</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So after reading a bit of his " opinion " piece ( written way more formally than any opinion piece I 've read ) , it seems that without reading the full extent of ACTA he is dead set against it .
Any aspect he has heard of ( most likely through Doctorow or Geist ) he makes a case for it being a violation of privacy .
Without even reading all of it , he knows it 's illegal .
His title sounds like he should have been invited to these proceedings but I think I can decipher why he was n't invited .. . I agree with him but it sounds like he would be opposed to anything they could dream up .
And maybe that 's the way it should be ... maybe privacy and international IP/copyright enforcement are inseparable .
Not being an expert , I can not say .
I am fairly certain , however , that each country has to pass this into law once the countries agree on a basis .
I will say that my representative and senators had better damn well represent the majority of the population and I hope that majority is with me on this .
What the EDPS should do is continue to demand transparency but also get the citizens and all the members of the EU to promise not to pass this into legislation without transparency right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So after reading a bit of his "opinion" piece (written way more formally than any opinion piece I've read), it seems that without reading the full extent of ACTA he is dead set against it.
Any aspect he has heard of (most likely through Doctorow or Geist) he makes a case for it being a violation of privacy.
Without even reading all of it, he knows it's illegal.
His title sounds like he should have been invited to these proceedings but I think I can decipher why he wasn't invited ...   

I agree with him but it sounds like he would be opposed to anything they could dream up.
And maybe that's the way it should be ... maybe privacy and international IP/copyright enforcement are inseparable.
Not being an expert, I cannot say.
I am fairly certain, however, that each country has to pass this into law once the countries agree on a basis.
I will say that my representative and senators had better damn well represent the majority of the population and I hope that majority is with me on this.
What the EDPS should do is continue to demand transparency but also get the citizens and all the members of the EU to promise not to pass this into legislation without transparency right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243572</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1266935460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't worry, someone who makes sense like him will be promptly removed from office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , someone who makes sense like him will be promptly removed from office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, someone who makes sense like him will be promptly removed from office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243686</id>
	<title>Re:Secret laws are illegal anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not law yet. Its a proposed international treaty. Once it is signed, then each individual country that signs (an ratifies) it is then obligated to pass laws to implement the treaty.  Those laws of course will be public.
</p><p>
The problem with secret negotiations, is that the public is then presented with a fait d'accompli, which must be implemented in law, thus depriving them of any input. In some countries, the ratification process provides some measure of input, but it is binary, either yes or no. Once ratified, the politicians can then say, "we have to pass this law, we are obligated by the treaty" and ignore any opposition from  the public.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not law yet .
Its a proposed international treaty .
Once it is signed , then each individual country that signs ( an ratifies ) it is then obligated to pass laws to implement the treaty .
Those laws of course will be public .
The problem with secret negotiations , is that the public is then presented with a fait d'accompli , which must be implemented in law , thus depriving them of any input .
In some countries , the ratification process provides some measure of input , but it is binary , either yes or no .
Once ratified , the politicians can then say , " we have to pass this law , we are obligated by the treaty " and ignore any opposition from the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not law yet.
Its a proposed international treaty.
Once it is signed, then each individual country that signs (an ratifies) it is then obligated to pass laws to implement the treaty.
Those laws of course will be public.
The problem with secret negotiations, is that the public is then presented with a fait d'accompli, which must be implemented in law, thus depriving them of any input.
In some countries, the ratification process provides some measure of input, but it is binary, either yes or no.
Once ratified, the politicians can then say, "we have to pass this law, we are obligated by the treaty" and ignore any opposition from  the public.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243828</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1266937200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any aspect he has heard of (most likely through Doctorow or Geist) he makes a case for it being a violation of privacy. Without even reading all of it, he knows it's illegal.</i></p><p>Could you please post a link to all the ACTA documents? If not, all we can assume is it just as bad as the naysayers say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any aspect he has heard of ( most likely through Doctorow or Geist ) he makes a case for it being a violation of privacy .
Without even reading all of it , he knows it 's illegal.Could you please post a link to all the ACTA documents ?
If not , all we can assume is it just as bad as the naysayers say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any aspect he has heard of (most likely through Doctorow or Geist) he makes a case for it being a violation of privacy.
Without even reading all of it, he knows it's illegal.Could you please post a link to all the ACTA documents?
If not, all we can assume is it just as bad as the naysayers say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244708</id>
	<title>Where in the world is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266941700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the US version of Michael Geist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the US version of Michael Geist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the US version of Michael Geist?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243564</id>
	<title>Secret laws are illegal anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266935400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In most (all?) countries, all laws are required to be available to the public to read.  A secret law like this one is simply unenforceable by default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In most ( all ?
) countries , all laws are required to be available to the public to read .
A secret law like this one is simply unenforceable by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most (all?
) countries, all laws are required to be available to the public to read.
A secret law like this one is simply unenforceable by default.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244232</id>
	<title>mod Idown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266939240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AASOCIATION OF play area Try not We strongly urge to have regular</htmltext>
<tokenext>AASOCIATION OF play area Try not We strongly urge to have regular</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AASOCIATION OF play area Try not We strongly urge to have regular</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243836</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1266937260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So is the retention of DNA of arrested individuals never charged with a crime in England. Nobody gives a shit about European law. Not even European politicians.<br> <br>When Europe has the balls / jurisdiction to indict heads of state over the transgressions of member states, maybe we'll see some countries brought into line. Right now, however, expect at least England to sign up for this no matter what Europe say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is the retention of DNA of arrested individuals never charged with a crime in England .
Nobody gives a shit about European law .
Not even European politicians .
When Europe has the balls / jurisdiction to indict heads of state over the transgressions of member states , maybe we 'll see some countries brought into line .
Right now , however , expect at least England to sign up for this no matter what Europe say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is the retention of DNA of arrested individuals never charged with a crime in England.
Nobody gives a shit about European law.
Not even European politicians.
When Europe has the balls / jurisdiction to indict heads of state over the transgressions of member states, maybe we'll see some countries brought into line.
Right now, however, expect at least England to sign up for this no matter what Europe say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243628</id>
	<title>dude has got it all wrong...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266935940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the title should read "European Law violates ACTA"<br>subtitled "The law must be changed"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the title should read " European Law violates ACTA " subtitled " The law must be changed "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the title should read "European Law violates ACTA"subtitled "The law must be changed"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243786</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We SHOULD be against any form of copyright protection on principle. It goes against nature (copying is natural) and hence will require LOADS of energy to enforce - from policy makers, judges, and cops to sysadmins and users. Get rid of it; there's plenty of better ways to get this done. Open source collaboration is one, alternate business models are another. The record companies have already been made superfluous by these developments and they know it, but they're doing their damnedest to become tyrants rather than adjust to life's flux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We SHOULD be against any form of copyright protection on principle .
It goes against nature ( copying is natural ) and hence will require LOADS of energy to enforce - from policy makers , judges , and cops to sysadmins and users .
Get rid of it ; there 's plenty of better ways to get this done .
Open source collaboration is one , alternate business models are another .
The record companies have already been made superfluous by these developments and they know it , but they 're doing their damnedest to become tyrants rather than adjust to life 's flux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We SHOULD be against any form of copyright protection on principle.
It goes against nature (copying is natural) and hence will require LOADS of energy to enforce - from policy makers, judges, and cops to sysadmins and users.
Get rid of it; there's plenty of better ways to get this done.
Open source collaboration is one, alternate business models are another.
The record companies have already been made superfluous by these developments and they know it, but they're doing their damnedest to become tyrants rather than adjust to life's flux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244926</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266942960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jury law trials are uncommon in countries whose legal system is based on civil law (read roman law). Most EU countries are civil law countries, so jury trial is of very little importance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jury law trials are uncommon in countries whose legal system is based on civil law ( read roman law ) .
Most EU countries are civil law countries , so jury trial is of very little importance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jury law trials are uncommon in countries whose legal system is based on civil law (read roman law).
Most EU countries are civil law countries, so jury trial is of very little importance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31247406</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the side: There's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness, with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments. Feel free to join, it's called <b>We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA</b>.</p></div><p>There's a Facebook group called "An Arbitrary Number of People Demanding That Some Sort Of Action Be Taken" that covers every issue you could think of. No more signing up to different groups every week and the net effect is exactly the same!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the side : There 's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness , with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments .
Feel free to join , it 's called We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.There 's a Facebook group called " An Arbitrary Number of People Demanding That Some Sort Of Action Be Taken " that covers every issue you could think of .
No more signing up to different groups every week and the net effect is exactly the same !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the side: There's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness, with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments.
Feel free to join, it's called We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.There's a Facebook group called "An Arbitrary Number of People Demanding That Some Sort Of Action Be Taken" that covers every issue you could think of.
No more signing up to different groups every week and the net effect is exactly the same!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245784</id>
	<title>Oh, well if HE demands it...</title>
	<author>LordSkout</author>
	<datestamp>1266947160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*chuckle* The people making ACTA know very well how much resistance there is to their plans, and that's precisely WHY it's been kept secret. This guy isn't even near the top of the list of people in power (Senators and Representatives in the US) who have already demanded transparency and been ignored, so I'm not sure why this is news.</p><p>All the political powers not on the payrolls of the media industry are going to make a fuss about this, but they're in the minority, and obviously between Biden and Obama, between ACTA and the newly organized FBI police task force to back them up, this only gets worse from here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* chuckle * The people making ACTA know very well how much resistance there is to their plans , and that 's precisely WHY it 's been kept secret .
This guy is n't even near the top of the list of people in power ( Senators and Representatives in the US ) who have already demanded transparency and been ignored , so I 'm not sure why this is news.All the political powers not on the payrolls of the media industry are going to make a fuss about this , but they 're in the minority , and obviously between Biden and Obama , between ACTA and the newly organized FBI police task force to back them up , this only gets worse from here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*chuckle* The people making ACTA know very well how much resistance there is to their plans, and that's precisely WHY it's been kept secret.
This guy isn't even near the top of the list of people in power (Senators and Representatives in the US) who have already demanded transparency and been ignored, so I'm not sure why this is news.All the political powers not on the payrolls of the media industry are going to make a fuss about this, but they're in the minority, and obviously between Biden and Obama, between ACTA and the newly organized FBI police task force to back them up, this only gets worse from here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243858</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1266937380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's the data protection head honcho. And as such he is in charge of protecting the private data and privacy of the citizens he took care of. OF COURSE he can only be against anything ACTA represents, since pretty much anything ACTA could do to strengthen copyrights at this point has to invade the privacy of someone. We are already at the point where copyright is as strong as it gets without spying on people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's the data protection head honcho .
And as such he is in charge of protecting the private data and privacy of the citizens he took care of .
OF COURSE he can only be against anything ACTA represents , since pretty much anything ACTA could do to strengthen copyrights at this point has to invade the privacy of someone .
We are already at the point where copyright is as strong as it gets without spying on people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's the data protection head honcho.
And as such he is in charge of protecting the private data and privacy of the citizens he took care of.
OF COURSE he can only be against anything ACTA represents, since pretty much anything ACTA could do to strengthen copyrights at this point has to invade the privacy of someone.
We are already at the point where copyright is as strong as it gets without spying on people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31246660</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds like the exact kind of thing that should be linked to from the Facebook group...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds like the exact kind of thing that should be linked to from the Facebook group... : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds like the exact kind of thing that should be linked to from the Facebook group... :/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245078</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1266943860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters, such as to protect against collective punishment, which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.</p></div><p>Didn't we have this discussion recently? Apparently, the Geneva convention only forbids collective punishment <em>within the context of a war</em>, and not in general.</p><p>
Collective punishment in a POW camp =&gt; forbidden.<br>
Collective punishment in school (or other non-war related context) =&gt; ok.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters , such as to protect against collective punishment , which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.Did n't we have this discussion recently ?
Apparently , the Geneva convention only forbids collective punishment within the context of a war , and not in general .
Collective punishment in a POW camp = &gt; forbidden .
Collective punishment in school ( or other non-war related context ) = &gt; ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters, such as to protect against collective punishment, which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.Didn't we have this discussion recently?
Apparently, the Geneva convention only forbids collective punishment within the context of a war, and not in general.
Collective punishment in a POW camp =&gt; forbidden.
Collective punishment in school (or other non-war related context) =&gt; ok.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31254086</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266935940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The fact that it's behind closed doors should tell you that much.</p></div></blockquote><p>Governments are constantly telling us that we shouldn't worry about email records or ubiquitous CCTV, because the only reason why we might want to hide something is if we're doing something wrong.</p><p>So, <em>by their own logic</em><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that it 's behind closed doors should tell you that much.Governments are constantly telling us that we should n't worry about email records or ubiquitous CCTV , because the only reason why we might want to hide something is if we 're doing something wrong.So , by their own logic .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that it's behind closed doors should tell you that much.Governments are constantly telling us that we shouldn't worry about email records or ubiquitous CCTV, because the only reason why we might want to hide something is if we're doing something wrong.So, by their own logic ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31251110</id>
	<title>Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1266922260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry if my original phrasing wasn't clear- I made the point that it's not the Geneva convention itself that would be applied, but that many countries implement laws which cover points highlighted in the Geneva convention over civil matters. Bringing up the mention of it being a war crime was not intended to suggest that this would be classed as a war crime, merely illustrating the historical recognised severity collective punishment can bring, and hence why quite a few nations have similar law to cover civil and criminal matters as well as their recognition of it as a war crime through being Geneva convention signatories.</p><p>There's historically been quite a few cases of laws from the likes of the Hague, and the Geneva conventions being added into national law on a more unilateral basis by individual nations- one example is that of hollow point bullets, which were banned for use in war in the Hague convention, but still used by many police forces- a few countries have also banned the use of these even by police forces to bring their laws into line with those that govern war under the point that if it's unacceptable to use against your enemy in war, then it's far more unacceptable to allow such use against your own population.</p><p>Whilst I do not believe the UK has historically had this protection, from what I understand European legislation did force member states to bring this in. In contrast, China for example has been slated for not doing enough to stop it in Tibet, even though they are not at war there and hence as they have not brought in such legislation, are not technically doing anything wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry if my original phrasing was n't clear- I made the point that it 's not the Geneva convention itself that would be applied , but that many countries implement laws which cover points highlighted in the Geneva convention over civil matters .
Bringing up the mention of it being a war crime was not intended to suggest that this would be classed as a war crime , merely illustrating the historical recognised severity collective punishment can bring , and hence why quite a few nations have similar law to cover civil and criminal matters as well as their recognition of it as a war crime through being Geneva convention signatories.There 's historically been quite a few cases of laws from the likes of the Hague , and the Geneva conventions being added into national law on a more unilateral basis by individual nations- one example is that of hollow point bullets , which were banned for use in war in the Hague convention , but still used by many police forces- a few countries have also banned the use of these even by police forces to bring their laws into line with those that govern war under the point that if it 's unacceptable to use against your enemy in war , then it 's far more unacceptable to allow such use against your own population.Whilst I do not believe the UK has historically had this protection , from what I understand European legislation did force member states to bring this in .
In contrast , China for example has been slated for not doing enough to stop it in Tibet , even though they are not at war there and hence as they have not brought in such legislation , are not technically doing anything wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry if my original phrasing wasn't clear- I made the point that it's not the Geneva convention itself that would be applied, but that many countries implement laws which cover points highlighted in the Geneva convention over civil matters.
Bringing up the mention of it being a war crime was not intended to suggest that this would be classed as a war crime, merely illustrating the historical recognised severity collective punishment can bring, and hence why quite a few nations have similar law to cover civil and criminal matters as well as their recognition of it as a war crime through being Geneva convention signatories.There's historically been quite a few cases of laws from the likes of the Hague, and the Geneva conventions being added into national law on a more unilateral basis by individual nations- one example is that of hollow point bullets, which were banned for use in war in the Hague convention, but still used by many police forces- a few countries have also banned the use of these even by police forces to bring their laws into line with those that govern war under the point that if it's unacceptable to use against your enemy in war, then it's far more unacceptable to allow such use against your own population.Whilst I do not believe the UK has historically had this protection, from what I understand European legislation did force member states to bring this in.
In contrast, China for example has been slated for not doing enough to stop it in Tibet, even though they are not at war there and hence as they have not brought in such legislation, are not technically doing anything wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245236</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1266944700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, it will probably be your local police showing up at your doorstep, enforcing your own country's laws.  That law being to comply with another country's laws. . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it will probably be your local police showing up at your doorstep , enforcing your own country 's laws .
That law being to comply with another country 's laws .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it will probably be your local police showing up at your doorstep, enforcing your own country's laws.
That law being to comply with another country's laws.
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248556</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1266956640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can easily imagine the state government, or a <strong>progressive</strong> leader, using the 3-strike law to silence bloggers/reporters he doesn't like by making false 3-strike claims.</p></div></blockquote><p>[Emphasis mine]  Why'd you have to go and smear progressives? You could have easily made your point by saying "corrupt" or "dictatorial".  You do your other valid points in your post a disservice with your partisan flamebait.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can easily imagine the state government , or a progressive leader , using the 3-strike law to silence bloggers/reporters he does n't like by making false 3-strike claims .
[ Emphasis mine ] Why 'd you have to go and smear progressives ?
You could have easily made your point by saying " corrupt " or " dictatorial " .
You do your other valid points in your post a disservice with your partisan flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can easily imagine the state government, or a progressive leader, using the 3-strike law to silence bloggers/reporters he doesn't like by making false 3-strike claims.
[Emphasis mine]  Why'd you have to go and smear progressives?
You could have easily made your point by saying "corrupt" or "dictatorial".
You do your other valid points in your post a disservice with your partisan flamebait.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244034</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Proteus Child</author>
	<datestamp>1266938400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the side: There's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness, with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments. Feel free to join, it's called <b>We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA</b>.</p></div><p>That's great.  How do you propose we go about it?  Just sitting around in a Facebook group bitching won't accomplish anything.<br> <br>

Who do we write to?  Who do we call?  What are they in charge of?  What power (realistically) do they have over the situation?  Do we tell them that we back them, or that we're against their support of ACTA?<br> <br>

We need actionable information, or pointers to where we can find it.  Anyone know where to start?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the side : There 's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness , with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments .
Feel free to join , it 's called We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.That 's great .
How do you propose we go about it ?
Just sitting around in a Facebook group bitching wo n't accomplish anything .
Who do we write to ?
Who do we call ?
What are they in charge of ?
What power ( realistically ) do they have over the situation ?
Do we tell them that we back them , or that we 're against their support of ACTA ?
We need actionable information , or pointers to where we can find it .
Anyone know where to start ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the side: There's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness, with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments.
Feel free to join, it's called We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.That's great.
How do you propose we go about it?
Just sitting around in a Facebook group bitching won't accomplish anything.
Who do we write to?
Who do we call?
What are they in charge of?
What power (realistically) do they have over the situation?
Do we tell them that we back them, or that we're against their support of ACTA?
We need actionable information, or pointers to where we can find it.
Anyone know where to start?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245016</id>
	<title>Re:Seems fairly intelligent...</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1266943500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ehmm, trial by peers? What's that then? This is Europe we're talking about. These days trial by jury is mostly a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_trial" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">US/UK phenomenon.</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>As for your concern...using the 3 strikes law to silence a blogger/reporter seems like a tiny risk compared to the others. What's to stop said reporter/blogger from walking over the nearest newspaper/tv-station and getting his story out that way?</p><p><i>I can easily imagine the state government, or a <b>progressive</b> leader</i> (emphasis mine)</p><p>Ah, I see you're a fan of Glenn Beck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ehmm , trial by peers ?
What 's that then ?
This is Europe we 're talking about .
These days trial by jury is mostly a US/UK phenomenon .
[ wikipedia.org ] .As for your concern...using the 3 strikes law to silence a blogger/reporter seems like a tiny risk compared to the others .
What 's to stop said reporter/blogger from walking over the nearest newspaper/tv-station and getting his story out that way ? I can easily imagine the state government , or a progressive leader ( emphasis mine ) Ah , I see you 're a fan of Glenn Beck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ehmm, trial by peers?
What's that then?
This is Europe we're talking about.
These days trial by jury is mostly a US/UK phenomenon.
[wikipedia.org].As for your concern...using the 3 strikes law to silence a blogger/reporter seems like a tiny risk compared to the others.
What's to stop said reporter/blogger from walking over the nearest newspaper/tv-station and getting his story out that way?I can easily imagine the state government, or a progressive leader (emphasis mine)Ah, I see you're a fan of Glenn Beck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31246776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31247874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31250338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31247406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31257744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31246754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31251110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31254086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31246660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0133240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0133240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0133240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0133240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31247874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244212
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31257744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31246776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248812
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31246660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31247406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0133240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0133240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245078
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31251110
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31246754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31248194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31245716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31254086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0133240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0133240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31250338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31244856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0133240.31243722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
