<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_25_0335222</id>
	<title>Aussie Film Industry Appeals ISP Copyright Case</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267089660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>schliz writes <i>"The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) <a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/168053,film-industry-appeals-in-iitrial-case.aspx">has appealed a Federal Court judgement</a> that this month exonerated ISP iiNet for its subscribers' copyright-infringing activities. In the widely publicised case, AFACT sought to penalize iiNet for its users having made <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/06/2320233/AU-Legal-Group-Says-ISP-Allowed-100K-Illegal-Downloads">100k illegal downloads</a>. A judge ruled that '<a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/167984,analysis-five-ways-afact-lost-the-iinet-case.aspx">mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement</a>,' but AFACT now claims the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>schliz writes " The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft ( AFACT ) has appealed a Federal Court judgement that this month exonerated ISP iiNet for its subscribers ' copyright-infringing activities .
In the widely publicised case , AFACT sought to penalize iiNet for its users having made 100k illegal downloads .
A judge ruled that 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement, ' but AFACT now claims the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers ' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia 's digital economy .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>schliz writes "The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has appealed a Federal Court judgement that this month exonerated ISP iiNet for its subscribers' copyright-infringing activities.
In the widely publicised case, AFACT sought to penalize iiNet for its users having made 100k illegal downloads.
A judge ruled that 'mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement,' but AFACT now claims the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270432</id>
	<title>Re:with apologies to "The Castle"</title>
	<author>ghmh</author>
	<datestamp>1267099920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great movie indeed. The irony is that if I recommend it you'll all go looking for a torrent of it, so you can watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtoaTF9hu8&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">this</a> [youtube.com] instead, which is what we have to put up with when we buy/rent DVD's over here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great movie indeed .
The irony is that if I recommend it you 'll all go looking for a torrent of it , so you can watch this [ youtube.com ] instead , which is what we have to put up with when we buy/rent DVD 's over here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great movie indeed.
The irony is that if I recommend it you'll all go looking for a torrent of it, so you can watch this [youtube.com] instead, which is what we have to put up with when we buy/rent DVD's over here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270022</id>
	<title>Restores your faith in the legal system</title>
	<author>Bearhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1267094880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least in Australia.  Well worth reading the last link, (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/167984,analysis-five-ways-afact-lost-the-iinet-case.aspx.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in Australia .
Well worth reading the last link , ( http : //www.itnews.com.au/News/167984,analysis-five-ways-afact-lost-the-iinet-case.aspx .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in Australia.
Well worth reading the last link, (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/167984,analysis-five-ways-afact-lost-the-iinet-case.aspx.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270382</id>
	<title>A Law Student's thoughts:</title>
	<author>dadjaka</author>
	<datestamp>1267099260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disclaimer: While I am an Australian law student, I've only read the summary of the decision, (c'mon, it's 200 pages), nor have I studied IP Law.<br><br>However, I do have a year of Law school behind me, so:<br><br>
&nbsp; - Australian law makes a distinction between findings of fact (i.e. John stabbed Mary) and findings of law (i.e. law x says stabbing is illegal). Findings of law can be appealed (you can argue the judge misinterpreted the law), but it's *much* harder to appeal a finding of fact. AIUI, there aren't many findings of fact in this case: the Justice found that Malone was a credible witness as a matter of fact, but the rulings on which the case was founded (i.e. that BitTorrent is the means of infringement, as opposed to the internet) are all findings of law.<br>
&nbsp; * tl;dr =&gt; Most of the ruling could be overturned on appeal.<br><br>
&nbsp; - The case was decided by a single judge of the Federal Court. That means that, IIRC, it will be appealed to the full court of the Federal Court (3+ judges). From that, it could be appealed to the High Court. (The highest court in Australia; equivalent to the Supreme Court in the US)<br>
&nbsp; * tl;dr =&gt; The appeal may not be the last, there could be another.<br><br>
&nbsp; - I'm not going to venture an opinion on the outcome of the appeal; I don't know enough.  I also haven't been able to find AFACT's grounds of appeal; if I can I might be able to shed some more light on the possible success.<br>
&nbsp; * tl;dr =&gt; Who knows what will happen?<br><br>
&nbsp; - Ultimately, AFACT and their lobbyists will likely convince the politicians to change the law, whatever the outcome. This will probably suck - Aussie Communications Ministers traditionally do an average to poor job regardless of political persuasion. (examples include: mandatory filtering, "World's Greatest Luddite")<br>
&nbsp; * tl;dr =&gt; What ever happens, we're probably screwed because of politics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : While I am an Australian law student , I 've only read the summary of the decision , ( c'mon , it 's 200 pages ) , nor have I studied IP Law.However , I do have a year of Law school behind me , so :   - Australian law makes a distinction between findings of fact ( i.e .
John stabbed Mary ) and findings of law ( i.e .
law x says stabbing is illegal ) .
Findings of law can be appealed ( you can argue the judge misinterpreted the law ) , but it 's * much * harder to appeal a finding of fact .
AIUI , there are n't many findings of fact in this case : the Justice found that Malone was a credible witness as a matter of fact , but the rulings on which the case was founded ( i.e .
that BitTorrent is the means of infringement , as opposed to the internet ) are all findings of law .
  * tl ; dr = &gt; Most of the ruling could be overturned on appeal .
  - The case was decided by a single judge of the Federal Court .
That means that , IIRC , it will be appealed to the full court of the Federal Court ( 3 + judges ) .
From that , it could be appealed to the High Court .
( The highest court in Australia ; equivalent to the Supreme Court in the US )   * tl ; dr = &gt; The appeal may not be the last , there could be another .
  - I 'm not going to venture an opinion on the outcome of the appeal ; I do n't know enough .
I also have n't been able to find AFACT 's grounds of appeal ; if I can I might be able to shed some more light on the possible success .
  * tl ; dr = &gt; Who knows what will happen ?
  - Ultimately , AFACT and their lobbyists will likely convince the politicians to change the law , whatever the outcome .
This will probably suck - Aussie Communications Ministers traditionally do an average to poor job regardless of political persuasion .
( examples include : mandatory filtering , " World 's Greatest Luddite " )   * tl ; dr = &gt; What ever happens , we 're probably screwed because of politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: While I am an Australian law student, I've only read the summary of the decision, (c'mon, it's 200 pages), nor have I studied IP Law.However, I do have a year of Law school behind me, so:
  - Australian law makes a distinction between findings of fact (i.e.
John stabbed Mary) and findings of law (i.e.
law x says stabbing is illegal).
Findings of law can be appealed (you can argue the judge misinterpreted the law), but it's *much* harder to appeal a finding of fact.
AIUI, there aren't many findings of fact in this case: the Justice found that Malone was a credible witness as a matter of fact, but the rulings on which the case was founded (i.e.
that BitTorrent is the means of infringement, as opposed to the internet) are all findings of law.
  * tl;dr =&gt; Most of the ruling could be overturned on appeal.
  - The case was decided by a single judge of the Federal Court.
That means that, IIRC, it will be appealed to the full court of the Federal Court (3+ judges).
From that, it could be appealed to the High Court.
(The highest court in Australia; equivalent to the Supreme Court in the US)
  * tl;dr =&gt; The appeal may not be the last, there could be another.
  - I'm not going to venture an opinion on the outcome of the appeal; I don't know enough.
I also haven't been able to find AFACT's grounds of appeal; if I can I might be able to shed some more light on the possible success.
  * tl;dr =&gt; Who knows what will happen?
  - Ultimately, AFACT and their lobbyists will likely convince the politicians to change the law, whatever the outcome.
This will probably suck - Aussie Communications Ministers traditionally do an average to poor job regardless of political persuasion.
(examples include: mandatory filtering, "World's Greatest Luddite")
  * tl;dr =&gt; What ever happens, we're probably screwed because of politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270310</id>
	<title>Fudge!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267098180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SEEMINGLY RANDOM COMMENT!!!! See, I can do it too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is fully of freaks beyond the normal levels of freakability today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SEEMINGLY RANDOM COMMENT ! ! ! !
See , I can do it too .
/. is fully of freaks beyond the normal levels of freakability today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SEEMINGLY RANDOM COMMENT!!!!
See, I can do it too.
/. is fully of freaks beyond the normal levels of freakability today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270504</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so.</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1267100940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?</p></div><p>They complained about infringement, then realised it wasn't going to go away, then realised they could at least profit off of it if they sold blanks. Seems logical to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs , then complains about infringement ? They complained about infringement , then realised it was n't going to go away , then realised they could at least profit off of it if they sold blanks .
Seems logical to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?They complained about infringement, then realised it wasn't going to go away, then realised they could at least profit off of it if they sold blanks.
Seems logical to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31278882</id>
	<title>IINET FTW!</title>
	<author>PerZon</author>
	<datestamp>1267097340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iiNet's stated after it won the last case, the industry needs a new marketing model. Now AFACT is trying to fight iinet with their own words?? I got a good feeling that iinet will not only win, but have new grounds to counter sue.  My money is on the underdog on this battle!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iiNet 's stated after it won the last case , the industry needs a new marketing model .
Now AFACT is trying to fight iinet with their own words ? ?
I got a good feeling that iinet will not only win , but have new grounds to counter sue .
My money is on the underdog on this battle !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iiNet's stated after it won the last case, the industry needs a new marketing model.
Now AFACT is trying to fight iinet with their own words??
I got a good feeling that iinet will not only win, but have new grounds to counter sue.
My money is on the underdog on this battle!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934</id>
	<title>The courts should not ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267093500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>change the law so that your business plan works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>change the law so that your business plan works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>change the law so that your business plan works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31272882</id>
	<title>And if AFACT wins?</title>
	<author>Hotawa Hawk-eye</author>
	<datestamp>1267117680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If AFACT wins, then wouldn't it be too risky, from a legal perspective, to run an ISP without a large staff of employees screening every single user's activities to make sure they're not infringing someone's copyright?  Sounds to me like AFACT winning would be an even larger threat to Australia's digital economy (no ISPs or ISPs charging an arm + a leg + either the other hand or other foot == no digital economy) than AFACT losing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If AFACT wins , then would n't it be too risky , from a legal perspective , to run an ISP without a large staff of employees screening every single user 's activities to make sure they 're not infringing someone 's copyright ?
Sounds to me like AFACT winning would be an even larger threat to Australia 's digital economy ( no ISPs or ISPs charging an arm + a leg + either the other hand or other foot = = no digital economy ) than AFACT losing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If AFACT wins, then wouldn't it be too risky, from a legal perspective, to run an ISP without a large staff of employees screening every single user's activities to make sure they're not infringing someone's copyright?
Sounds to me like AFACT winning would be an even larger threat to Australia's digital economy (no ISPs or ISPs charging an arm + a leg + either the other hand or other foot == no digital economy) than AFACT losing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270250</id>
	<title>with apologies to "The Castle"</title>
	<author>Gandalf\_Greyhame</author>
	<datestamp>1267097340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell him he's dreamin'</p><p>Tell him to get stuffed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell him he 's dreamin'Tell him to get stuffed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell him he's dreamin'Tell him to get stuffed</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31273220</id>
	<title>ObHeinlein</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1267119360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time, once again, for the ObHeinlein:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,or turned back, for their private benefit.</p></div><p><i> -- The Judge in "Life-Line"</i> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time , once again , for the ObHeinlein : There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future , even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest .
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law .
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back , for their private benefit .
-- The Judge in " Life-Line "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time, once again, for the ObHeinlein:There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law.
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.
-- The Judge in "Life-Line" 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270858</id>
	<title>Re:Digital Economy?</title>
	<author>Knightman</author>
	<datestamp>1267105020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a reason why TV-Shows lag behind in countries outside USA. The cost to acquire broadcasting rights for a show can be quite steep and some networks want to be sure they buy a show with good ratings so they can recoup the cost by selling commercials during the show.</p><p>But then, I think a new show could be sold at a discount in the beginning so you get more networks interested and if it gets popular you can remove or reduce the discount as time pass and the popularity of the show increases. There's several examples of shows that was only produced one season of or perhaps just 12-13 episodes that had poor ratings in the USA but got good or great ratings abroad when they sold the rights for them very cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a reason why TV-Shows lag behind in countries outside USA .
The cost to acquire broadcasting rights for a show can be quite steep and some networks want to be sure they buy a show with good ratings so they can recoup the cost by selling commercials during the show.But then , I think a new show could be sold at a discount in the beginning so you get more networks interested and if it gets popular you can remove or reduce the discount as time pass and the popularity of the show increases .
There 's several examples of shows that was only produced one season of or perhaps just 12-13 episodes that had poor ratings in the USA but got good or great ratings abroad when they sold the rights for them very cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a reason why TV-Shows lag behind in countries outside USA.
The cost to acquire broadcasting rights for a show can be quite steep and some networks want to be sure they buy a show with good ratings so they can recoup the cost by selling commercials during the show.But then, I think a new show could be sold at a discount in the beginning so you get more networks interested and if it gets popular you can remove or reduce the discount as time pass and the popularity of the show increases.
There's several examples of shows that was only produced one season of or perhaps just 12-13 episodes that had poor ratings in the USA but got good or great ratings abroad when they sold the rights for them very cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270736</id>
	<title>Re:The courts should not ...</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1267103760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The court tests whether the law is applied correctly.</p><p>Parliament and ministers and such make laws.</p><p>And the police will uphold the law.</p><p>That's the trias politica, and if everybody keeps to this law, then we'll all be happy campers. These courts CANNOT change the law. If the law is not clear, (in the original way) the lawMAKERS must improve the law. However, in reality, the world moves faster than lawmakers, and this means that courts have to interpret the law - which means that in fact they became lawmakers, or rather law-adjusters, too.</p><p>That is a bad development because it makes it very attractive to ask for an appeal and hope for a new interpretation. We're heading for a situation where everybody will appeal everything. That will ultimately be totally unworkable - a lot more unworkable than a single bad copyright law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The court tests whether the law is applied correctly.Parliament and ministers and such make laws.And the police will uphold the law.That 's the trias politica , and if everybody keeps to this law , then we 'll all be happy campers .
These courts CAN NOT change the law .
If the law is not clear , ( in the original way ) the lawMAKERS must improve the law .
However , in reality , the world moves faster than lawmakers , and this means that courts have to interpret the law - which means that in fact they became lawmakers , or rather law-adjusters , too.That is a bad development because it makes it very attractive to ask for an appeal and hope for a new interpretation .
We 're heading for a situation where everybody will appeal everything .
That will ultimately be totally unworkable - a lot more unworkable than a single bad copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court tests whether the law is applied correctly.Parliament and ministers and such make laws.And the police will uphold the law.That's the trias politica, and if everybody keeps to this law, then we'll all be happy campers.
These courts CANNOT change the law.
If the law is not clear, (in the original way) the lawMAKERS must improve the law.
However, in reality, the world moves faster than lawmakers, and this means that courts have to interpret the law - which means that in fact they became lawmakers, or rather law-adjusters, too.That is a bad development because it makes it very attractive to ask for an appeal and hope for a new interpretation.
We're heading for a situation where everybody will appeal everything.
That will ultimately be totally unworkable - a lot more unworkable than a single bad copyright law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31273094</id>
	<title>Re:AFACT</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1267118640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright - an exclusive right to make copies.<br>Theft - The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. (Wikipedia).</p><p>Criminal conversion - is usually defined as the crime of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property. It differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of the possession of that property. As such, it is a lesser included offense of the crime of theft.</p><p>Copyright theft - criminal conversion of copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright - an exclusive right to make copies.Theft - The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property , such as burglary , embezzlement , larceny , looting , robbery , shoplifting , fraud and sometimes criminal conversion .
( Wikipedia ) .Criminal conversion - is usually defined as the crime of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else 's property .
It differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of the possession of that property .
As such , it is a lesser included offense of the crime of theft.Copyright theft - criminal conversion of copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright - an exclusive right to make copies.Theft - The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion.
(Wikipedia).Criminal conversion - is usually defined as the crime of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property.
It differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of the possession of that property.
As such, it is a lesser included offense of the crime of theft.Copyright theft - criminal conversion of copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269966</id>
	<title>AFACT?  That doesn't make sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267093920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . Copyright Theft?</p><p>This goes beyond the typical slashdot positional debate on whether or not violations of copyright are considered theft or infringement.  I would propose a new clever acronymic name:</p><p>Australian Federation Against Respect for Copyright.  That would make them AFARC which would describe their organization and efforts a lot better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
Copyright Theft ? This goes beyond the typical slashdot positional debate on whether or not violations of copyright are considered theft or infringement .
I would propose a new clever acronymic name : Australian Federation Against Respect for Copyright .
That would make them AFARC which would describe their organization and efforts a lot better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
Copyright Theft?This goes beyond the typical slashdot positional debate on whether or not violations of copyright are considered theft or infringement.
I would propose a new clever acronymic name:Australian Federation Against Respect for Copyright.
That would make them AFARC which would describe their organization and efforts a lot better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270394</id>
	<title>Re:I see some possibilities here</title>
	<author>Bill Currie</author>
	<datestamp>1267099440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You left out the worst one: grabs your wallet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You left out the worst one : grabs your wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You left out the worst one: grabs your wallet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31274578</id>
	<title>Re:The courts should not ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267123740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't it be easier to just ban the publication of copyrighted "content" in any digital format? Let them go back to selling vinyl and tape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it be easier to just ban the publication of copyrighted " content " in any digital format ?
Let them go back to selling vinyl and tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it be easier to just ban the publication of copyrighted "content" in any digital format?
Let them go back to selling vinyl and tape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270548</id>
	<title>If that's a reason for appeal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267101660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if that's a reason for appeal, then if the court case had or will go the other way, then this should be appealed because the AFICT demands creates an unworkable environment for the internet industry. And anyone wanting to use it to disseminate their own work (like patches from Microsoft...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if that 's a reason for appeal , then if the court case had or will go the other way , then this should be appealed because the AFICT demands creates an unworkable environment for the internet industry .
And anyone wanting to use it to disseminate their own work ( like patches from Microsoft... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if that's a reason for appeal, then if the court case had or will go the other way, then this should be appealed because the AFICT demands creates an unworkable environment for the internet industry.
And anyone wanting to use it to disseminate their own work (like patches from Microsoft...).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270672</id>
	<title>And you should not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267103220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...write stupid subjects that keep me in suspense. Summarize your message, FFS, or go write on a blog if you like to jerk around your readers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...write stupid subjects that keep me in suspense .
Summarize your message , FFS , or go write on a blog if you like to jerk around your readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...write stupid subjects that keep me in suspense.
Summarize your message, FFS, or go write on a blog if you like to jerk around your readers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31272080</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so.</title>
	<author>Captain Hook</author>
	<datestamp>1267113360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems, the Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips's decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge."
<br> <br>
You try and figure it out. I'm still at a complete loss to explain this. Were the Sony execs really THAT short-sighted? And still?</p></div></blockquote><p>Sony Launched the Walkman in 1979, but didn't get into the content production side of the business until 1988 with the purchase of CBS Records.</p><p>It's behaviour early on was inline with it's business at the time which was the manufacture of tape players. It's only when it started trying to produce content that its business model start conflicting with itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems , the Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips 's decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge .
" You try and figure it out .
I 'm still at a complete loss to explain this .
Were the Sony execs really THAT short-sighted ?
And still ? Sony Launched the Walkman in 1979 , but did n't get into the content production side of the business until 1988 with the purchase of CBS Records.It 's behaviour early on was inline with it 's business at the time which was the manufacture of tape players .
It 's only when it started trying to produce content that its business model start conflicting with itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems, the Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips's decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge.
"
 
You try and figure it out.
I'm still at a complete loss to explain this.
Were the Sony execs really THAT short-sighted?
And still?Sony Launched the Walkman in 1979, but didn't get into the content production side of the business until 1988 with the purchase of CBS Records.It's behaviour early on was inline with it's business at the time which was the manufacture of tape players.
It's only when it started trying to produce content that its business model start conflicting with itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31278812</id>
	<title>Re:The courts should not ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267096920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets take every single gun manufacture to court for killing people!  They are mass murders!  Sounds stupid?  So does this appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets take every single gun manufacture to court for killing people !
They are mass murders !
Sounds stupid ?
So does this appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets take every single gun manufacture to court for killing people!
They are mass murders!
Sounds stupid?
So does this appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269962</id>
	<title>Oh I I feel so sorry for them</title>
	<author>Mag7</author>
	<datestamp>1267093920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers</p></div><p>Boohoo. They wanted someone else to do their dirty work for them, but now they have to actually use the legal system as intended which requires a great deal more effort. Cry me a river that they don't get a short cut to justice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providersBoohoo .
They wanted someone else to do their dirty work for them , but now they have to actually use the legal system as intended which requires a great deal more effort .
Cry me a river that they do n't get a short cut to justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providersBoohoo.
They wanted someone else to do their dirty work for them, but now they have to actually use the legal system as intended which requires a great deal more effort.
Cry me a river that they don't get a short cut to justice.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270710</id>
	<title>Re:Oh I I feel so sorry for them</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267103640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Cry me a river"
<br> <br>
Or as we Aussies would say - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITUSZ6LRHrk&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=5DBFFBB328AA986E&amp;playnext=1&amp;playnext\_from=PL&amp;index=51" title="youtube.com">Suffer in your jocks AFACT</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cry me a river " Or as we Aussies would say - Suffer in your jocks AFACT [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cry me a river"
 
Or as we Aussies would say - Suffer in your jocks AFACT [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270466</id>
	<title>AFACT</title>
	<author>Dracophile</author>
	<datestamp>1267100460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF is "copyright theft"? What, does someone break into my apartment, rifle through my stuff and steal a copyright and flog it for a hundred dollars down the pub and leave me without a copyright?</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF is " copyright theft " ?
What , does someone break into my apartment , rifle through my stuff and steal a copyright and flog it for a hundred dollars down the pub and leave me without a copyright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF is "copyright theft"?
What, does someone break into my apartment, rifle through my stuff and steal a copyright and flog it for a hundred dollars down the pub and leave me without a copyright?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271132</id>
	<title>Butt-monkeys, every one of them!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267107660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HELP! HELP! I'm suing Dell, their machine allows me to play kiddie pron! HELP! HELP! I'm suing Imation, their blanks allow me to write pirated DVDs! HELP! HELP! I'm suing MS 'cos their O/S, allows software to be written that can be used to circumvent the DRM protection on digital media!</p><p>STFU! Whinging maggots! ISPs are no different from the electricity company.  Would you sue the local water supplier 'cos they supply water to the kiddie fiddlers and DVD pirates, to keep them alive and doing what they do? No! AFACT piss off and stop making dicks of yourselves!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HELP !
HELP ! I 'm suing Dell , their machine allows me to play kiddie pron !
HELP ! HELP !
I 'm suing Imation , their blanks allow me to write pirated DVDs !
HELP ! HELP !
I 'm suing MS 'cos their O/S , allows software to be written that can be used to circumvent the DRM protection on digital media ! STFU !
Whinging maggots !
ISPs are no different from the electricity company .
Would you sue the local water supplier 'cos they supply water to the kiddie fiddlers and DVD pirates , to keep them alive and doing what they do ?
No ! AFACT piss off and stop making dicks of yourselves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HELP!
HELP! I'm suing Dell, their machine allows me to play kiddie pron!
HELP! HELP!
I'm suing Imation, their blanks allow me to write pirated DVDs!
HELP! HELP!
I'm suing MS 'cos their O/S, allows software to be written that can be used to circumvent the DRM protection on digital media!STFU!
Whinging maggots!
ISPs are no different from the electricity company.
Would you sue the local water supplier 'cos they supply water to the kiddie fiddlers and DVD pirates, to keep them alive and doing what they do?
No! AFACT piss off and stop making dicks of yourselves!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270380</id>
	<title>Re:I see some possibilities here</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1267099200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From a conspicuously untraceable location</p></div><p>May I recommend an employee of UK central government?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a conspicuously untraceable locationMay I recommend an employee of UK central government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a conspicuously untraceable locationMay I recommend an employee of UK central government?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270070</id>
	<title>Website that cuts through the bull</title>
	<author>Joakal</author>
	<datestamp>1267095360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This website <a href="http://shockseat.com/" title="shockseat.com" rel="nofollow">ShockSeat</a> [shockseat.com] cuts through the bull of each party to what they really support. I hope to show bi-partisan responses to issues that people may not otherwise know such as <a href="http://shockseat.com/communications/internet-filtering-scheme" title="shockseat.com" rel="nofollow">Internet Filtering Scheme</a> [shockseat.com].<br> <br>

If you wish to contribute, I need people to demand <a href="http://shockseat.com/federal-parties/list" title="shockseat.com" rel="nofollow">the parties</a> [shockseat.com] to come clear on issues in the survey I have given them. So far, only <a href="http://shockseat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&amp;t=6" title="shockseat.com" rel="nofollow">1 of 26 parties have answered</a> [shockseat.com] and even then, I'm adding all the listed issues.<br> <br>

If anything, I hope it's a great guide to interested voters who are concerned about certain issues and don't want to wade through the sales pitch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This website ShockSeat [ shockseat.com ] cuts through the bull of each party to what they really support .
I hope to show bi-partisan responses to issues that people may not otherwise know such as Internet Filtering Scheme [ shockseat.com ] .
If you wish to contribute , I need people to demand the parties [ shockseat.com ] to come clear on issues in the survey I have given them .
So far , only 1 of 26 parties have answered [ shockseat.com ] and even then , I 'm adding all the listed issues .
If anything , I hope it 's a great guide to interested voters who are concerned about certain issues and do n't want to wade through the sales pitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This website ShockSeat [shockseat.com] cuts through the bull of each party to what they really support.
I hope to show bi-partisan responses to issues that people may not otherwise know such as Internet Filtering Scheme [shockseat.com].
If you wish to contribute, I need people to demand the parties [shockseat.com] to come clear on issues in the survey I have given them.
So far, only 1 of 26 parties have answered [shockseat.com] and even then, I'm adding all the listed issues.
If anything, I hope it's a great guide to interested voters who are concerned about certain issues and don't want to wade through the sales pitch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31276334</id>
	<title>Unworkable? No.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267130160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers'</p></div><p>Obvious bullshit. &ldquo;Content creators&ldquo; like moby, nine inch nails, and many others, made tons of money online. By understanding the differing physical properties of bitspace.</p><p>But what is a content &ldquo;provider&rdquo;? What does that actually mean? Aren&rsquo;t we all by definition &ldquo;content providers&rdquo;? (Ok, I&rsquo;m kidding. I know that it means nothing an is just a line of bullshit.)</p><p>Let&rsquo;s translate this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>'In this space you call reality, it&rsquo;s impossible to keep up our fantasy business model. And it has also become impossible for us to extort artists with it.'</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers'Obvious bullshit .
   Content creators    like moby , nine inch nails , and many others , made tons of money online .
By understanding the differing physical properties of bitspace.But what is a content    provider    ?
What does that actually mean ?
Aren    t we all by definition    content providers    ?
( Ok , I    m kidding .
I know that it means nothing an is just a line of bullshit .
) Let    s translate this : 'In this space you call reality , it    s impossible to keep up our fantasy business model .
And it has also become impossible for us to extort artists with it .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers'Obvious bullshit.
“Content creators“ like moby, nine inch nails, and many others, made tons of money online.
By understanding the differing physical properties of bitspace.But what is a content “provider”?
What does that actually mean?
Aren’t we all by definition “content providers”?
(Ok, I’m kidding.
I know that it means nothing an is just a line of bullshit.
)Let’s translate this:'In this space you call reality, it’s impossible to keep up our fantasy business model.
And it has also become impossible for us to extort artists with it.
'
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270084</id>
	<title>Digital Economy?</title>
	<author>halowolf</author>
	<datestamp>1267095480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only digital economy that I can see AFACT being interested in is propagating its anti-competitive, artificial markets that lets Australian users get content that was released 6 months ago in the US, late, or not at all. In fact piracy has helped improve Australian free to air television by encouraging TV stations to screen popular TV series as soon as they possibly can so that pirates don't need to actually download those shows. A lot of the reason behind people in Australia downloading shows is because they just are not available to view in Australia for months on end if at all. It doesn't make it right, but its one of the big reasons it happens.
<br> <br>
All we want studios is to be able to legally obtain content in our Australian region when it is released in another region like the UK or US in a timely manner without all the local market bull-s*@t that you put us through time and time again so you can make more money by charging us more when we could buy it in the US or something where they have real market competition for cheaper.
<br> <br>
Of course there will always be the bunch of people that infringe copyright that just want the stuff for free, and its these people I have no sympathy for, as its used as an excuse by content creators to screw us over time and time again as they seek their almighty dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only digital economy that I can see AFACT being interested in is propagating its anti-competitive , artificial markets that lets Australian users get content that was released 6 months ago in the US , late , or not at all .
In fact piracy has helped improve Australian free to air television by encouraging TV stations to screen popular TV series as soon as they possibly can so that pirates do n't need to actually download those shows .
A lot of the reason behind people in Australia downloading shows is because they just are not available to view in Australia for months on end if at all .
It does n't make it right , but its one of the big reasons it happens .
All we want studios is to be able to legally obtain content in our Australian region when it is released in another region like the UK or US in a timely manner without all the local market bull-s * @ t that you put us through time and time again so you can make more money by charging us more when we could buy it in the US or something where they have real market competition for cheaper .
Of course there will always be the bunch of people that infringe copyright that just want the stuff for free , and its these people I have no sympathy for , as its used as an excuse by content creators to screw us over time and time again as they seek their almighty dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only digital economy that I can see AFACT being interested in is propagating its anti-competitive, artificial markets that lets Australian users get content that was released 6 months ago in the US, late, or not at all.
In fact piracy has helped improve Australian free to air television by encouraging TV stations to screen popular TV series as soon as they possibly can so that pirates don't need to actually download those shows.
A lot of the reason behind people in Australia downloading shows is because they just are not available to view in Australia for months on end if at all.
It doesn't make it right, but its one of the big reasons it happens.
All we want studios is to be able to legally obtain content in our Australian region when it is released in another region like the UK or US in a timely manner without all the local market bull-s*@t that you put us through time and time again so you can make more money by charging us more when we could buy it in the US or something where they have real market competition for cheaper.
Of course there will always be the bunch of people that infringe copyright that just want the stuff for free, and its these people I have no sympathy for, as its used as an excuse by content creators to screw us over time and time again as they seek their almighty dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270706</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so.</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1267103640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony is split internally between different divisions, Sony actually sued itself over CD recorders or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony is split internally between different divisions , Sony actually sued itself over CD recorders or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony is split internally between different divisions, Sony actually sued itself over CD recorders or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270116</id>
	<title>Unclear point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267095720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article is not clear about a point:<p><div class="quote"><p>"The court found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them," he said.</p></div><p>Were they asked by some authority to give some information about some users and they did not comply ?
<br> <br>
Or did they simply not pro actively hunt some customers ?
<br> <br>
If it was the second, I do not see how this can constitute a case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is not clear about a point : " The court found large scale copyright infringements , that iiNet knew they were occurring , that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them , " he said.Were they asked by some authority to give some information about some users and they did not comply ?
Or did they simply not pro actively hunt some customers ?
If it was the second , I do not see how this can constitute a case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is not clear about a point:"The court found large scale copyright infringements, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them," he said.Were they asked by some authority to give some information about some users and they did not comply ?
Or did they simply not pro actively hunt some customers ?
If it was the second, I do not see how this can constitute a case.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271178</id>
	<title>This is getting sickening</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267107960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet was developed for the free sharing of information. Businesses piggybacking off of that need to recognize this. If they want a medium to transmit their wares to customers where they can fully control what is going on then they need to INVENT THEIR OWN G**DAMED NETWORK!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet was developed for the free sharing of information .
Businesses piggybacking off of that need to recognize this .
If they want a medium to transmit their wares to customers where they can fully control what is going on then they need to INVENT THEIR OWN G * * DAMED NETWORK ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet was developed for the free sharing of information.
Businesses piggybacking off of that need to recognize this.
If they want a medium to transmit their wares to customers where they can fully control what is going on then they need to INVENT THEIR OWN G**DAMED NETWORK!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271262</id>
	<title>Re:I see some possibilities here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267108560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhh, sorry buddy, I'm already here, and am about to head off to a suitably inconspicuous &amp; untraceable location<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Good idea, by the way!</p><p>An unfortunate aussie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh , sorry buddy , I 'm already here , and am about to head off to a suitably inconspicuous &amp; untraceable location : ) Good idea , by the way ! An unfortunate aussie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh, sorry buddy, I'm already here, and am about to head off to a suitably inconspicuous &amp; untraceable location :)Good idea, by the way!An unfortunate aussie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270228</id>
	<title>I see some possibilities here</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1267097040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Step 1:  From a conspicuously untraceable location, have somebody you trust mail you a particularly vile specimen of pornography. </p><p> Step 2:  Immediately complain to the police. </p><p> Step 3:  Sue the Post Office for conveying this distressing item to your house, where no doubt it was seen by children, kittens and the church officials you happened to have as guests. </p><p> Step 4:  Complain about the terrible damage to the tender sensibilities of said guests and damage to your impeccable reputation for moral rectitude. </p><p> Step 5:  Profit! </p><p> I'm moving to Australia, where I'll soon be rich beyond my wildest dreams of avarice...at least until some specimen of the local wildlife bites, stings, chomps or otherwise envenoms me and I die screaming in agony. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : From a conspicuously untraceable location , have somebody you trust mail you a particularly vile specimen of pornography .
Step 2 : Immediately complain to the police .
Step 3 : Sue the Post Office for conveying this distressing item to your house , where no doubt it was seen by children , kittens and the church officials you happened to have as guests .
Step 4 : Complain about the terrible damage to the tender sensibilities of said guests and damage to your impeccable reputation for moral rectitude .
Step 5 : Profit !
I 'm moving to Australia , where I 'll soon be rich beyond my wildest dreams of avarice...at least until some specimen of the local wildlife bites , stings , chomps or otherwise envenoms me and I die screaming in agony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Step 1:  From a conspicuously untraceable location, have somebody you trust mail you a particularly vile specimen of pornography.
Step 2:  Immediately complain to the police.
Step 3:  Sue the Post Office for conveying this distressing item to your house, where no doubt it was seen by children, kittens and the church officials you happened to have as guests.
Step 4:  Complain about the terrible damage to the tender sensibilities of said guests and damage to your impeccable reputation for moral rectitude.
Step 5:  Profit!
I'm moving to Australia, where I'll soon be rich beyond my wildest dreams of avarice...at least until some specimen of the local wildlife bites, stings, chomps or otherwise envenoms me and I die screaming in agony. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31278596</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267096200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.'"</p><p>BULLSHIT.</p><p>The only "unworkable online evironment" is of thier own making. The publishing companies are criminal. They rip off the artist, then relaese the works on resitricted formats at stupid prices.</p><p>The want the laws changed so THEY DONT HAVE TO. Well fuck right off.</p><p>These publishers need to seriously rethink thier sales models and stop maing the consumer the enemy becuase that is what they are doing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers ' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia 's digital economy .
' " BULLSHIT.The only " unworkable online evironment " is of thier own making .
The publishing companies are criminal .
They rip off the artist , then relaese the works on resitricted formats at stupid prices.The want the laws changed so THEY DONT HAVE TO .
Well fuck right off.These publishers need to seriously rethink thier sales models and stop maing the consumer the enemy becuase that is what they are doing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.
'"BULLSHIT.The only "unworkable online evironment" is of thier own making.
The publishing companies are criminal.
They rip off the artist, then relaese the works on resitricted formats at stupid prices.The want the laws changed so THEY DONT HAVE TO.
Well fuck right off.These publishers need to seriously rethink thier sales models and stop maing the consumer the enemy becuase that is what they are doing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271252</id>
	<title>AMERICAN Film Industry Appeals ISP Copyright Case</title>
	<author>papafox\_too</author>
	<datestamp>1267108560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The so-called Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) is actually an not Australian at all.  It is controlled by the Singapore office of the MPAA and funded from Los Angeles. AFACT has no formal or informal mechanism to allow interested Australian's to join.</p><p>To quote Justice Cowdroy from <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html" title="austlii.edu.au" rel="nofollow">Roadshow Films v iiNet</a> [austlii.edu.au]:</p><blockquote><div><p>"AFACT is an organisation set up for the purposes of benefiting its members.   The exact nature of the relationship between the applicants and AFACT is not clear. Mr Gane, the Executive Director of AFACT, suggested that there was no formal membership process by which one can become a member of AFACT, whether by application or agreement.   The Motion Picture Association (&lsquo;MPA&rsquo;) and the Motion Picture Association of America (&lsquo;MPAA&rsquo;) have a membership of the major American film studios. They are not associated with AFACT by any formal written agreement. However, AFACT does report to the regional branch office of the MPA which is based in Singapore. In respect of operations in the Asian region, the Singapore office of the MPA prepares a business plan or budget for AFACT which is approved by the Los Angeles head office of the MPA. [...]  [I]t must be remembered that the applicants were not the entities making the allegations of copyright infringement in the lead up to these proceedings: rather, AFACT was doing so.  [T]he exact relationship between AFACT and the actual copyright owners (the applicants) is, at best, unclear."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The so-called Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft ( AFACT ) is actually an not Australian at all .
It is controlled by the Singapore office of the MPAA and funded from Los Angeles .
AFACT has no formal or informal mechanism to allow interested Australian 's to join.To quote Justice Cowdroy from Roadshow Films v iiNet [ austlii.edu.au ] : " AFACT is an organisation set up for the purposes of benefiting its members .
The exact nature of the relationship between the applicants and AFACT is not clear .
Mr Gane , the Executive Director of AFACT , suggested that there was no formal membership process by which one can become a member of AFACT , whether by application or agreement .
The Motion Picture Association (    MPA    ) and the Motion Picture Association of America (    MPAA    ) have a membership of the major American film studios .
They are not associated with AFACT by any formal written agreement .
However , AFACT does report to the regional branch office of the MPA which is based in Singapore .
In respect of operations in the Asian region , the Singapore office of the MPA prepares a business plan or budget for AFACT which is approved by the Los Angeles head office of the MPA .
[ ... ] [ I ] t must be remembered that the applicants were not the entities making the allegations of copyright infringement in the lead up to these proceedings : rather , AFACT was doing so .
[ T ] he exact relationship between AFACT and the actual copyright owners ( the applicants ) is , at best , unclear .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The so-called Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) is actually an not Australian at all.
It is controlled by the Singapore office of the MPAA and funded from Los Angeles.
AFACT has no formal or informal mechanism to allow interested Australian's to join.To quote Justice Cowdroy from Roadshow Films v iiNet [austlii.edu.au]:"AFACT is an organisation set up for the purposes of benefiting its members.
The exact nature of the relationship between the applicants and AFACT is not clear.
Mr Gane, the Executive Director of AFACT, suggested that there was no formal membership process by which one can become a member of AFACT, whether by application or agreement.
The Motion Picture Association (‘MPA’) and the Motion Picture Association of America (‘MPAA’) have a membership of the major American film studios.
They are not associated with AFACT by any formal written agreement.
However, AFACT does report to the regional branch office of the MPA which is based in Singapore.
In respect of operations in the Asian region, the Singapore office of the MPA prepares a business plan or budget for AFACT which is approved by the Los Angeles head office of the MPA.
[...]  [I]t must be remembered that the applicants were not the entities making the allegations of copyright infringement in the lead up to these proceedings: rather, AFACT was doing so.
[T]he exact relationship between AFACT and the actual copyright owners (the applicants) is, at best, unclear.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31272262</id>
	<title>Sure...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267114500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While were at it, lets make the telephone company responsible for phone fraud, and the postal service responsible for mail fraud,,, none of these silly "common carrier" exemptions should apply!</htmltext>
<tokenext>While were at it , lets make the telephone company responsible for phone fraud , and the postal service responsible for mail fraud,, , none of these silly " common carrier " exemptions should apply !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While were at it, lets make the telephone company responsible for phone fraud, and the postal service responsible for mail fraud,,, none of these silly "common carrier" exemptions should apply!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271282</id>
	<title>Re:Digital Economy?</title>
	<author>halowolf</author>
	<datestamp>1267108740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And thats exactly what the producing companies don't want to face. That their decades old system of selling shows to networks is not what consumers want anymore. They want what everyone else has right damn now. I may be Gen-X but when it comes to this sort of stuff I have a very Gen-Y attitude towards it.
<br> <br>
I try to organise my life very efficiently due to my many interests and part of that is watching what I want when I want, I rarely watch live television (UFC 110 was an exception in Oz tho) and I basically time shift all my viewing habits to cut out the ads and get the most bang for my buck, and these archaic systems in place just don't do it for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And thats exactly what the producing companies do n't want to face .
That their decades old system of selling shows to networks is not what consumers want anymore .
They want what everyone else has right damn now .
I may be Gen-X but when it comes to this sort of stuff I have a very Gen-Y attitude towards it .
I try to organise my life very efficiently due to my many interests and part of that is watching what I want when I want , I rarely watch live television ( UFC 110 was an exception in Oz tho ) and I basically time shift all my viewing habits to cut out the ads and get the most bang for my buck , and these archaic systems in place just do n't do it for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thats exactly what the producing companies don't want to face.
That their decades old system of selling shows to networks is not what consumers want anymore.
They want what everyone else has right damn now.
I may be Gen-X but when it comes to this sort of stuff I have a very Gen-Y attitude towards it.
I try to organise my life very efficiently due to my many interests and part of that is watching what I want when I want, I rarely watch live television (UFC 110 was an exception in Oz tho) and I basically time shift all my viewing habits to cut out the ads and get the most bang for my buck, and these archaic systems in place just don't do it for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270704</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so.</title>
	<author>sictransitgloriacfa</author>
	<datestamp>1267103520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hidden beneath all the shouting, the core issue is that computers and related technologies are all about copying. They make it very very easy to copy things; and the internet makes it very very easy to distribute them. Locking things up so they can't be copied or distributed is relatively complex and difficult. The traditional content creators and distributors can kick and scream and try to push the genie back into the bottle all they want, but their old business model is doomed by these simple facts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hidden beneath all the shouting , the core issue is that computers and related technologies are all about copying .
They make it very very easy to copy things ; and the internet makes it very very easy to distribute them .
Locking things up so they ca n't be copied or distributed is relatively complex and difficult .
The traditional content creators and distributors can kick and scream and try to push the genie back into the bottle all they want , but their old business model is doomed by these simple facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hidden beneath all the shouting, the core issue is that computers and related technologies are all about copying.
They make it very very easy to copy things; and the internet makes it very very easy to distribute them.
Locking things up so they can't be copied or distributed is relatively complex and difficult.
The traditional content creators and distributors can kick and scream and try to push the genie back into the bottle all they want, but their old business model is doomed by these simple facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31278270</id>
	<title>Burn Baby Burn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually good they are appealing because If it's denied or if the Highest Court in Australia tells them to get F'ed again in court<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... game over</p><p>Plus even though a countries laws aren't applicable to each other it should provide some hearty material to cases around the world to crush the bastids<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually good they are appealing because If it 's denied or if the Highest Court in Australia tells them to get F'ed again in court ... game overPlus even though a countries laws are n't applicable to each other it should provide some hearty material to cases around the world to crush the bastids ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually good they are appealing because If it's denied or if the Highest Court in Australia tells them to get F'ed again in court ... game overPlus even though a countries laws aren't applicable to each other it should provide some hearty material to cases around the world to crush the bastids ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270338</id>
	<title>Re:These people are insane.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1267098600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why you ascribe insanity to them. They are doing what is logical in a desperate attempt to protect their relevance. Why would an organization that is all about "copyright protection" argue against their own existence? If you can convince a court to protect your organization, why wouldn't you?</p><p>By the way, courts don't legislate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why you ascribe insanity to them .
They are doing what is logical in a desperate attempt to protect their relevance .
Why would an organization that is all about " copyright protection " argue against their own existence ?
If you can convince a court to protect your organization , why would n't you ? By the way , courts do n't legislate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why you ascribe insanity to them.
They are doing what is logical in a desperate attempt to protect their relevance.
Why would an organization that is all about "copyright protection" argue against their own existence?
If you can convince a court to protect your organization, why wouldn't you?By the way, courts don't legislate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270166</id>
	<title>These people are insane.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267096320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is it the role of the courts to arbitrarily legislate to protect the failing business models of certain corporations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is it the role of the courts to arbitrarily legislate to protect the failing business models of certain corporations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is it the role of the courts to arbitrarily legislate to protect the failing business models of certain corporations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270048</id>
	<title>The internet is a threat to the digital economy?</title>
	<author>branewalker</author>
	<datestamp>1267095120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A threat to the digital economy?

Ok, let's ban computers! They make it trivially easy to copy intellectual property! They are a threat to the digital economy! And the Internet! It's a threat to the digital economy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A threat to the digital economy ?
Ok , let 's ban computers !
They make it trivially easy to copy intellectual property !
They are a threat to the digital economy !
And the Internet !
It 's a threat to the digital economy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A threat to the digital economy?
Ok, let's ban computers!
They make it trivially easy to copy intellectual property!
They are a threat to the digital economy!
And the Internet!
It's a threat to the digital economy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269976</id>
	<title>And in other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr Mew Caugh quoted to the national farmers federation that "steak knives present a serious threat to the bovine community"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Mew Caugh quoted to the national farmers federation that " steak knives present a serious threat to the bovine community "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Mew Caugh quoted to the national farmers federation that "steak knives present a serious threat to the bovine community"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270814</id>
	<title>BULLSHIT</title>
	<author>Sunnz</author>
	<datestamp>1267104720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's BULLSHIT. If anything it is the AFACT (a fag) who is destroying the Australian digital economy such shameless people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's BULLSHIT .
If anything it is the AFACT ( a fag ) who is destroying the Australian digital economy such shameless people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's BULLSHIT.
If anything it is the AFACT (a fag) who is destroying the Australian digital economy such shameless people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270156</id>
	<title>Why single out ISP's ?</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1267096200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't remember a single instance where a Postal Service, a Telephone Company or a Bank were asked to behave in this manner ?</p><p>Fine, monitor the transactions being made, report them to the concerned party upon presentation of a search warrant or other legal document. But an ISP should NOT be judge, jury and executioner, they should only ever be a "witness" / "informant" (delete as appropriate).</p><p>All these companies provide is a service, and they are only legally / morally obliged to report wrongdoings. They are not required to go in "Jack Bauer" style and take out the dirty pirates. That's the job of the legal system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember a single instance where a Postal Service , a Telephone Company or a Bank were asked to behave in this manner ? Fine , monitor the transactions being made , report them to the concerned party upon presentation of a search warrant or other legal document .
But an ISP should NOT be judge , jury and executioner , they should only ever be a " witness " / " informant " ( delete as appropriate ) .All these companies provide is a service , and they are only legally / morally obliged to report wrongdoings .
They are not required to go in " Jack Bauer " style and take out the dirty pirates .
That 's the job of the legal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember a single instance where a Postal Service, a Telephone Company or a Bank were asked to behave in this manner ?Fine, monitor the transactions being made, report them to the concerned party upon presentation of a search warrant or other legal document.
But an ISP should NOT be judge, jury and executioner, they should only ever be a "witness" / "informant" (delete as appropriate).All these companies provide is a service, and they are only legally / morally obliged to report wrongdoings.
They are not required to go in "Jack Bauer" style and take out the dirty pirates.
That's the job of the legal system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31279392</id>
	<title>Make Glorious the US and A</title>
	<author>dogzdik</author>
	<datestamp>1267100220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only are the "bad guys" arseholes - aka Corporate Moron America from the US and A;
<p>
- They are greedy stupid arseholes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only are the " bad guys " arseholes - aka Corporate Moron America from the US and A ; - They are greedy stupid arseholes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only are the "bad guys" arseholes - aka Corporate Moron America from the US and A;

- They are greedy stupid arseholes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271378</id>
	<title>There will come a time</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1267109280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will the IT Industry realise the content industry as the biggest threat to innovation of business models? Innovation is what creates wealth in business and any business that stifles innovation should be treated as a threat to all businesses.</p><p>
Indirectly the content industry is a threat to every Technology professional's livelihood. Altruism aside, any legal change that enforces the status quo threatens the deployments of new technology in business models. IT has never been about 'doing old things the same old way'.</p><p>
IT is a behemoth compared to the Music industry, I don't understand how or why we've let them push us around for this long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will the IT Industry realise the content industry as the biggest threat to innovation of business models ?
Innovation is what creates wealth in business and any business that stifles innovation should be treated as a threat to all businesses .
Indirectly the content industry is a threat to every Technology professional 's livelihood .
Altruism aside , any legal change that enforces the status quo threatens the deployments of new technology in business models .
IT has never been about 'doing old things the same old way' .
IT is a behemoth compared to the Music industry , I do n't understand how or why we 've let them push us around for this long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will the IT Industry realise the content industry as the biggest threat to innovation of business models?
Innovation is what creates wealth in business and any business that stifles innovation should be treated as a threat to all businesses.
Indirectly the content industry is a threat to every Technology professional's livelihood.
Altruism aside, any legal change that enforces the status quo threatens the deployments of new technology in business models.
IT has never been about 'doing old things the same old way'.
IT is a behemoth compared to the Music industry, I don't understand how or why we've let them push us around for this long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270278</id>
	<title>It's over...</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1267097580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...100 THOUSAAAAAND!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...100 THOUSAAAAAND !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...100 THOUSAAAAAND!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270678</id>
	<title>Why do they go after the ISPs ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267103280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody knows, that without the PC, the user would not infringe. I think they should go after computer resellers. They are the ones  guilty of providing the means of infringing. Or how about the harddisk manufacturers ? Without storage infringement would be short termed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody knows , that without the PC , the user would not infringe .
I think they should go after computer resellers .
They are the ones guilty of providing the means of infringing .
Or how about the harddisk manufacturers ?
Without storage infringement would be short termed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody knows, that without the PC, the user would not infringe.
I think they should go after computer resellers.
They are the ones  guilty of providing the means of infringing.
Or how about the harddisk manufacturers ?
Without storage infringement would be short termed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270254</id>
	<title>Re:Unclear point</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1267097400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They were asked by an industry group to police piracy. They told them it was a job for the Police and happily forwarded the complaints to the cops, who turned around and said something like 'why don't we go after rapists and murderers first.' The industry group then got its knickers in a twist and sued them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They were asked by an industry group to police piracy .
They told them it was a job for the Police and happily forwarded the complaints to the cops , who turned around and said something like 'why do n't we go after rapists and murderers first .
' The industry group then got its knickers in a twist and sued them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were asked by an industry group to police piracy.
They told them it was a job for the Police and happily forwarded the complaints to the cops, who turned around and said something like 'why don't we go after rapists and murderers first.
' The industry group then got its knickers in a twist and sued them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270972</id>
	<title>The Greedy Farmer parable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267106280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These "content providers" should realize that publishing content is like releasing oxygen in the atmosphere.</p><p>Imagine a farmer that wants to profit from the oxygen his plants release. He could build a greenhouse to capture the oxygen and sell bottled oxygen to customers that agree to pay his price. But that would need investment in the greenhouse and the oxygen bottling equipment. Instead of investing money to get a profit, he releases the oxygen in the atmosphere and lobbies to get a law forcing people have oxygen meters installed in their lungs, so they can pay for the oxygen they consume.</p><p>The entertainment industry is like that greedy farmer. To get a profit from their creations, they should invest in an infrastructure of theaters so they can charge entrance to allow people to see their shows. Instead of this they want to release their products in the internet and demand that other people take charge of metering how their products are consumed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These " content providers " should realize that publishing content is like releasing oxygen in the atmosphere.Imagine a farmer that wants to profit from the oxygen his plants release .
He could build a greenhouse to capture the oxygen and sell bottled oxygen to customers that agree to pay his price .
But that would need investment in the greenhouse and the oxygen bottling equipment .
Instead of investing money to get a profit , he releases the oxygen in the atmosphere and lobbies to get a law forcing people have oxygen meters installed in their lungs , so they can pay for the oxygen they consume.The entertainment industry is like that greedy farmer .
To get a profit from their creations , they should invest in an infrastructure of theaters so they can charge entrance to allow people to see their shows .
Instead of this they want to release their products in the internet and demand that other people take charge of metering how their products are consumed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These "content providers" should realize that publishing content is like releasing oxygen in the atmosphere.Imagine a farmer that wants to profit from the oxygen his plants release.
He could build a greenhouse to capture the oxygen and sell bottled oxygen to customers that agree to pay his price.
But that would need investment in the greenhouse and the oxygen bottling equipment.
Instead of investing money to get a profit, he releases the oxygen in the atmosphere and lobbies to get a law forcing people have oxygen meters installed in their lungs, so they can pay for the oxygen they consume.The entertainment industry is like that greedy farmer.
To get a profit from their creations, they should invest in an infrastructure of theaters so they can charge entrance to allow people to see their shows.
Instead of this they want to release their products in the internet and demand that other people take charge of metering how their products are consumed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270726</id>
	<title>So close, yet so far.</title>
	<author>Cyanara</author>
	<datestamp>1267103700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, there's a reason the Aussie film industry is suffering. But it's because so many of its films are depressing arthouse stuff that no one thinks of in association with the word 'entertainment'. Consequently, I sincerely doubt there have been thousands of downloads of Australian movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , there 's a reason the Aussie film industry is suffering .
But it 's because so many of its films are depressing arthouse stuff that no one thinks of in association with the word 'entertainment' .
Consequently , I sincerely doubt there have been thousands of downloads of Australian movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, there's a reason the Aussie film industry is suffering.
But it's because so many of its films are depressing arthouse stuff that no one thinks of in association with the word 'entertainment'.
Consequently, I sincerely doubt there have been thousands of downloads of Australian movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270230</id>
	<title>yep, sure did</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267097040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PENIS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PENIS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PENIS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056</id>
	<title>I don't think so.</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1267095240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.'"</p><p>I believe that would be your business model that did that. That model died the moment the industry went from vinyl to magnetic tape.</p><p>Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?</p><p>Here is the nail in the coffin, Sony. (From Wikipedia)</p><p>"Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems, the Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips's decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge."</p><p>You try and figure it out. I'm still at a complete loss to explain this. Were the Sony execs really THAT short-sighted? And still?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers ' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia 's digital economy .
' " I believe that would be your business model that did that .
That model died the moment the industry went from vinyl to magnetic tape.Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs , then complains about infringement ? Here is the nail in the coffin , Sony .
( From Wikipedia ) " Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems , the Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips 's decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge .
" You try and figure it out .
I 'm still at a complete loss to explain this .
Were the Sony execs really THAT short-sighted ?
And still ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...the judgement 'left an unworkable online environment for content creators and content providers' and 'represents a serious threat to Australia's digital economy.
'"I believe that would be your business model that did that.
That model died the moment the industry went from vinyl to magnetic tape.Anyone besides me ever wonder why Sony sells blank CDs and DVDs, then complains about infringement?Here is the nail in the coffin, Sony.
(From Wikipedia)"Although there were other magnetic tape cartridge systems, the Compact Cassette became dominant as a result of Philips's decision in the face of pressure from Sony to license the format free of charge.
"You try and figure it out.
I'm still at a complete loss to explain this.
Were the Sony execs really THAT short-sighted?
And still?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31276420</id>
	<title>I believe that working business plan is...</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1267130460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They should change the law so that at least one business plan works for an in demand product.</p></div><p>I believe that working business plan is called "sell DVDs".</p><p>Their main complaint is that they want access to a new distribution channel without risk.  This is the same thing that the credit card companies wanted when they successfully lobbied to change the U.S. bankruptcy laws to turn all the uncollateralized debt they had outstanding into collateralized debt.  They could instead have refrained from offering credit cards to unemployed college students and other sub-prime credit risks, but instead they had the laws changed, and that led directly to the current credit crisis, which has impacted the world economy.</p><p>Well, to heck with them; if they can't live with the facts of the current situation on line, they obviously can take their ball and go play elsewhere.  This will leave a market opportunity for people to come in and displace them as content providers, but no one every guaranteed them that they wouldn't be commoditized at some point if they enetered that distribution channel (how different -- really -- is reality TV from some of the stuff people are posting on YouTube for free?).</p><p>-- Terry</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should change the law so that at least one business plan works for an in demand product.I believe that working business plan is called " sell DVDs " .Their main complaint is that they want access to a new distribution channel without risk .
This is the same thing that the credit card companies wanted when they successfully lobbied to change the U.S. bankruptcy laws to turn all the uncollateralized debt they had outstanding into collateralized debt .
They could instead have refrained from offering credit cards to unemployed college students and other sub-prime credit risks , but instead they had the laws changed , and that led directly to the current credit crisis , which has impacted the world economy.Well , to heck with them ; if they ca n't live with the facts of the current situation on line , they obviously can take their ball and go play elsewhere .
This will leave a market opportunity for people to come in and displace them as content providers , but no one every guaranteed them that they would n't be commoditized at some point if they enetered that distribution channel ( how different -- really -- is reality TV from some of the stuff people are posting on YouTube for free ?
) .-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should change the law so that at least one business plan works for an in demand product.I believe that working business plan is called "sell DVDs".Their main complaint is that they want access to a new distribution channel without risk.
This is the same thing that the credit card companies wanted when they successfully lobbied to change the U.S. bankruptcy laws to turn all the uncollateralized debt they had outstanding into collateralized debt.
They could instead have refrained from offering credit cards to unemployed college students and other sub-prime credit risks, but instead they had the laws changed, and that led directly to the current credit crisis, which has impacted the world economy.Well, to heck with them; if they can't live with the facts of the current situation on line, they obviously can take their ball and go play elsewhere.
This will leave a market opportunity for people to come in and displace them as content providers, but no one every guaranteed them that they wouldn't be commoditized at some point if they enetered that distribution channel (how different -- really -- is reality TV from some of the stuff people are posting on YouTube for free?
).-- Terry
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270410</id>
	<title>Re:The courts should not ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267099620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely not. They should change the law so that <i>at least one</i> business plan works for an in demand product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely not .
They should change the law so that at least one business plan works for an in demand product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely not.
They should change the law so that at least one business plan works for an in demand product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31274752</id>
	<title>Re:Why single out ISP's ?</title>
	<author>ztransform</author>
	<datestamp>1267124220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't remember a single instance where a Postal Service, a Telephone Company or a Bank were asked to behave in this manner?</p></div><p>For a start few postal services are private, and they do have screening at border points.

</p><p>Telephone companies are subject to all manner of requirements including wire-tapping orders from federal agencies and emergency call support.

</p><p>Banks are subject to money laundering legislation and are required to notify authorities any time a large transaction is made (usually around the 10,000 value of the local currency).

</p><p>I don't believe ISPs should be working on behalf of the recording industry (another private industry). And for all intents and purposes an ISP is a common carrier - it just ships data regardless of origin or content. If ISPs, however, begin tailoring content, filtering out VoIP, providing custom advertising, etc, then they may be liable to such suits from other industries as such an ISP is very much picking and choosing what content to provide its customers.

</p><p>If anything the recording industry should be scaring ISPs into remaining common carriers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember a single instance where a Postal Service , a Telephone Company or a Bank were asked to behave in this manner ? For a start few postal services are private , and they do have screening at border points .
Telephone companies are subject to all manner of requirements including wire-tapping orders from federal agencies and emergency call support .
Banks are subject to money laundering legislation and are required to notify authorities any time a large transaction is made ( usually around the 10,000 value of the local currency ) .
I do n't believe ISPs should be working on behalf of the recording industry ( another private industry ) .
And for all intents and purposes an ISP is a common carrier - it just ships data regardless of origin or content .
If ISPs , however , begin tailoring content , filtering out VoIP , providing custom advertising , etc , then they may be liable to such suits from other industries as such an ISP is very much picking and choosing what content to provide its customers .
If anything the recording industry should be scaring ISPs into remaining common carriers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember a single instance where a Postal Service, a Telephone Company or a Bank were asked to behave in this manner?For a start few postal services are private, and they do have screening at border points.
Telephone companies are subject to all manner of requirements including wire-tapping orders from federal agencies and emergency call support.
Banks are subject to money laundering legislation and are required to notify authorities any time a large transaction is made (usually around the 10,000 value of the local currency).
I don't believe ISPs should be working on behalf of the recording industry (another private industry).
And for all intents and purposes an ISP is a common carrier - it just ships data regardless of origin or content.
If ISPs, however, begin tailoring content, filtering out VoIP, providing custom advertising, etc, then they may be liable to such suits from other industries as such an ISP is very much picking and choosing what content to provide its customers.
If anything the recording industry should be scaring ISPs into remaining common carriers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31272378</id>
	<title>Re:Why single out ISP's ?</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1267115220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.</p><p>By that logic, they should be suing electric companies as well because criminals use their service to grow/cook drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.By that logic , they should be suing electric companies as well because criminals use their service to grow/cook drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.By that logic, they should be suing electric companies as well because criminals use their service to grow/cook drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31272698</id>
	<title>Does anyone else misread AFACT?</title>
	<author>pintpusher</author>
	<datestamp>1267116780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been reading through the threads here in my usual shallow manner, and I can't seem to stop reading AFACT as AFAICT. Thus "AFACT is an organisation..." becomes "As far as I can tell is an organisation...". I  just have to give up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading through the threads here in my usual shallow manner , and I ca n't seem to stop reading AFACT as AFAICT .
Thus " AFACT is an organisation... " becomes " As far as I can tell is an organisation... " .
I just have to give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading through the threads here in my usual shallow manner, and I can't seem to stop reading AFACT as AFAICT.
Thus "AFACT is an organisation..." becomes "As far as I can tell is an organisation...".
I  just have to give up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270530</id>
	<title>Re:Why single out ISP's ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267101420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Europe we call it the "mere conduit" principle. An ISP is not responsible for monitoring our communication, in fact it would be criminal to do without a legal base</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Europe we call it the " mere conduit " principle .
An ISP is not responsible for monitoring our communication , in fact it would be criminal to do without a legal base</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Europe we call it the "mere conduit" principle.
An ISP is not responsible for monitoring our communication, in fact it would be criminal to do without a legal base</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270156</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31278812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31273220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31272080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31273094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31272378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31274578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31276420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_0335222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31274752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31272080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31272378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31274752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31276420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31274578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31273220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31278812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31269962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31271252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31273094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_0335222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_0335222.31270432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
