<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_28_1532230</id>
	<title>Appeals Court Knocks Out "Innocent Infringement"</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267374180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes <i>"A 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#7687033938061541204">ruled that a Texas teenager was not entitled to invoke the innocent infringement defense</a> in an RIAA file-sharing case where she had admittedly made unauthorized downloads of all of the 16 song files in question, and had not disputed that she had 'access' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices. The <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/maverick\_harper\_100225FifthCirDecis.pdf">11-page decision</a> (PDF) handed down in <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Maverick\_v\_Harper">Maverick Recording v. Harper</a> seems to equate 'access' with the mere fact that CDs on sale in stores had copyright notices, and that she was free to go to such stores. In my opinion, however, that is not the type of access contemplated in <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#402">the statute</a>, as the reference to 'access' in the statute was intended to obviate the 'innocence' defense where the copy reproduced bore a copyright notice. The court also held that the 'making available' issue was irrelevant to the appeal, and that the constitutional argument as to excessiveness of damages had not been preserved for appeal."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " A 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has ruled that a Texas teenager was not entitled to invoke the innocent infringement defense in an RIAA file-sharing case where she had admittedly made unauthorized downloads of all of the 16 song files in question , and had not disputed that she had 'access ' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices .
The 11-page decision ( PDF ) handed down in Maverick Recording v. Harper seems to equate 'access ' with the mere fact that CDs on sale in stores had copyright notices , and that she was free to go to such stores .
In my opinion , however , that is not the type of access contemplated in the statute , as the reference to 'access ' in the statute was intended to obviate the 'innocence ' defense where the copy reproduced bore a copyright notice .
The court also held that the 'making available ' issue was irrelevant to the appeal , and that the constitutional argument as to excessiveness of damages had not been preserved for appeal .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has ruled that a Texas teenager was not entitled to invoke the innocent infringement defense in an RIAA file-sharing case where she had admittedly made unauthorized downloads of all of the 16 song files in question, and had not disputed that she had 'access' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices.
The 11-page decision (PDF) handed down in Maverick Recording v. Harper seems to equate 'access' with the mere fact that CDs on sale in stores had copyright notices, and that she was free to go to such stores.
In my opinion, however, that is not the type of access contemplated in the statute, as the reference to 'access' in the statute was intended to obviate the 'innocence' defense where the copy reproduced bore a copyright notice.
The court also held that the 'making available' issue was irrelevant to the appeal, and that the constitutional argument as to excessiveness of damages had not been preserved for appeal.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306974</id>
	<title>OP Gets Something Wrong</title>
	<author>Dredd13</author>
	<datestamp>1267381140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She was not busted for making unauthorized downloads of the tunes. She was busted for making those files available for other people to download. She was distributing and that was the crime.</p><p>Because, as we know, downloading tracks is not, itself, a violation of any section of the Copyright law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She was not busted for making unauthorized downloads of the tunes .
She was busted for making those files available for other people to download .
She was distributing and that was the crime.Because , as we know , downloading tracks is not , itself , a violation of any section of the Copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She was not busted for making unauthorized downloads of the tunes.
She was busted for making those files available for other people to download.
She was distributing and that was the crime.Because, as we know, downloading tracks is not, itself, a violation of any section of the Copyright law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307924</id>
	<title>Good ideas, make them public!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267387920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a ton of wonderful ideas here.  How come you only read them in the comments of a slashdot thread.  Where is the public outcry about how ridiculous this is.  So many good points made here today already.  It seems the RIAA is free to do what it wants because nobody takes a stance to counter.  Yes I realize slash dot is public domain.  So go more public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a ton of wonderful ideas here .
How come you only read them in the comments of a slashdot thread .
Where is the public outcry about how ridiculous this is .
So many good points made here today already .
It seems the RIAA is free to do what it wants because nobody takes a stance to counter .
Yes I realize slash dot is public domain .
So go more public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a ton of wonderful ideas here.
How come you only read them in the comments of a slashdot thread.
Where is the public outcry about how ridiculous this is.
So many good points made here today already.
It seems the RIAA is free to do what it wants because nobody takes a stance to counter.
Yes I realize slash dot is public domain.
So go more public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306614</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Daengbo</author>
	<datestamp>1267378920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I certainly don't believe that she was innocently infringing, but I see no reason why her lawyer wasn't allowed to make that argument and for the court to weigh the evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly do n't believe that she was innocently infringing , but I see no reason why her lawyer was n't allowed to make that argument and for the court to weigh the evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly don't believe that she was innocently infringing, but I see no reason why her lawyer wasn't allowed to make that argument and for the court to weigh the evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308350</id>
	<title>The plain wording of the statute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267347960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the way, I should point out that the plain wording of the statute makes it pretty clear that the "access" being referred to in the statute is access to the specific copy that was being copied:<p><div class="quote"><p>on <b> <i>the published phonorecord or phonorecords</i></b>  to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access</p></div><p>It doesn't refer to the fact that somewhere else in the world, there is a copy lying around somewhere which does have a copyright notice. It refers to the fact that the specific phonorecord being copied has a notice.  The statute rationally provides that if you're copying something with a copyright notice on it, you lose the "innocence" defense. The undisputed facts in this case were to the contrary. It was undisputed by anyone, according to the Court, that these copies were made from mp3 files in a filesharing community which <b>did not bear</b> a copyright notice. Accordingly, the lower court was right, and the appeals court wrong, on this point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , I should point out that the plain wording of the statute makes it pretty clear that the " access " being referred to in the statute is access to the specific copy that was being copied : on the published phonorecord or phonorecords to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had accessIt does n't refer to the fact that somewhere else in the world , there is a copy lying around somewhere which does have a copyright notice .
It refers to the fact that the specific phonorecord being copied has a notice .
The statute rationally provides that if you 're copying something with a copyright notice on it , you lose the " innocence " defense .
The undisputed facts in this case were to the contrary .
It was undisputed by anyone , according to the Court , that these copies were made from mp3 files in a filesharing community which did not bear a copyright notice .
Accordingly , the lower court was right , and the appeals court wrong , on this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, I should point out that the plain wording of the statute makes it pretty clear that the "access" being referred to in the statute is access to the specific copy that was being copied:on  the published phonorecord or phonorecords  to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had accessIt doesn't refer to the fact that somewhere else in the world, there is a copy lying around somewhere which does have a copyright notice.
It refers to the fact that the specific phonorecord being copied has a notice.
The statute rationally provides that if you're copying something with a copyright notice on it, you lose the "innocence" defense.
The undisputed facts in this case were to the contrary.
It was undisputed by anyone, according to the Court, that these copies were made from mp3 files in a filesharing community which did not bear a copyright notice.
Accordingly, the lower court was right, and the appeals court wrong, on this point.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307312</id>
	<title>Re:OP Gets Something Wrong</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1267383420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO.</p><p>Page 6, "Harper did not appeal the finding that she had infringed copyrights by DOWNLOADING the songs."</p><p>Page 6, "Because [RIAA] only seek minimum damages [$750/song], the question before the court is WHETHER Harper violated the copyright act, not TO WHAT EXTENT she violated it."</p><p>Page 7 cites several legal precedents where downloading alone constitutes reproduction, and hence is subject to copyright restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO.Page 6 , " Harper did not appeal the finding that she had infringed copyrights by DOWNLOADING the songs .
" Page 6 , " Because [ RIAA ] only seek minimum damages [ $ 750/song ] , the question before the court is WHETHER Harper violated the copyright act , not TO WHAT EXTENT she violated it .
" Page 7 cites several legal precedents where downloading alone constitutes reproduction , and hence is subject to copyright restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO.Page 6, "Harper did not appeal the finding that she had infringed copyrights by DOWNLOADING the songs.
"Page 6, "Because [RIAA] only seek minimum damages [$750/song], the question before the court is WHETHER Harper violated the copyright act, not TO WHAT EXTENT she violated it.
"Page 7 cites several legal precedents where downloading alone constitutes reproduction, and hence is subject to copyright restrictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307526</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1267385040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the issues that instantly spring to mind are:</p><p>1) The costs of tracking someone down in order to connect a person with the observed infringing behavior, and then sending out the nasty letter, are likely to exceed 1/3 of the amount demanded (assuming that the other 2/3 are to make the copyright holder, etc. 'whole' for the infringing copy). Thus, they still lose money on the overall deal.</p><p>2) Because they can't observe every infringement, and can't successfully track down every infringer that they did observe, many, perhaps most, infringers will get away scot-free. This may encourage more people to infringe in the future, if they think that the money they save when they don't get caught will be greater than the money they would spend legitimately, or would lose if they did get caught. This having been said, enforcement efforts currently only deter people from going to court if they have been caught; the odds against being caught are low enough that they don't seem to deter anyone.</p><p>3) If there is another person who had their rights infringed, who isn't represented by the authors of the letter, they could still sue, using the infringer's acceptance of the settlement offer as evidence of infringement. Unless the infringers are protected from this in some way -- by the letter-writers offering to indemnify them for any other damages caused by the infringement at issue -- then the infringers aren't made safe. And the letter-writers are never going to willingly accept that kind of risk for such a low reward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the issues that instantly spring to mind are : 1 ) The costs of tracking someone down in order to connect a person with the observed infringing behavior , and then sending out the nasty letter , are likely to exceed 1/3 of the amount demanded ( assuming that the other 2/3 are to make the copyright holder , etc .
'whole ' for the infringing copy ) .
Thus , they still lose money on the overall deal.2 ) Because they ca n't observe every infringement , and ca n't successfully track down every infringer that they did observe , many , perhaps most , infringers will get away scot-free .
This may encourage more people to infringe in the future , if they think that the money they save when they do n't get caught will be greater than the money they would spend legitimately , or would lose if they did get caught .
This having been said , enforcement efforts currently only deter people from going to court if they have been caught ; the odds against being caught are low enough that they do n't seem to deter anyone.3 ) If there is another person who had their rights infringed , who is n't represented by the authors of the letter , they could still sue , using the infringer 's acceptance of the settlement offer as evidence of infringement .
Unless the infringers are protected from this in some way -- by the letter-writers offering to indemnify them for any other damages caused by the infringement at issue -- then the infringers are n't made safe .
And the letter-writers are never going to willingly accept that kind of risk for such a low reward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the issues that instantly spring to mind are:1) The costs of tracking someone down in order to connect a person with the observed infringing behavior, and then sending out the nasty letter, are likely to exceed 1/3 of the amount demanded (assuming that the other 2/3 are to make the copyright holder, etc.
'whole' for the infringing copy).
Thus, they still lose money on the overall deal.2) Because they can't observe every infringement, and can't successfully track down every infringer that they did observe, many, perhaps most, infringers will get away scot-free.
This may encourage more people to infringe in the future, if they think that the money they save when they don't get caught will be greater than the money they would spend legitimately, or would lose if they did get caught.
This having been said, enforcement efforts currently only deter people from going to court if they have been caught; the odds against being caught are low enough that they don't seem to deter anyone.3) If there is another person who had their rights infringed, who isn't represented by the authors of the letter, they could still sue, using the infringer's acceptance of the settlement offer as evidence of infringement.
Unless the infringers are protected from this in some way -- by the letter-writers offering to indemnify them for any other damages caused by the infringement at issue -- then the infringers aren't made safe.
And the letter-writers are never going to willingly accept that kind of risk for such a low reward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's possible for a teenager (or anyone) to not know that downloading music off LimeWire or other systems is not copyright infringement (or worse, 'illegal'), some examples:</p><p>1) You download an MP3 of a song that you purchased on CD because you need a digital copy for your portable music player and don't want (or know how) to rip the CD yourself.  Copyright infringement? Illegal?<br>2) Some small artist has a new song that you download.  Copyright infringement? Illegal? What if your just mistaken and confused this artist with another small artist that has released their music free on the Internet?</p><p>Of course, if said teenager was downloading a Britney Spears song then it is of course wrong, and they should be harshly punished.  If they bought the Britney Spears CD then they should probably be executed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's possible for a teenager ( or anyone ) to not know that downloading music off LimeWire or other systems is not copyright infringement ( or worse , 'illegal ' ) , some examples : 1 ) You download an MP3 of a song that you purchased on CD because you need a digital copy for your portable music player and do n't want ( or know how ) to rip the CD yourself .
Copyright infringement ?
Illegal ? 2 ) Some small artist has a new song that you download .
Copyright infringement ?
Illegal ? What if your just mistaken and confused this artist with another small artist that has released their music free on the Internet ? Of course , if said teenager was downloading a Britney Spears song then it is of course wrong , and they should be harshly punished .
If they bought the Britney Spears CD then they should probably be executed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's possible for a teenager (or anyone) to not know that downloading music off LimeWire or other systems is not copyright infringement (or worse, 'illegal'), some examples:1) You download an MP3 of a song that you purchased on CD because you need a digital copy for your portable music player and don't want (or know how) to rip the CD yourself.
Copyright infringement?
Illegal?2) Some small artist has a new song that you download.
Copyright infringement?
Illegal? What if your just mistaken and confused this artist with another small artist that has released their music free on the Internet?Of course, if said teenager was downloading a Britney Spears song then it is of course wrong, and they should be harshly punished.
If they bought the Britney Spears CD then they should probably be executed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311048</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Cliff Stoll</author>
	<datestamp>1267369020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well spoken, PFI\_Optix!</p><p>Perhaps more than 50\% - I can imagine meetings amongst the labels to set some number.</p><p>Your method is reasonable, discreet, equitable, and practical.  It saves face for the labels, sends the proper chill to the downloader, and leaves the door open for further action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well spoken , PFI \ _Optix ! Perhaps more than 50 \ % - I can imagine meetings amongst the labels to set some number.Your method is reasonable , discreet , equitable , and practical .
It saves face for the labels , sends the proper chill to the downloader , and leaves the door open for further action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well spoken, PFI\_Optix!Perhaps more than 50\% - I can imagine meetings amongst the labels to set some number.Your method is reasonable, discreet, equitable, and practical.
It saves face for the labels, sends the proper chill to the downloader, and leaves the door open for further action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307204</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1267382760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case the RIAA didn't bother pursuing the "uploading" angle. Instead it asked for $750 per song, the minimum damages for non-innocent DOWNLOADING.</p><p>(Harper said it should just be $200 per song, the minimum damages for INNOCENT downloading, on the grounds that she was too young and naive to know that her downloads were illegal. But the court ruled that ignorance of copyright law is not a defense in this case.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case the RIAA did n't bother pursuing the " uploading " angle .
Instead it asked for $ 750 per song , the minimum damages for non-innocent DOWNLOADING .
( Harper said it should just be $ 200 per song , the minimum damages for INNOCENT downloading , on the grounds that she was too young and naive to know that her downloads were illegal .
But the court ruled that ignorance of copyright law is not a defense in this case .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case the RIAA didn't bother pursuing the "uploading" angle.
Instead it asked for $750 per song, the minimum damages for non-innocent DOWNLOADING.
(Harper said it should just be $200 per song, the minimum damages for INNOCENT downloading, on the grounds that she was too young and naive to know that her downloads were illegal.
But the court ruled that ignorance of copyright law is not a defense in this case.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307164</id>
	<title>NewYorkLaywer gives another dishonest summary</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1267382520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about "access" (i.e. the argument that the defendant would have had *access* to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music).</p><p>But the decision clearly states [page 9], "Rather than contest the fact of "access", Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music."</p><p>Thus, the issue of "access" was NOT AT STAKE. It was not contested. The decision was made purely on whether Harper's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense. And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense. (If it were, then someone would be able to violate e.g. GPL merely by persuading the court that they didn't know how copyright worked.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about " access " ( i.e .
the argument that the defendant would have had * access * to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music ) .But the decision clearly states [ page 9 ] , " Rather than contest the fact of " access " , Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music .
" Thus , the issue of " access " was NOT AT STAKE .
It was not contested .
The decision was made purely on whether Harper 's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense .
And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense .
( If it were , then someone would be able to violate e.g .
GPL merely by persuading the court that they did n't know how copyright worked .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about "access" (i.e.
the argument that the defendant would have had *access* to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music).But the decision clearly states [page 9], "Rather than contest the fact of "access", Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music.
"Thus, the issue of "access" was NOT AT STAKE.
It was not contested.
The decision was made purely on whether Harper's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense.
And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense.
(If it were, then someone would be able to violate e.g.
GPL merely by persuading the court that they didn't know how copyright worked.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307068</id>
	<title>Unless you paid for the downloads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267381740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you paid for the downloads from AllOfMP3. In that case, the downloader is breaking the law but they can only go after the uploader (who has a license to distribute, so it's not the uploader who is illegal, but the downloader who wasn't in Russia).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you paid for the downloads from AllOfMP3 .
In that case , the downloader is breaking the law but they can only go after the uploader ( who has a license to distribute , so it 's not the uploader who is illegal , but the downloader who was n't in Russia ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you paid for the downloads from AllOfMP3.
In that case, the downloader is breaking the law but they can only go after the uploader (who has a license to distribute, so it's not the uploader who is illegal, but the downloader who wasn't in Russia).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307230</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Alphathon</author>
	<datestamp>1267382880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) certainly applies, and here in the UK more-so. Why? Well here it is illigal to bypass copy protection or DRM of any kind regardless of the purpose. In the US I believe you are allowed to rip DVDs or CDs for personal use (i.e. to transfer them to your portable media player or whatever) under fair use laws. However, in the UK it is technically illigal to do even for that reason. I think it is technically legal to download tracks etc as long as you own the CD, providing it is equal or lower quality (an MP3 almost certainly is) as YOU havn't bypassed the protection. Oh well at least when people get sued for that kind of thing here they get somewhat more reasonable charges (in the thousands maybe, rather than hundreds of thousands/millions).</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) certainly applies , and here in the UK more-so .
Why ? Well here it is illigal to bypass copy protection or DRM of any kind regardless of the purpose .
In the US I believe you are allowed to rip DVDs or CDs for personal use ( i.e .
to transfer them to your portable media player or whatever ) under fair use laws .
However , in the UK it is technically illigal to do even for that reason .
I think it is technically legal to download tracks etc as long as you own the CD , providing it is equal or lower quality ( an MP3 almost certainly is ) as YOU hav n't bypassed the protection .
Oh well at least when people get sued for that kind of thing here they get somewhat more reasonable charges ( in the thousands maybe , rather than hundreds of thousands/millions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) certainly applies, and here in the UK more-so.
Why? Well here it is illigal to bypass copy protection or DRM of any kind regardless of the purpose.
In the US I believe you are allowed to rip DVDs or CDs for personal use (i.e.
to transfer them to your portable media player or whatever) under fair use laws.
However, in the UK it is technically illigal to do even for that reason.
I think it is technically legal to download tracks etc as long as you own the CD, providing it is equal or lower quality (an MP3 almost certainly is) as YOU havn't bypassed the protection.
Oh well at least when people get sued for that kind of thing here they get somewhat more reasonable charges (in the thousands maybe, rather than hundreds of thousands/millions).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31312134</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is it still "piracy" when it's not illegal?</p></div><p>Well, since the MAFIAA get to define that word, I'd say yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it still " piracy " when it 's not illegal ? Well , since the MAFIAA get to define that word , I 'd say yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it still "piracy" when it's not illegal?Well, since the MAFIAA get to define that word, I'd say yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308066</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkLaywer gives another dishonest summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NYCL states clearly and unambiguously in the opening quote "... (she) had not disputed that she had 'access' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices."  Thus, clearly access was not the real issue in the case.  He then goes on to opine about the definition of access.  I don't see NYCL as the dishonest one.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NYCL states clearly and unambiguously in the opening quote " ... ( she ) had not disputed that she had 'access ' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices .
" Thus , clearly access was not the real issue in the case .
He then goes on to opine about the definition of access .
I do n't see NYCL as the dishonest one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NYCL states clearly and unambiguously in the opening quote "... (she) had not disputed that she had 'access' to the CD versions of the songs which bore copyright notices.
"  Thus, clearly access was not the real issue in the case.
He then goes on to opine about the definition of access.
I don't see NYCL as the dishonest one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307310</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267383420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It must be called 'The Pirate Bay' because it's so cool to be a pirate, and pirates sing a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It must be called 'The Pirate Bay ' because it 's so cool to be a pirate , and pirates sing a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must be called 'The Pirate Bay' because it's so cool to be a pirate, and pirates sing a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31309148</id>
	<title>Your Opinion?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1267354320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion</p><p>Your opinion does not matter because you are not a judge but rather a biased lawyer. Your opinion is worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinionYour opinion does not matter because you are not a judge but rather a biased lawyer .
Your opinion is worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinionYour opinion does not matter because you are not a judge but rather a biased lawyer.
Your opinion is worthless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307622</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1267385640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was with you up until your solution for the 'distributors'.</p><p>These people are generally one and the same as the 'downloaders' with the vast majority of non-commercial copyright infringement.</p><p>If on the other hand you changed "big penalties" to, I dunno, 5x cost, maybe you'd have a solution worth talking about.</p><p>Of course however reasonable the penalties were - assuming the impossible were to happen and your solution was operational - the copyright cartels would lobby to make them higher and higher, and want more draconian laws enacted. It's the nature of copyright and the people who are in the business of making money through using it's monopoly to restrict distribution that they are draconian: the illusion of 'property' is a strong one and goes against the nature of the medium which is inherently copyable and distributable. They want strict property laws because they believe they own the copyrighted material in much the same way as they own their trousers or their TV, and that means that every infringement (lawful or otherwise) is viewed as intolerable - it violates their control.</p><p>They stand against your solution as vehemently as they would if you proposed the abolishment of copyright: it would diminish them as masters of their own 'property' and they could only see it as a defeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was with you up until your solution for the 'distributors'.These people are generally one and the same as the 'downloaders ' with the vast majority of non-commercial copyright infringement.If on the other hand you changed " big penalties " to , I dunno , 5x cost , maybe you 'd have a solution worth talking about.Of course however reasonable the penalties were - assuming the impossible were to happen and your solution was operational - the copyright cartels would lobby to make them higher and higher , and want more draconian laws enacted .
It 's the nature of copyright and the people who are in the business of making money through using it 's monopoly to restrict distribution that they are draconian : the illusion of 'property ' is a strong one and goes against the nature of the medium which is inherently copyable and distributable .
They want strict property laws because they believe they own the copyrighted material in much the same way as they own their trousers or their TV , and that means that every infringement ( lawful or otherwise ) is viewed as intolerable - it violates their control.They stand against your solution as vehemently as they would if you proposed the abolishment of copyright : it would diminish them as masters of their own 'property ' and they could only see it as a defeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was with you up until your solution for the 'distributors'.These people are generally one and the same as the 'downloaders' with the vast majority of non-commercial copyright infringement.If on the other hand you changed "big penalties" to, I dunno, 5x cost, maybe you'd have a solution worth talking about.Of course however reasonable the penalties were - assuming the impossible were to happen and your solution was operational - the copyright cartels would lobby to make them higher and higher, and want more draconian laws enacted.
It's the nature of copyright and the people who are in the business of making money through using it's monopoly to restrict distribution that they are draconian: the illusion of 'property' is a strong one and goes against the nature of the medium which is inherently copyable and distributable.
They want strict property laws because they believe they own the copyrighted material in much the same way as they own their trousers or their TV, and that means that every infringement (lawful or otherwise) is viewed as intolerable - it violates their control.They stand against your solution as vehemently as they would if you proposed the abolishment of copyright: it would diminish them as masters of their own 'property' and they could only see it as a defeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306840</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it still "piracy" when it's not illegal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it still " piracy " when it 's not illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it still "piracy" when it's not illegal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31310202</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>CrashandDie</author>
	<datestamp>1267361760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's P2P right? The downloaders are distributors.</p></div><p>Oh brother, you haven't seen my uTorrent ratio, have you?

It actually says -Infinity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's P2P right ?
The downloaders are distributors.Oh brother , you have n't seen my uTorrent ratio , have you ?
It actually says -Infinity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's P2P right?
The downloaders are distributors.Oh brother, you haven't seen my uTorrent ratio, have you?
It actually says -Infinity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307576</id>
	<title>Once again, reality imitates DA</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1267385340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr Prosser said: "You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time you know."</p><p>"Appropriate time?" hooted Arthur. "Appropriate time? The first I knew about it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday. I asked him if he'd come to clean the windows and he said no he'd come to demolish the house. He didn't tell me straight away of course. Oh no. First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me a fiver. Then he told me."</p><p>"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."</p><p>"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."</p><p>"But the plans were on display<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."</p><p>"That's the display department."</p><p>"With a torch."</p><p>"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."</p><p>"So had the stairs."</p><p>"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"</p><p>"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Prosser said : " You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time you know .
" " Appropriate time ?
" hooted Arthur .
" Appropriate time ?
The first I knew about it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday .
I asked him if he 'd come to clean the windows and he said no he 'd come to demolish the house .
He did n't tell me straight away of course .
Oh no .
First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me a fiver .
Then he told me .
" " But Mr Dent , the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months .
" " Oh yes , well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them , yesterday afternoon .
You had n't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you ?
I mean like actually telling anybody or anything .
" " But the plans were on display ... " " On display ?
I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them .
" " That 's the display department .
" " With a torch .
" " Ah , well the lights had probably gone .
" " So had the stairs .
" " But look , you found the notice did n't you ?
" " Yes , " said Arthur , " yes I did .
It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Prosser said: "You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time you know.
""Appropriate time?
" hooted Arthur.
"Appropriate time?
The first I knew about it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday.
I asked him if he'd come to clean the windows and he said no he'd come to demolish the house.
He didn't tell me straight away of course.
Oh no.
First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me a fiver.
Then he told me.
""But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
""Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon.
You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you?
I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
""But the plans were on display ...""On display?
I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
""That's the display department.
""With a torch.
""Ah, well the lights had probably gone.
""So had the stairs.
""But look, you found the notice didn't you?
""Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did.
It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31309098</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1267353900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA used to, maybe still does have a spot on their site where you could mail them money so they wouldn't sue your ass. Feels like blackmail though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA used to , maybe still does have a spot on their site where you could mail them money so they would n't sue your ass .
Feels like blackmail though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA used to, maybe still does have a spot on their site where you could mail them money so they wouldn't sue your ass.
Feels like blackmail though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31314322</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1267450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Number 1 is *not* illegal in a lot of places.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Number 1 is * not * illegal in a lot of places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number 1 is *not* illegal in a lot of places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308096</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Mystra\_x64</author>
	<datestamp>1267389420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And a 50\% penalty is ridiculously small. You really think they catch more than 2 out of 3 such infringements?</p></div> </blockquote><p>How many they will catch should not affect whether 50\% is large or small.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And a 50 \ % penalty is ridiculously small .
You really think they catch more than 2 out of 3 such infringements ?
How many they will catch should not affect whether 50 \ % is large or small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And a 50\% penalty is ridiculously small.
You really think they catch more than 2 out of 3 such infringements?
How many they will catch should not affect whether 50\% is large or small.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306666</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267379220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's also the issue that although TFA is submitted with "file sharing" as keywords, there is no evidence or claim that the defendant made any attempt to do so. Tarring a kid with the brush of having downloaded a paltry 16 tracks is hardly a virtuous or useful pastime for a record company.<br> <br>
But it could certainly be profitable. If said companies can succeed in extorting 750K per track (assuming the defendant has any capacity to pay), that might constitute a valid business model from a shareholder's point of view. Fuck, I suppose I'm in the wrong business.<br> <br>
But then, I'm a musician too, and I'd rather my music was heard than exploited in this way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also the issue that although TFA is submitted with " file sharing " as keywords , there is no evidence or claim that the defendant made any attempt to do so .
Tarring a kid with the brush of having downloaded a paltry 16 tracks is hardly a virtuous or useful pastime for a record company .
But it could certainly be profitable .
If said companies can succeed in extorting 750K per track ( assuming the defendant has any capacity to pay ) , that might constitute a valid business model from a shareholder 's point of view .
Fuck , I suppose I 'm in the wrong business .
But then , I 'm a musician too , and I 'd rather my music was heard than exploited in this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also the issue that although TFA is submitted with "file sharing" as keywords, there is no evidence or claim that the defendant made any attempt to do so.
Tarring a kid with the brush of having downloaded a paltry 16 tracks is hardly a virtuous or useful pastime for a record company.
But it could certainly be profitable.
If said companies can succeed in extorting 750K per track (assuming the defendant has any capacity to pay), that might constitute a valid business model from a shareholder's point of view.
Fuck, I suppose I'm in the wrong business.
But then, I'm a musician too, and I'd rather my music was heard than exploited in this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307332</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1267383600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the entire statement that everyone knows that piracy is illegal that was made by the GP is meaningless. It's like saying "crime is illegal". It's useful only as a dictionary definition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the entire statement that everyone knows that piracy is illegal that was made by the GP is meaningless .
It 's like saying " crime is illegal " .
It 's useful only as a dictionary definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the entire statement that everyone knows that piracy is illegal that was made by the GP is meaningless.
It's like saying "crime is illegal".
It's useful only as a dictionary definition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311244</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267370580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YARRRRR</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YARRRRR</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YARRRRR</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308044</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1267389060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, the labels needs to start with this:<br> <br>

"We have evidence that you downloaded X songs (attach a list) for which we own the copyrights. We would like to settle this matter quietly and without legal action. To that end, we would accept a settlement of X * 1.5 dollars in order to resolve this matter. In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services (iTunes, etc) If you decline this offer, we suggest you retain a lawyer and have them contact our legal department."</p></div><p>Which labels?  The labels on the CDs?  Change "In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services (iTunes, etc)" to "In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs by allowing you to keep this digital compact disc."  Essentially, "We're suing everyone, including you.  Buying this CD is your only defense."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the labels needs to start with this : " We have evidence that you downloaded X songs ( attach a list ) for which we own the copyrights .
We would like to settle this matter quietly and without legal action .
To that end , we would accept a settlement of X * 1.5 dollars in order to resolve this matter .
In return , we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services ( iTunes , etc ) If you decline this offer , we suggest you retain a lawyer and have them contact our legal department .
" Which labels ?
The labels on the CDs ?
Change " In return , we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services ( iTunes , etc ) " to " In return , we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs by allowing you to keep this digital compact disc .
" Essentially , " We 're suing everyone , including you .
Buying this CD is your only defense .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the labels needs to start with this: 

"We have evidence that you downloaded X songs (attach a list) for which we own the copyrights.
We would like to settle this matter quietly and without legal action.
To that end, we would accept a settlement of X * 1.5 dollars in order to resolve this matter.
In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services (iTunes, etc) If you decline this offer, we suggest you retain a lawyer and have them contact our legal department.
"Which labels?
The labels on the CDs?
Change "In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services (iTunes, etc)" to "In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs by allowing you to keep this digital compact disc.
"  Essentially, "We're suing everyone, including you.
Buying this CD is your only defense.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307180</id>
	<title>Prove it's available?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267382580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So now the prosecutors will have to prove that copies of each item were on public display in the stores which are available, at the time that the violation occurred?  (Hey, that store isn't available, I don't ride the bus over there!)  Are stores required to keep records of what they buy, when they put it on display, and when they sell it?  And will a separate search warrant be needed for each store, for each song?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now the prosecutors will have to prove that copies of each item were on public display in the stores which are available , at the time that the violation occurred ?
( Hey , that store is n't available , I do n't ride the bus over there !
) Are stores required to keep records of what they buy , when they put it on display , and when they sell it ?
And will a separate search warrant be needed for each store , for each song ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now the prosecutors will have to prove that copies of each item were on public display in the stores which are available, at the time that the violation occurred?
(Hey, that store isn't available, I don't ride the bus over there!
)  Are stores required to keep records of what they buy, when they put it on display, and when they sell it?
And will a separate search warrant be needed for each store, for each song?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307238</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267383000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, your case 1 is just a form of media shifting.<br>My mother does tons of that because she doesn't like to try and rip them herself.<br>She doesn't have any ripping software that she understands, she has no idea how to tweak the settings to get a good quality rip, and I'm several states away.</p><p>I seems to recall that media shifting was declared fair use (or whatever the term is) a few years back by the U.S. courts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , your case 1 is just a form of media shifting.My mother does tons of that because she does n't like to try and rip them herself.She does n't have any ripping software that she understands , she has no idea how to tweak the settings to get a good quality rip , and I 'm several states away.I seems to recall that media shifting was declared fair use ( or whatever the term is ) a few years back by the U.S. courts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, your case 1 is just a form of media shifting.My mother does tons of that because she doesn't like to try and rip them herself.She doesn't have any ripping software that she understands, she has no idea how to tweak the settings to get a good quality rip, and I'm several states away.I seems to recall that media shifting was declared fair use (or whatever the term is) a few years back by the U.S. courts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31309486</id>
	<title>RIAA - public menaces, monopolists, and pervs?</title>
	<author>harvey the nerd</author>
	<datestamp>1267357080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem here is that the P2P is effectively a piece of malware.  A 14 yo kid wants to listen to the "radio" on the computer and becomes an unwitting distributor because of the less obvious, additional redistributing functions of the malicious (to RIAA) software.

RIAA is contributory to the problem by persisting in broken distribution models that (1) are cumbersome in any case, (2) overpriced per play to the usual alternate sources e.g. radio or even per play jukebox, when the kid shrugs and nevers listens again, (3) alleges charges much higher than the proportionate physical media e.g. a song available on a $5, 50 song CD (4)  denies fair uses both by legal harrassment and technical impediments that are deliberate defects (both low quality and DRM) to prevent natural utilization of a single owner to (attempt to) force multiple purchases of favorites.<br>
<br>
One has to have reservations about any legal system that would so harrass underage females and students, perhaps for other immoral purposes, over such extortionate trivia. Also such cases interfere with societally important productive development and education of children, for the upset, waste of time and precious funds. ($750 = what part of a semester's tution for playing a song on a computer as if it were the radio?) <br>
<br>
The music industry has been well aware of the implications of these things since the 1970s. That is why copyright laws have been in constant modification since the 1970s.  That the industry persistently refuses to put forth a reasonable distribution models is a demonstration of anti-trust behavior.  The problem isn't that they are stupid and/or can't distribute well, the problem is that they won't, and extortionately attempt to charge full retail price of physical media (or higher) for each repeated ephemeral use, if possible. (I still can play our records from the 60s after a 1000+ plays)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem here is that the P2P is effectively a piece of malware .
A 14 yo kid wants to listen to the " radio " on the computer and becomes an unwitting distributor because of the less obvious , additional redistributing functions of the malicious ( to RIAA ) software .
RIAA is contributory to the problem by persisting in broken distribution models that ( 1 ) are cumbersome in any case , ( 2 ) overpriced per play to the usual alternate sources e.g .
radio or even per play jukebox , when the kid shrugs and nevers listens again , ( 3 ) alleges charges much higher than the proportionate physical media e.g .
a song available on a $ 5 , 50 song CD ( 4 ) denies fair uses both by legal harrassment and technical impediments that are deliberate defects ( both low quality and DRM ) to prevent natural utilization of a single owner to ( attempt to ) force multiple purchases of favorites .
One has to have reservations about any legal system that would so harrass underage females and students , perhaps for other immoral purposes , over such extortionate trivia .
Also such cases interfere with societally important productive development and education of children , for the upset , waste of time and precious funds .
( $ 750 = what part of a semester 's tution for playing a song on a computer as if it were the radio ?
) The music industry has been well aware of the implications of these things since the 1970s .
That is why copyright laws have been in constant modification since the 1970s .
That the industry persistently refuses to put forth a reasonable distribution models is a demonstration of anti-trust behavior .
The problem is n't that they are stupid and/or ca n't distribute well , the problem is that they wo n't , and extortionately attempt to charge full retail price of physical media ( or higher ) for each repeated ephemeral use , if possible .
( I still can play our records from the 60s after a 1000 + plays )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem here is that the P2P is effectively a piece of malware.
A 14 yo kid wants to listen to the "radio" on the computer and becomes an unwitting distributor because of the less obvious, additional redistributing functions of the malicious (to RIAA) software.
RIAA is contributory to the problem by persisting in broken distribution models that (1) are cumbersome in any case, (2) overpriced per play to the usual alternate sources e.g.
radio or even per play jukebox, when the kid shrugs and nevers listens again, (3) alleges charges much higher than the proportionate physical media e.g.
a song available on a $5, 50 song CD (4)  denies fair uses both by legal harrassment and technical impediments that are deliberate defects (both low quality and DRM) to prevent natural utilization of a single owner to (attempt to) force multiple purchases of favorites.
One has to have reservations about any legal system that would so harrass underage females and students, perhaps for other immoral purposes, over such extortionate trivia.
Also such cases interfere with societally important productive development and education of children, for the upset, waste of time and precious funds.
($750 = what part of a semester's tution for playing a song on a computer as if it were the radio?
) 

The music industry has been well aware of the implications of these things since the 1970s.
That is why copyright laws have been in constant modification since the 1970s.
That the industry persistently refuses to put forth a reasonable distribution models is a demonstration of anti-trust behavior.
The problem isn't that they are stupid and/or can't distribute well, the problem is that they won't, and extortionately attempt to charge full retail price of physical media (or higher) for each repeated ephemeral use, if possible.
(I still can play our records from the 60s after a 1000+ plays)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311136</id>
	<title>Another stupid defendant</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1267369620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>Defendant gets caught. Labels offer to settle for a relatively low amount. Defendant declines, thinking she actually has a viable defense.</li><li>Defendant's case is so weak, she losses on summary judgement. She gets lucky, though, and the court finds she qualifies for the innocent infringement damage reduction. Even with that reduction, the minimum damages the court can award are considerably larger than she could have settled for. The record companies will accept this and let the matter end, but reserve the right to appeal the damages if she appeals the infringement.</li><li>Instead of showing some inkling of intelligence and cutting her losses, she appeals, and so the record labels cross-appeal.</li><li>Her appear fails, of course (that's what happens when you have no even remotely viable grounds for appeal). The labels' appear succeeds, and the minimum damages go up by a factor of 3.</li><li><p>The defendants really should start hiring <i>competent</i> counsel.</p></li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Defendant gets caught .
Labels offer to settle for a relatively low amount .
Defendant declines , thinking she actually has a viable defense.Defendant 's case is so weak , she losses on summary judgement .
She gets lucky , though , and the court finds she qualifies for the innocent infringement damage reduction .
Even with that reduction , the minimum damages the court can award are considerably larger than she could have settled for .
The record companies will accept this and let the matter end , but reserve the right to appeal the damages if she appeals the infringement.Instead of showing some inkling of intelligence and cutting her losses , she appeals , and so the record labels cross-appeal.Her appear fails , of course ( that 's what happens when you have no even remotely viable grounds for appeal ) .
The labels ' appear succeeds , and the minimum damages go up by a factor of 3.The defendants really should start hiring competent counsel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Defendant gets caught.
Labels offer to settle for a relatively low amount.
Defendant declines, thinking she actually has a viable defense.Defendant's case is so weak, she losses on summary judgement.
She gets lucky, though, and the court finds she qualifies for the innocent infringement damage reduction.
Even with that reduction, the minimum damages the court can award are considerably larger than she could have settled for.
The record companies will accept this and let the matter end, but reserve the right to appeal the damages if she appeals the infringement.Instead of showing some inkling of intelligence and cutting her losses, she appeals, and so the record labels cross-appeal.Her appear fails, of course (that's what happens when you have no even remotely viable grounds for appeal).
The labels' appear succeeds, and the minimum damages go up by a factor of 3.The defendants really should start hiring competent counsel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31309622</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1267358220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In the US I believe you are allowed to rip DVDs or CDs for personal use (i.e. to transfer them to your portable media player or whatever) under fair use laws. </i></p><p>Well, in the US, it is unlawful to circumvent DRM on a copyrighted work regardless of the purpose, with only a few exceptions, none of which would apply here. Setting that aside, however, ripping copies to a computer is also unlawful unless there is an applicable exception, such as fair use. But fair use is tricky. There are no types of uses which are always fair or unfair; rather, each case has to be decided on its own merits. So just saying 'personal use' doesn't work. That specific personal use has to be a fair one, and there is no guarantee that it will be merely because some other personal use was a fair use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US I believe you are allowed to rip DVDs or CDs for personal use ( i.e .
to transfer them to your portable media player or whatever ) under fair use laws .
Well , in the US , it is unlawful to circumvent DRM on a copyrighted work regardless of the purpose , with only a few exceptions , none of which would apply here .
Setting that aside , however , ripping copies to a computer is also unlawful unless there is an applicable exception , such as fair use .
But fair use is tricky .
There are no types of uses which are always fair or unfair ; rather , each case has to be decided on its own merits .
So just saying 'personal use ' does n't work .
That specific personal use has to be a fair one , and there is no guarantee that it will be merely because some other personal use was a fair use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US I believe you are allowed to rip DVDs or CDs for personal use (i.e.
to transfer them to your portable media player or whatever) under fair use laws.
Well, in the US, it is unlawful to circumvent DRM on a copyrighted work regardless of the purpose, with only a few exceptions, none of which would apply here.
Setting that aside, however, ripping copies to a computer is also unlawful unless there is an applicable exception, such as fair use.
But fair use is tricky.
There are no types of uses which are always fair or unfair; rather, each case has to be decided on its own merits.
So just saying 'personal use' doesn't work.
That specific personal use has to be a fair one, and there is no guarantee that it will be merely because some other personal use was a fair use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311844</id>
	<title>Just holding off the inevitable..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know why piracy exists.. your cousin, your workmates and every man's dog torrents because of ogliopolies handing us the same shitty re-make movie scripts and row-row-fight-da-powa lyrics.</p><p>Plus take it from me. If you've live in the places where piracy is an economic saviour for the otherwise unemployed (Bangkok being my experience) people take their job security seriously. Somebody's cousin is a police officer who then leaks when the next few months' raids will happen - all the stalls are conveniently covered for a few hours, and things get back to business. I've been there waiting for the police to leave a few times at Panthip, so it's not just a myth.</p><p>Distributors are hard to deal with on the commercial level, period. When you-and-me distributors figure out that they're being watched as they seed that torrent they just downloaded, we'll move to obsfucated and deniable transfer schemes, especially as the overhead of schemes like OFFsystem becomes less and less bothersome as bandwidths increase globally.</p><p>We'd already be doing it if torrenting wasn't so easy and, for 99\% of people, "risk free" since they haven't been served papers yet. The IP 'rights' cartels need to work for their money or they'll get zero when people sneakernet their way around $250 cinema tickets for movies that aren't released anywhere else for a whole year. Piracy is a downward force on prices and an upward force on quality and availability, so don't hate it.. hate the business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know why piracy exists.. your cousin , your workmates and every man 's dog torrents because of ogliopolies handing us the same shitty re-make movie scripts and row-row-fight-da-powa lyrics.Plus take it from me .
If you 've live in the places where piracy is an economic saviour for the otherwise unemployed ( Bangkok being my experience ) people take their job security seriously .
Somebody 's cousin is a police officer who then leaks when the next few months ' raids will happen - all the stalls are conveniently covered for a few hours , and things get back to business .
I 've been there waiting for the police to leave a few times at Panthip , so it 's not just a myth.Distributors are hard to deal with on the commercial level , period .
When you-and-me distributors figure out that they 're being watched as they seed that torrent they just downloaded , we 'll move to obsfucated and deniable transfer schemes , especially as the overhead of schemes like OFFsystem becomes less and less bothersome as bandwidths increase globally.We 'd already be doing it if torrenting was n't so easy and , for 99 \ % of people , " risk free " since they have n't been served papers yet .
The IP 'rights ' cartels need to work for their money or they 'll get zero when people sneakernet their way around $ 250 cinema tickets for movies that are n't released anywhere else for a whole year .
Piracy is a downward force on prices and an upward force on quality and availability , so do n't hate it.. hate the business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know why piracy exists.. your cousin, your workmates and every man's dog torrents because of ogliopolies handing us the same shitty re-make movie scripts and row-row-fight-da-powa lyrics.Plus take it from me.
If you've live in the places where piracy is an economic saviour for the otherwise unemployed (Bangkok being my experience) people take their job security seriously.
Somebody's cousin is a police officer who then leaks when the next few months' raids will happen - all the stalls are conveniently covered for a few hours, and things get back to business.
I've been there waiting for the police to leave a few times at Panthip, so it's not just a myth.Distributors are hard to deal with on the commercial level, period.
When you-and-me distributors figure out that they're being watched as they seed that torrent they just downloaded, we'll move to obsfucated and deniable transfer schemes, especially as the overhead of schemes like OFFsystem becomes less and less bothersome as bandwidths increase globally.We'd already be doing it if torrenting wasn't so easy and, for 99\% of people, "risk free" since they haven't been served papers yet.
The IP 'rights' cartels need to work for their money or they'll get zero when people sneakernet their way around $250 cinema tickets for movies that aren't released anywhere else for a whole year.
Piracy is a downward force on prices and an upward force on quality and availability, so don't hate it.. hate the business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31310652</id>
	<title>Why would a copyright notice on itself be enough?</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1267365540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just about any product out there comes with some sort of fine print, often at least partially unenforceable, lawyers would have a hard time sorting it all out, why is a teenager expected to?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just about any product out there comes with some sort of fine print , often at least partially unenforceable , lawyers would have a hard time sorting it all out , why is a teenager expected to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just about any product out there comes with some sort of fine print, often at least partially unenforceable, lawyers would have a hard time sorting it all out, why is a teenager expected to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308516</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>JCZwart</author>
	<datestamp>1267349340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case, a penalty wouldn't be the point, but creating goodwill and copyright education would. So that in the future, said teenager wouldn't think of <i>downloading</i> music but go to an iTunes/whatever online store instead.</p><p>Which to me sounds like a pretty damn good idea. How about convincing everyone that buying really IS the right thing to do, instead of downloading? And that when you download anyway, they WILL find out, so you're not exactly performing an anonymous act? Right now, the record companies build outright hatred, and many people might, upon hearing about yet another unjust lawsuit, just think: "so what can I do that would hurt those record companies the most?" I know I do (but rest assured, I won't put things into practice).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , a penalty would n't be the point , but creating goodwill and copyright education would .
So that in the future , said teenager would n't think of downloading music but go to an iTunes/whatever online store instead.Which to me sounds like a pretty damn good idea .
How about convincing everyone that buying really IS the right thing to do , instead of downloading ?
And that when you download anyway , they WILL find out , so you 're not exactly performing an anonymous act ?
Right now , the record companies build outright hatred , and many people might , upon hearing about yet another unjust lawsuit , just think : " so what can I do that would hurt those record companies the most ?
" I know I do ( but rest assured , I wo n't put things into practice ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, a penalty wouldn't be the point, but creating goodwill and copyright education would.
So that in the future, said teenager wouldn't think of downloading music but go to an iTunes/whatever online store instead.Which to me sounds like a pretty damn good idea.
How about convincing everyone that buying really IS the right thing to do, instead of downloading?
And that when you download anyway, they WILL find out, so you're not exactly performing an anonymous act?
Right now, the record companies build outright hatred, and many people might, upon hearing about yet another unjust lawsuit, just think: "so what can I do that would hurt those record companies the most?
" I know I do (but rest assured, I won't put things into practice).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308112</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1267389540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's P2P right? The downloaders are distributors.</i> </p><p>Which is why statutory damages come into play.</p><p>If it was possible to trace downloads back to their sources, the geek would be the first to scream for a statutory limit on damages.</p><p>There have been over 200 million downloads of LimeWire from CNET alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's P2P right ?
The downloaders are distributors .
Which is why statutory damages come into play.If it was possible to trace downloads back to their sources , the geek would be the first to scream for a statutory limit on damages.There have been over 200 million downloads of LimeWire from CNET alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's P2P right?
The downloaders are distributors.
Which is why statutory damages come into play.If it was possible to trace downloads back to their sources, the geek would be the first to scream for a statutory limit on damages.There have been over 200 million downloads of LimeWire from CNET alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308548</id>
	<title>It Is Clear...</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1267349520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is clear to this observer that not only are Texas courts far too heavily biased towards submarine and other questionable patent challenges against big companies, but also in the pocket of the Big Media trust.  Funny how those 2 positions should seem to be polar opposites.<br> <br>
Judges should be absolutely prohibited from making any rulings in technology fields where they don't have a demonstrated competency of a high degree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is clear to this observer that not only are Texas courts far too heavily biased towards submarine and other questionable patent challenges against big companies , but also in the pocket of the Big Media trust .
Funny how those 2 positions should seem to be polar opposites .
Judges should be absolutely prohibited from making any rulings in technology fields where they do n't have a demonstrated competency of a high degree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is clear to this observer that not only are Texas courts far too heavily biased towards submarine and other questionable patent challenges against big companies, but also in the pocket of the Big Media trust.
Funny how those 2 positions should seem to be polar opposites.
Judges should be absolutely prohibited from making any rulings in technology fields where they don't have a demonstrated competency of a high degree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1267381080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's P2P right? The downloaders are distributors.</p><p>And a 50\% penalty is ridiculously small. You really think they catch more than 2 out of 3 such infringements? So that's really no penalty at all and you'd be an idiot to buy them upfront if they only cost 150\% as much if you happen to get caught.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's P2P right ?
The downloaders are distributors.And a 50 \ % penalty is ridiculously small .
You really think they catch more than 2 out of 3 such infringements ?
So that 's really no penalty at all and you 'd be an idiot to buy them upfront if they only cost 150 \ % as much if you happen to get caught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's P2P right?
The downloaders are distributors.And a 50\% penalty is ridiculously small.
You really think they catch more than 2 out of 3 such infringements?
So that's really no penalty at all and you'd be an idiot to buy them upfront if they only cost 150\% as much if you happen to get caught.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308004</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1267388640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services (iTunes, etc)</p></div></blockquote><p>

So, basically that would be an offer to exchange perfectly usable MP3s which can be played on all devices against DRM-infested files that would be useless on most platforms? How is that offer better than rm -rf $HOME/mp3-song-collection.tar.bz2; dd if=/dev/random of=$HOME/riaa-approved-song-collection.tar.bz2 ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In return , we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services ( iTunes , etc ) So , basically that would be an offer to exchange perfectly usable MP3s which can be played on all devices against DRM-infested files that would be useless on most platforms ?
How is that offer better than rm -rf $ HOME/mp3-song-collection.tar.bz2 ; dd if = /dev/random of = $ HOME/riaa-approved-song-collection.tar.bz2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services (iTunes, etc)

So, basically that would be an offer to exchange perfectly usable MP3s which can be played on all devices against DRM-infested files that would be useless on most platforms?
How is that offer better than rm -rf $HOME/mp3-song-collection.tar.bz2; dd if=/dev/random of=$HOME/riaa-approved-song-collection.tar.bz2 ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474</id>
	<title>Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether she was innocently infringing or not isn't really the point because it's fairly obvious that no teenager on the planet who pirates music doesn't know that it's illegal.</p><p>The problem is that she's in court for downloading 16 songs. Randomly attacking people who will find it difficult to defend themselves legally isn't the right way to go about reducing piracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether she was innocently infringing or not is n't really the point because it 's fairly obvious that no teenager on the planet who pirates music does n't know that it 's illegal.The problem is that she 's in court for downloading 16 songs .
Randomly attacking people who will find it difficult to defend themselves legally is n't the right way to go about reducing piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether she was innocently infringing or not isn't really the point because it's fairly obvious that no teenager on the planet who pirates music doesn't know that it's illegal.The problem is that she's in court for downloading 16 songs.
Randomly attacking people who will find it difficult to defend themselves legally isn't the right way to go about reducing piracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308862</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>aynoknman</author>
	<datestamp>1267351920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uploading is however illegal in Canada.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uploading is however illegal in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uploading is however illegal in Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31310846</id>
	<title>What is RIAA SELLING?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am still waiting for a clear and concise definition of what I am buying when I buy music. I stopped buying music at the advent of MP3. when I bought a LP or a tape I new I could do what ever I wanted with it. make a mix tape or even sell it when I tired of it or share with my friends. All legal and above board. Now I'm not sure what I would be paying for. I simply refuse to give my money to someone who refuses to define what he is selling so its radio for me and I have been stuck here for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am still waiting for a clear and concise definition of what I am buying when I buy music .
I stopped buying music at the advent of MP3 .
when I bought a LP or a tape I new I could do what ever I wanted with it .
make a mix tape or even sell it when I tired of it or share with my friends .
All legal and above board .
Now I 'm not sure what I would be paying for .
I simply refuse to give my money to someone who refuses to define what he is selling so its radio for me and I have been stuck here for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am still waiting for a clear and concise definition of what I am buying when I buy music.
I stopped buying music at the advent of MP3.
when I bought a LP or a tape I new I could do what ever I wanted with it.
make a mix tape or even sell it when I tired of it or share with my friends.
All legal and above board.
Now I'm not sure what I would be paying for.
I simply refuse to give my money to someone who refuses to define what he is selling so its radio for me and I have been stuck here for a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31319572</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267471920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if said teenager was downloading a Britney Spears song then it is of course wrong, and they should be harshly punished.</p></div><p>
Agreed, anyone caught listening to that infernal racket should be burned at the stake. Downloading Britney Spears songs only propagates the stereotype that Britney Spears makes good music. This is a social injustice that should be fought not only in the trenches and streets, but on the very intrawebz we inhabit today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if said teenager was downloading a Britney Spears song then it is of course wrong , and they should be harshly punished .
Agreed , anyone caught listening to that infernal racket should be burned at the stake .
Downloading Britney Spears songs only propagates the stereotype that Britney Spears makes good music .
This is a social injustice that should be fought not only in the trenches and streets , but on the very intrawebz we inhabit today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if said teenager was downloading a Britney Spears song then it is of course wrong, and they should be harshly punished.
Agreed, anyone caught listening to that infernal racket should be burned at the stake.
Downloading Britney Spears songs only propagates the stereotype that Britney Spears makes good music.
This is a social injustice that should be fought not only in the trenches and streets, but on the very intrawebz we inhabit today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311582</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267374360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>X*1.5 + X &gt; X*1.5   Like they'd gift you rights without you paying for it twice.. PFFT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>X * 1.5 + X &gt; X * 1.5 Like they 'd gift you rights without you paying for it twice.. PFFT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>X*1.5 + X &gt; X*1.5   Like they'd gift you rights without you paying for it twice.. PFFT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31310418</id>
	<title>Definition of "Innocent Infringment"</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1267363500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is a bit misleading when it says "Innocent Infringement Defense" as it is not a defense of the charge if infringement.  It is actually an admission that infringement took place, but requests a lower penalty as the infringement was not deliberate or unforeseen.  In this case, the defendant made the argument that the works in question didn't have any obvious copyright markings and she didn't know they were under copyright.  (I suspect they asked if she had looked at the CD in the store and had seen the copyright notice on it, and she said yes).</p><p>A quick summary of the Innocent Infringement Response for those who actually click links. <a href="http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent\_infringement" title="wikia.com">http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent\_infringement</a> [wikia.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is a bit misleading when it says " Innocent Infringement Defense " as it is not a defense of the charge if infringement .
It is actually an admission that infringement took place , but requests a lower penalty as the infringement was not deliberate or unforeseen .
In this case , the defendant made the argument that the works in question did n't have any obvious copyright markings and she did n't know they were under copyright .
( I suspect they asked if she had looked at the CD in the store and had seen the copyright notice on it , and she said yes ) .A quick summary of the Innocent Infringement Response for those who actually click links .
http : //itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent \ _infringement [ wikia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is a bit misleading when it says "Innocent Infringement Defense" as it is not a defense of the charge if infringement.
It is actually an admission that infringement took place, but requests a lower penalty as the infringement was not deliberate or unforeseen.
In this case, the defendant made the argument that the works in question didn't have any obvious copyright markings and she didn't know they were under copyright.
(I suspect they asked if she had looked at the CD in the store and had seen the copyright notice on it, and she said yes).A quick summary of the Innocent Infringement Response for those who actually click links.
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent\_infringement [wikia.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307304</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkLaywer gives another dishonest summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267383360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about "access" (i.e. the argument that the defendant would have had *access* to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music).

But the decision clearly states [page 9], "Rather than contest the fact of "access", Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music."

Thus, the issue of "access" was NOT AT STAKE. It was not contested. The decision was made purely on whether Harper's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense. And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense. (If it were, then someone would be able to violate e.g. GPL merely by persuading the court that they didn't know how copyright worked.)</p></div><p>1. The name is "NewYorkCountryLawyer".<br> <br>2. Your characterization of my summary as "dishonest" was quite dishonest on your part.<br> <br>3. The decision was based on access; it was because of their conclusion on "access" that her lack of knowledge, etc., became irrelevant. Had she not had access, it would have been quite relevant. <br> <br>4. I found the discussion of "access" vague, and for that reason used the term "seems". I wasn't sure exactly what they were saying. From their decision it seems that they had established that the copies were downloaded from copies that bore no copyright notice. So it would seem that the record supported the lower court's finding that there was no "access", and that they were defining access differently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about " access " ( i.e .
the argument that the defendant would have had * access * to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music ) .
But the decision clearly states [ page 9 ] , " Rather than contest the fact of " access " , Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music .
" Thus , the issue of " access " was NOT AT STAKE .
It was not contested .
The decision was made purely on whether Harper 's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense .
And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense .
( If it were , then someone would be able to violate e.g .
GPL merely by persuading the court that they did n't know how copyright worked. ) 1 .
The name is " NewYorkCountryLawyer " .
2. Your characterization of my summary as " dishonest " was quite dishonest on your part .
3. The decision was based on access ; it was because of their conclusion on " access " that her lack of knowledge , etc. , became irrelevant .
Had she not had access , it would have been quite relevant .
4. I found the discussion of " access " vague , and for that reason used the term " seems " .
I was n't sure exactly what they were saying .
From their decision it seems that they had established that the copies were downloaded from copies that bore no copyright notice .
So it would seem that the record supported the lower court 's finding that there was no " access " , and that they were defining access differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkLawyer characterized this decision as one about "access" (i.e.
the argument that the defendant would have had *access* to other CDs with their copyright notices and so should have known that the same notices would have applied to downloaded music).
But the decision clearly states [page 9], "Rather than contest the fact of "access", Harper contended only that she was too young and naive to understand that the copyrights on published music applied to downloaded music.
"

Thus, the issue of "access" was NOT AT STAKE.
It was not contested.
The decision was made purely on whether Harper's ignorance of copyright law counts as a valid defense.
And the court ruled clearly that ignorance of copyright law is not a valid defense.
(If it were, then someone would be able to violate e.g.
GPL merely by persuading the court that they didn't know how copyright worked.)1.
The name is "NewYorkCountryLawyer".
2. Your characterization of my summary as "dishonest" was quite dishonest on your part.
3. The decision was based on access; it was because of their conclusion on "access" that her lack of knowledge, etc., became irrelevant.
Had she not had access, it would have been quite relevant.
4. I found the discussion of "access" vague, and for that reason used the term "seems".
I wasn't sure exactly what they were saying.
From their decision it seems that they had established that the copies were downloaded from copies that bore no copyright notice.
So it would seem that the record supported the lower court's finding that there was no "access", and that they were defining access differently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308880</id>
	<title>Hide your assets..</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1267352160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are living in a a dictatorship that is run by the largest corporations in the world, you have no rights, you are a pawn in a police state, they will make a toy of you to impress upon others how truly powerless you are and how you can be crushed at a whim!</p><p>When ever possible do not "own" but rather rent, keep your money in a foreign bank, one that is secretive and immune to American legal process.</p><p>The Russians did not defeat Napoleon in direct battle but by burning everything of use and denying the French and food, shelter or fuel.</p><p>If They win a judgment against you it is better to destroy everything you own than to give it to a mob of gangsters.</p><p>Am I raving?<br>Oh yes, I certainly am!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are living in a a dictatorship that is run by the largest corporations in the world , you have no rights , you are a pawn in a police state , they will make a toy of you to impress upon others how truly powerless you are and how you can be crushed at a whim ! When ever possible do not " own " but rather rent , keep your money in a foreign bank , one that is secretive and immune to American legal process.The Russians did not defeat Napoleon in direct battle but by burning everything of use and denying the French and food , shelter or fuel.If They win a judgment against you it is better to destroy everything you own than to give it to a mob of gangsters.Am I raving ? Oh yes , I certainly am !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are living in a a dictatorship that is run by the largest corporations in the world, you have no rights, you are a pawn in a police state, they will make a toy of you to impress upon others how truly powerless you are and how you can be crushed at a whim!When ever possible do not "own" but rather rent, keep your money in a foreign bank, one that is secretive and immune to American legal process.The Russians did not defeat Napoleon in direct battle but by burning everything of use and denying the French and food, shelter or fuel.If They win a judgment against you it is better to destroy everything you own than to give it to a mob of gangsters.Am I raving?Oh yes, I certainly am!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>PFI\_Optix</author>
	<datestamp>1267379340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, the labels needs to start with this:</p><p>"We have evidence that you downloaded X songs (attach a list) for which we own the copyrights. We would like to settle this matter quietly and without legal action. To that end, we would accept a settlement of X * 1.5 dollars in order to resolve this matter. In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services (iTunes, etc) If you decline this offer, we suggest you retain a lawyer and have them contact our legal department."</p><p>It's simple, reasonable, and only mildly threatening. It carries a modest 50\% penalty over the cost per song.</p><p>They should be going after distributors with the big penalties, not the downloaders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the labels needs to start with this : " We have evidence that you downloaded X songs ( attach a list ) for which we own the copyrights .
We would like to settle this matter quietly and without legal action .
To that end , we would accept a settlement of X * 1.5 dollars in order to resolve this matter .
In return , we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services ( iTunes , etc ) If you decline this offer , we suggest you retain a lawyer and have them contact our legal department .
" It 's simple , reasonable , and only mildly threatening .
It carries a modest 50 \ % penalty over the cost per song.They should be going after distributors with the big penalties , not the downloaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the labels needs to start with this:"We have evidence that you downloaded X songs (attach a list) for which we own the copyrights.
We would like to settle this matter quietly and without legal action.
To that end, we would accept a settlement of X * 1.5 dollars in order to resolve this matter.
In return, we will arrange for you to have legal digital versions of the songs in question via one of the listed services (iTunes, etc) If you decline this offer, we suggest you retain a lawyer and have them contact our legal department.
"It's simple, reasonable, and only mildly threatening.
It carries a modest 50\% penalty over the cost per song.They should be going after distributors with the big penalties, not the downloaders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306638</id>
	<title>Re:Not really the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267379040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, I'm a teenager in Canada, which is on the planet. I know that downloading music is legal where I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm a teenager in Canada , which is on the planet .
I know that downloading music is legal where I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I'm a teenager in Canada, which is on the planet.
I know that downloading music is legal where I am.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31319572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31310202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31309622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31314322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31309098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31312134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_28_1532230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1532230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1532230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1532230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31314322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307230
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31309622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31319572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306962
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308516
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31310202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31309098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306840
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31311244
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31312134
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1532230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31306974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_28_1532230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31307304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_28_1532230.31308066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
