<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_01_2053246</id>
	<title>Another ACTA Leak Discloses Individual Country Data</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267437240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"On the heels of the <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/02/25/201256/Leak-Shows-US-Lead-Opponent-of-ACTA-Transparency">earlier leak</a> of various country positions on ACTA transparency, today an even <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4829/125/">bigger leak
has hit the Internet</a>. A new <a href="http://blog.die-linke.de/digitalelinke/wp-content/uploads/ACTA-6437-10.pdf">European Union document</a> [PDF] prepared several weeks ago canvasses the Internet and Civil Enforcement chapters, disclosing in complete detail the proposals from the US, and the counter-proposals from the EU, Japan, and other ACTA
participants. The 44-page document also highlights specific concerns of individual countries on a wide range of issues including ISP liability, anti-circumvention rules, and the scope of the treaty. This is probably the most significant leak to date since it goes beyond the transparency debate to include specific country positions and proposals."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " On the heels of the earlier leak of various country positions on ACTA transparency , today an even bigger leak has hit the Internet .
A new European Union document [ PDF ] prepared several weeks ago canvasses the Internet and Civil Enforcement chapters , disclosing in complete detail the proposals from the US , and the counter-proposals from the EU , Japan , and other ACTA participants .
The 44-page document also highlights specific concerns of individual countries on a wide range of issues including ISP liability , anti-circumvention rules , and the scope of the treaty .
This is probably the most significant leak to date since it goes beyond the transparency debate to include specific country positions and proposals .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "On the heels of the earlier leak of various country positions on ACTA transparency, today an even bigger leak
has hit the Internet.
A new European Union document [PDF] prepared several weeks ago canvasses the Internet and Civil Enforcement chapters, disclosing in complete detail the proposals from the US, and the counter-proposals from the EU, Japan, and other ACTA
participants.
The 44-page document also highlights specific concerns of individual countries on a wide range of issues including ISP liability, anti-circumvention rules, and the scope of the treaty.
This is probably the most significant leak to date since it goes beyond the transparency debate to include specific country positions and proposals.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323454</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>aaandre</author>
	<datestamp>1267443420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Going public and going to be passed as a law for the public.</p><p>The fact that a few people are aware and pissed off does not mean that all of the people won't be governed by this new law soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Going public and going to be passed as a law for the public.The fact that a few people are aware and pissed off does not mean that all of the people wo n't be governed by this new law soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Going public and going to be passed as a law for the public.The fact that a few people are aware and pissed off does not mean that all of the people won't be governed by this new law soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325502</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1267456440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions, governments can provide input, but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.</i>
</p><p>Easy - the people already had their say when they elected said politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions , governments can provide input , but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made .
Easy - the people already had their say when they elected said politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions, governments can provide input, but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.
Easy - the people already had their say when they elected said politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31341398</id>
	<title>Re:Just walk away</title>
	<author>dasdrewid</author>
	<datestamp>1267559940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is(are) the negotiator(s) for the US?  I see no reason why we couldn't ask them to explain why they're asking for the things they are.  Asking members of Congress is pretty much useless (technically, the president makes treaties with "advice and consent" from the Senate, though through some sort of legal wrangling he can also make them on his own), so I see no reason to waste both our and their time.  Let's take our questions and concerns to the people actually involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is ( are ) the negotiator ( s ) for the US ?
I see no reason why we could n't ask them to explain why they 're asking for the things they are .
Asking members of Congress is pretty much useless ( technically , the president makes treaties with " advice and consent " from the Senate , though through some sort of legal wrangling he can also make them on his own ) , so I see no reason to waste both our and their time .
Let 's take our questions and concerns to the people actually involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is(are) the negotiator(s) for the US?
I see no reason why we couldn't ask them to explain why they're asking for the things they are.
Asking members of Congress is pretty much useless (technically, the president makes treaties with "advice and consent" from the Senate, though through some sort of legal wrangling he can also make them on his own), so I see no reason to waste both our and their time.
Let's take our questions and concerns to the people actually involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323838</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1267445400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe, but not for the reason you suggest.</p><blockquote><div><p>"We can't write working code because the only people willing to write this kind of code are incompetent morons. Skilled engineers think this type of code is a bad idea, and won't touch it. Rather than rethinking our position to be more in line with reality, we want laws that make illegal to circumvent the swiss cheese code that we can actually hire someone to write."</p></div> </blockquote><p>The reason they can't write "good" code in this area isn't that they can't attract "skilled engineers" -- a problem that could mostly be addressed by throwing more money at the problem, which there lobbying efforts in favor of anti-circumvention laws show that they are more than willing to do, but that the problem is fundamentally intractable. Everything the consumer needs to decode and access the media has to be avaialable, otherwise authorized use won't be possible. But once that's there, you have to prevent the user from using it. <i>Effective</i> technical measures are, therefore, fundamentally impractical, hence, anti-circumvention rules. Are proposed, to limit access to the information necessary to circumvent the fundamentally flawed technical measures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid ? Maybe , but not for the reason you suggest .
" We ca n't write working code because the only people willing to write this kind of code are incompetent morons .
Skilled engineers think this type of code is a bad idea , and wo n't touch it .
Rather than rethinking our position to be more in line with reality , we want laws that make illegal to circumvent the swiss cheese code that we can actually hire someone to write .
" The reason they ca n't write " good " code in this area is n't that they ca n't attract " skilled engineers " -- a problem that could mostly be addressed by throwing more money at the problem , which there lobbying efforts in favor of anti-circumvention laws show that they are more than willing to do , but that the problem is fundamentally intractable .
Everything the consumer needs to decode and access the media has to be avaialable , otherwise authorized use wo n't be possible .
But once that 's there , you have to prevent the user from using it .
Effective technical measures are , therefore , fundamentally impractical , hence , anti-circumvention rules .
Are proposed , to limit access to the information necessary to circumvent the fundamentally flawed technical measures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?Maybe, but not for the reason you suggest.
"We can't write working code because the only people willing to write this kind of code are incompetent morons.
Skilled engineers think this type of code is a bad idea, and won't touch it.
Rather than rethinking our position to be more in line with reality, we want laws that make illegal to circumvent the swiss cheese code that we can actually hire someone to write.
" The reason they can't write "good" code in this area isn't that they can't attract "skilled engineers" -- a problem that could mostly be addressed by throwing more money at the problem, which there lobbying efforts in favor of anti-circumvention laws show that they are more than willing to do, but that the problem is fundamentally intractable.
Everything the consumer needs to decode and access the media has to be avaialable, otherwise authorized use won't be possible.
But once that's there, you have to prevent the user from using it.
Effective technical measures are, therefore, fundamentally impractical, hence, anti-circumvention rules.
Are proposed, to limit access to the information necessary to circumvent the fundamentally flawed technical measures.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329984</id>
	<title>Re:The irony of trying to keep ACTA secret</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267545960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>does anyone else find it comic and rather ironic that almost exclusively<br>because the countries involved have tried to keep this a secret, that ACTA<br>negotiations now get far more attention <b>online</b> than they would otherwise?</p></div></blockquote><p>Fixed that for you.</p><p>Your point would hold if the major news outlets in the US are reporting this story. Instead they focus on what high-profile individual is having extramarital sex with whom.</p><p>There is no liberal media; there is only the corporate media, and ACTA serves to further their interests. I'll lay you 10 to 1 that the moment a reporter tries to get a story on ACTA is the moment he is threatened with job loss from his editor or executive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>does anyone else find it comic and rather ironic that almost exclusivelybecause the countries involved have tried to keep this a secret , that ACTAnegotiations now get far more attention online than they would otherwise ? Fixed that for you.Your point would hold if the major news outlets in the US are reporting this story .
Instead they focus on what high-profile individual is having extramarital sex with whom.There is no liberal media ; there is only the corporate media , and ACTA serves to further their interests .
I 'll lay you 10 to 1 that the moment a reporter tries to get a story on ACTA is the moment he is threatened with job loss from his editor or executive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does anyone else find it comic and rather ironic that almost exclusivelybecause the countries involved have tried to keep this a secret, that ACTAnegotiations now get far more attention online than they would otherwise?Fixed that for you.Your point would hold if the major news outlets in the US are reporting this story.
Instead they focus on what high-profile individual is having extramarital sex with whom.There is no liberal media; there is only the corporate media, and ACTA serves to further their interests.
I'll lay you 10 to 1 that the moment a reporter tries to get a story on ACTA is the moment he is threatened with job loss from his editor or executive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325364</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1267455120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>finally reverse the effects of the Eternal September</p></div></blockquote><p>I suggest we just isolate all of them and lock their web browsers to the URL they are probably going to anyways..... 4Chan. (kidding)</p><blockquote><div><p>dramatically upping the level of technical knowledge required to operate anything interesting on the Internet.</p></div></blockquote><p>Seriously... I *fucking* hope so.  It's apathy right now that keeps people from obtaining the skills needed to be creating/operating the kind of networks and infrastructures capable of truly stopping ACTA's goals.</p><p>Mesh networks are not the complete solution (no interlinks between cities and peer/transit relationships connecting them to the rest of the world), but I believe that if you couple Mesh Networks with technologies like TOR, FreeNet, and Darknet connected to the standard offerings we can create a layer of communication on the Internet that is effectively impossible to police and stop.</p><p>Unlesss....... they outlaw encryption entirely and start running around with drones triangulating rogue transmissions to put those people in a 're-education' camp.  A darker more futuristic version of Pump Up The Volume.</p><p>This is where it has to go before we can finally put a stop to this stupidity.  I guess what I am saying is that I want the war to start already dammit.  While I am still young enough to fight it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>finally reverse the effects of the Eternal SeptemberI suggest we just isolate all of them and lock their web browsers to the URL they are probably going to anyways..... 4Chan. ( kidding ) dramatically upping the level of technical knowledge required to operate anything interesting on the Internet.Seriously... I * fucking * hope so .
It 's apathy right now that keeps people from obtaining the skills needed to be creating/operating the kind of networks and infrastructures capable of truly stopping ACTA 's goals.Mesh networks are not the complete solution ( no interlinks between cities and peer/transit relationships connecting them to the rest of the world ) , but I believe that if you couple Mesh Networks with technologies like TOR , FreeNet , and Darknet connected to the standard offerings we can create a layer of communication on the Internet that is effectively impossible to police and stop.Unlesss....... they outlaw encryption entirely and start running around with drones triangulating rogue transmissions to put those people in a 're-education ' camp .
A darker more futuristic version of Pump Up The Volume.This is where it has to go before we can finally put a stop to this stupidity .
I guess what I am saying is that I want the war to start already dammit .
While I am still young enough to fight it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>finally reverse the effects of the Eternal SeptemberI suggest we just isolate all of them and lock their web browsers to the URL they are probably going to anyways..... 4Chan. (kidding)dramatically upping the level of technical knowledge required to operate anything interesting on the Internet.Seriously... I *fucking* hope so.
It's apathy right now that keeps people from obtaining the skills needed to be creating/operating the kind of networks and infrastructures capable of truly stopping ACTA's goals.Mesh networks are not the complete solution (no interlinks between cities and peer/transit relationships connecting them to the rest of the world), but I believe that if you couple Mesh Networks with technologies like TOR, FreeNet, and Darknet connected to the standard offerings we can create a layer of communication on the Internet that is effectively impossible to police and stop.Unlesss....... they outlaw encryption entirely and start running around with drones triangulating rogue transmissions to put those people in a 're-education' camp.
A darker more futuristic version of Pump Up The Volume.This is where it has to go before we can finally put a stop to this stupidity.
I guess what I am saying is that I want the war to start already dammit.
While I am still young enough to fight it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322848</id>
	<title>Tiny penis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rob Malda's penis is tiny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob Malda 's penis is tiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob Malda's penis is tiny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323154</id>
	<title>Sneakernet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267442160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neighborhood wireless BBS? Somebody put up a tower and let people in the neighborhood connect to it with subscriber units?</p><p>Group of people rent the fire hall for the weekend and throw down some gigabit switches?</p><p>I doubt strongly people will just accept dropping file sharing. Do we start wasting actual police resources in raiding swapping parties and neighborhood wifi meshes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neighborhood wireless BBS ?
Somebody put up a tower and let people in the neighborhood connect to it with subscriber units ? Group of people rent the fire hall for the weekend and throw down some gigabit switches ? I doubt strongly people will just accept dropping file sharing .
Do we start wasting actual police resources in raiding swapping parties and neighborhood wifi meshes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neighborhood wireless BBS?
Somebody put up a tower and let people in the neighborhood connect to it with subscriber units?Group of people rent the fire hall for the weekend and throw down some gigabit switches?I doubt strongly people will just accept dropping file sharing.
Do we start wasting actual police resources in raiding swapping parties and neighborhood wifi meshes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324132</id>
	<title>Boycott</title>
	<author>korpenkraxar</author>
	<datestamp>1267446840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fear this is the only action that content owners will pay any attention to, and I do not mean, stop buying and continue pirating the media.

Ignore their new products, on the Internet and in real life.

Put pressure on your favorite artists and writers.

Tell your friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fear this is the only action that content owners will pay any attention to , and I do not mean , stop buying and continue pirating the media .
Ignore their new products , on the Internet and in real life .
Put pressure on your favorite artists and writers .
Tell your friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fear this is the only action that content owners will pay any attention to, and I do not mean, stop buying and continue pirating the media.
Ignore their new products, on the Internet and in real life.
Put pressure on your favorite artists and writers.
Tell your friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324512</id>
	<title>Re: Not Fascinating but Depressing</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1267449000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of us who love what the internet has to offer in terms of information, entertainment and news the very idea of the Internet becoming "the CorporateNet" is depressing.</p><p>After the takeover we will still be able to do many things - after we have logged in with our credit card.</p><p>Then CorporateNet can charge us for every download and access (and it will not be cheap!)</p><p>What can we do? If we fight like hell we can delay things for a while, but eventually money will rule out. So be prepared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of us who love what the internet has to offer in terms of information , entertainment and news the very idea of the Internet becoming " the CorporateNet " is depressing.After the takeover we will still be able to do many things - after we have logged in with our credit card.Then CorporateNet can charge us for every download and access ( and it will not be cheap !
) What can we do ?
If we fight like hell we can delay things for a while , but eventually money will rule out .
So be prepared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of us who love what the internet has to offer in terms of information, entertainment and news the very idea of the Internet becoming "the CorporateNet" is depressing.After the takeover we will still be able to do many things - after we have logged in with our credit card.Then CorporateNet can charge us for every download and access (and it will not be cheap!
)What can we do?
If we fight like hell we can delay things for a while, but eventually money will rule out.
So be prepared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31326012</id>
	<title>Re:Just walk away</title>
	<author>Kalriath</author>
	<datestamp>1267460880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fat chance, the New Zealand government has spent the last two years actively dismantling the institutions of democracy and transparency.</p><p>I stole the line from the Canadian, but it's just as relevant here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fat chance , the New Zealand government has spent the last two years actively dismantling the institutions of democracy and transparency.I stole the line from the Canadian , but it 's just as relevant here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fat chance, the New Zealand government has spent the last two years actively dismantling the institutions of democracy and transparency.I stole the line from the Canadian, but it's just as relevant here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329132</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>ciggieposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1267541820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The analogy which springs to my mind is of a person who picks the locks on the doors or windows of your house, but doesn't steal anything.</i></p><p>To my mind, it's more like someone providing you with tools that would let you open your own windows during times that the window manufacturers didn't want you to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analogy which springs to my mind is of a person who picks the locks on the doors or windows of your house , but does n't steal anything.To my mind , it 's more like someone providing you with tools that would let you open your own windows during times that the window manufacturers did n't want you to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analogy which springs to my mind is of a person who picks the locks on the doors or windows of your house, but doesn't steal anything.To my mind, it's more like someone providing you with tools that would let you open your own windows during times that the window manufacturers didn't want you to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329554</id>
	<title>Re:hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267543920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are Anonymous <em>Cowards</em>, not Anonymous. Silly you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are Anonymous Cowards , not Anonymous .
Silly you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are Anonymous Cowards, not Anonymous.
Silly you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323318</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Lifyre</author>
	<datestamp>1267442820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally we shall realize the Sprawl universe!  Corporations will be kings, the government will be little more than a glorified group of pencil pushers, and hackers will glide through cyberspace slicing ICE with hot decks...</p><p>Huh... Except for that last part and the crazy space people we're not that far away.  Man I wanted an Ono-Sendai when I was a kid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally we shall realize the Sprawl universe !
Corporations will be kings , the government will be little more than a glorified group of pencil pushers , and hackers will glide through cyberspace slicing ICE with hot decks...Huh... Except for that last part and the crazy space people we 're not that far away .
Man I wanted an Ono-Sendai when I was a kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally we shall realize the Sprawl universe!
Corporations will be kings, the government will be little more than a glorified group of pencil pushers, and hackers will glide through cyberspace slicing ICE with hot decks...Huh... Except for that last part and the crazy space people we're not that far away.
Man I wanted an Ono-Sendai when I was a kid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308</id>
	<title>Just walk away</title>
	<author>TSHTF</author>
	<datestamp>1267442760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think there's much chance of changing the American negotiators views on this, but I'm still going to contact my representatives in Congress. Nothing will likely come out of it.

If you are a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er in a more reasonable country, say New Zealand or Canada, I beg you to contact your MPs and demand transparency in this process. We shouldn't have to find out about the progress of negotiations through leaks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think there 's much chance of changing the American negotiators views on this , but I 'm still going to contact my representatives in Congress .
Nothing will likely come out of it .
If you are a /.er in a more reasonable country , say New Zealand or Canada , I beg you to contact your MPs and demand transparency in this process .
We should n't have to find out about the progress of negotiations through leaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think there's much chance of changing the American negotiators views on this, but I'm still going to contact my representatives in Congress.
Nothing will likely come out of it.
If you are a /.er in a more reasonable country, say New Zealand or Canada, I beg you to contact your MPs and demand transparency in this process.
We shouldn't have to find out about the progress of negotiations through leaks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323406</id>
	<title>As long as we do not criminalize</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267443240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you explain your children that they are 'criminals' if they download music or video?</p><p>Even for addults it is difficult to understand that downloading a nice song for your music collection has a very high fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you explain your children that they are 'criminals ' if they download music or video ? Even for addults it is difficult to understand that downloading a nice song for your music collection has a very high fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you explain your children that they are 'criminals' if they download music or video?Even for addults it is difficult to understand that downloading a nice song for your music collection has a very high fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325796</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>nasch</author>
	<datestamp>1267458840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I should be allowed to break into my own house if I want to.  I bought the house (DVD).  Just because it came with a lock (DRM), why should I be prohibited from opening it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I should be allowed to break into my own house if I want to .
I bought the house ( DVD ) .
Just because it came with a lock ( DRM ) , why should I be prohibited from opening it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I should be allowed to break into my own house if I want to.
I bought the house (DVD).
Just because it came with a lock (DRM), why should I be prohibited from opening it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325804</id>
	<title>Re:The irony of trying to keep ACTA secret</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267458840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting attention from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. types is to be expected for such a law. The real issue is that non-techies don't know or care, and they will not care until their son/daughter gets jailed for torrenting 16 songs.</p><p>Just watch. By the time the public catches up on what's going down, the laws to enforce ACTA will have long entered into effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting attention from / .
types is to be expected for such a law .
The real issue is that non-techies do n't know or care , and they will not care until their son/daughter gets jailed for torrenting 16 songs.Just watch .
By the time the public catches up on what 's going down , the laws to enforce ACTA will have long entered into effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting attention from /.
types is to be expected for such a law.
The real issue is that non-techies don't know or care, and they will not care until their son/daughter gets jailed for torrenting 16 songs.Just watch.
By the time the public catches up on what's going down, the laws to enforce ACTA will have long entered into effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31327734</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one pleasantly surprised by this?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1267525980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Make good decisions regarding rubbish law in public. Gain public trust. This was the DNA retention laws and the ISP Deep Packet Filtering decisions in the UK, maybe others in other European countries.<br>2. Make good decisions regarding rubbish law in private, and leak those decisions. ACTA. <br>3. Make good decisions regarding rubbish law in private, and let the law reflect them when applied in court.<br>4. Make mediocre decisions regarding rubbish law in private, show leniency.<br>5. Make poor decisions regarding rubbish law in private.<br>6. Make decisions backed by brown envelope money. Profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Make good decisions regarding rubbish law in public .
Gain public trust .
This was the DNA retention laws and the ISP Deep Packet Filtering decisions in the UK , maybe others in other European countries.2 .
Make good decisions regarding rubbish law in private , and leak those decisions .
ACTA. 3 .
Make good decisions regarding rubbish law in private , and let the law reflect them when applied in court.4 .
Make mediocre decisions regarding rubbish law in private , show leniency.5 .
Make poor decisions regarding rubbish law in private.6 .
Make decisions backed by brown envelope money .
Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Make good decisions regarding rubbish law in public.
Gain public trust.
This was the DNA retention laws and the ISP Deep Packet Filtering decisions in the UK, maybe others in other European countries.2.
Make good decisions regarding rubbish law in private, and leak those decisions.
ACTA. 3.
Make good decisions regarding rubbish law in private, and let the law reflect them when applied in court.4.
Make mediocre decisions regarding rubbish law in private, show leniency.5.
Make poor decisions regarding rubbish law in private.6.
Make decisions backed by brown envelope money.
Profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324932</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>speederaser</author>
	<datestamp>1267451700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Start prepping your <b>soon-to-be-illegal</b> wireless mesh network.</p></div></blockquote><p>FTFY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start prepping your soon-to-be-illegal wireless mesh network.FTFY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start prepping your soon-to-be-illegal wireless mesh network.FTFY.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324978</id>
	<title>Go Canada</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1267452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It makes me proud that of the whole world apparently we are the ones fighting this. <br> <br>I imagine various EU members have the most to be pissed about looking at this document. The birthplace of PyratBiran and no outcry? Lots of liberal countries there that have remained silent. I'd be pissed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes me proud that of the whole world apparently we are the ones fighting this .
I imagine various EU members have the most to be pissed about looking at this document .
The birthplace of PyratBiran and no outcry ?
Lots of liberal countries there that have remained silent .
I 'd be pissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes me proud that of the whole world apparently we are the ones fighting this.
I imagine various EU members have the most to be pissed about looking at this document.
The birthplace of PyratBiran and no outcry?
Lots of liberal countries there that have remained silent.
I'd be pissed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329946</id>
	<title>Re:Just walk away</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1267545720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada may be reasonable (which may change with all the pressure the industry is putting on that government), but New Zealand has tried to follow Australia's lead in censoring the 'net. I'm afraid businesses have seen what can be accomplished by implicitly buying politicians in the US and decided to make that a global business model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada may be reasonable ( which may change with all the pressure the industry is putting on that government ) , but New Zealand has tried to follow Australia 's lead in censoring the 'net .
I 'm afraid businesses have seen what can be accomplished by implicitly buying politicians in the US and decided to make that a global business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada may be reasonable (which may change with all the pressure the industry is putting on that government), but New Zealand has tried to follow Australia's lead in censoring the 'net.
I'm afraid businesses have seen what can be accomplished by implicitly buying politicians in the US and decided to make that a global business model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325678</id>
	<title>Re:The irony of trying to keep ACTA secret</title>
	<author>DinDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1267458060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, only on sites like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>Mainstream press and mainstream people are oblivious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , only on sites like /.Mainstream press and mainstream people are oblivious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, only on sites like /.Mainstream press and mainstream people are oblivious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502</id>
	<title>The irony of trying to keep ACTA secret</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267443660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does anyone else find it comic and rather ironic that almost exclusively<br>because the countries involved have tried to keep this a secret, that ACTA<br>negotiations now get far more attention than they would otherwise?</p><p>I feel this needs even more attention, and more clearly explained and broadly<br>disseminated explanation of what is at stake both for individuals and for<br>emerging cultures as they join the ranks of "western" strong-copyright regimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does anyone else find it comic and rather ironic that almost exclusivelybecause the countries involved have tried to keep this a secret , that ACTAnegotiations now get far more attention than they would otherwise ? I feel this needs even more attention , and more clearly explained and broadlydisseminated explanation of what is at stake both for individuals and foremerging cultures as they join the ranks of " western " strong-copyright regimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does anyone else find it comic and rather ironic that almost exclusivelybecause the countries involved have tried to keep this a secret, that ACTAnegotiations now get far more attention than they would otherwise?I feel this needs even more attention, and more clearly explained and broadlydisseminated explanation of what is at stake both for individuals and foremerging cultures as they join the ranks of "western" strong-copyright regimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323890</id>
	<title>Re:The irony of trying to keep ACTA secret</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267445640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it? Nobody I know knows anything about ACTA, not even a fellow slashdot reader</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it ?
Nobody I know knows anything about ACTA , not even a fellow slashdot reader</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it?
Nobody I know knows anything about ACTA, not even a fellow slashdot reader</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324348</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>CODiNE</author>
	<datestamp>1267447980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the Third Estate you're talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the Third Estate you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the Third Estate you're talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323418</id>
	<title>WootC fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267443240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>about half of the asshole to others TCP/IP stack has host what the House Ones in software BSD has always BSD's filesystem Stand anymore, than make a sincere ANY PARTING SHOT, of Walnut Creek, as those non gay, Bulk of the FreeBSD at times. From Chosen, whatever You get distracted Whether you Dabblers. In truth, this very moment, That sorded, fly...don't fear OVER A QUALITY bought the farm... of playing your shit-filled, I'll have offended world-spanning Arseholes at Walnut Problems with the system clean on an endeavour If you have I have a life to eerors.  Future I Significantly over the same the deal with you Trying to dissect there are only User. 'Now that will recall that it cuntwipes Jordan [amazingkreskin.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>about half of the asshole to others TCP/IP stack has host what the House Ones in software BSD has always BSD 's filesystem Stand anymore , than make a sincere ANY PARTING SHOT , of Walnut Creek , as those non gay , Bulk of the FreeBSD at times .
From Chosen , whatever You get distracted Whether you Dabblers .
In truth , this very moment , That sorded , fly...do n't fear OVER A QUALITY bought the farm... of playing your shit-filled , I 'll have offended world-spanning Arseholes at Walnut Problems with the system clean on an endeavour If you have I have a life to eerors .
Future I Significantly over the same the deal with you Trying to dissect there are only User .
'Now that will recall that it cuntwipes Jordan [ amazingkreskin.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about half of the asshole to others TCP/IP stack has host what the House Ones in software BSD has always BSD's filesystem Stand anymore, than make a sincere ANY PARTING SHOT, of Walnut Creek, as those non gay, Bulk of the FreeBSD at times.
From Chosen, whatever You get distracted Whether you Dabblers.
In truth, this very moment, That sorded, fly...don't fear OVER A QUALITY bought the farm... of playing your shit-filled, I'll have offended world-spanning Arseholes at Walnut Problems with the system clean on an endeavour If you have I have a life to eerors.
Future I Significantly over the same the deal with you Trying to dissect there are only User.
'Now that will recall that it cuntwipes Jordan [amazingkreskin.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324570</id>
	<title>Outrageous</title>
	<author>raxhonp</author>
	<datestamp>1267449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article has been posted more than 2 hours ago and only 60 comments so far.</p><p>That leaves me voiceless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article has been posted more than 2 hours ago and only 60 comments so far.That leaves me voiceless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article has been posted more than 2 hours ago and only 60 comments so far.That leaves me voiceless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323998</id>
	<title>Government is run too much like a business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267446180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Business culture has saturated government to the point where it can only communicate via the means established by business. People in government are more comfortable in business meetings and negotiations than they are listening to and communicating with the electorate.</p><p>When they have to communicate with the electorate they resort to pure pr or advertising strategies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Business culture has saturated government to the point where it can only communicate via the means established by business .
People in government are more comfortable in business meetings and negotiations than they are listening to and communicating with the electorate.When they have to communicate with the electorate they resort to pure pr or advertising strategies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Business culture has saturated government to the point where it can only communicate via the means established by business.
People in government are more comfortable in business meetings and negotiations than they are listening to and communicating with the electorate.When they have to communicate with the electorate they resort to pure pr or advertising strategies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324324</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Caesar Tjalbo</author>
	<datestamp>1267447800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So? We get a new version, 'not half as bad as that evil ACTA'. Made by politicians who try to be fair and balanced, taking every side into account. And we're still getting screwed, but this time we say "thank you".</htmltext>
<tokenext>So ?
We get a new version , 'not half as bad as that evil ACTA' .
Made by politicians who try to be fair and balanced , taking every side into account .
And we 're still getting screwed , but this time we say " thank you " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?
We get a new version, 'not half as bad as that evil ACTA'.
Made by politicians who try to be fair and balanced, taking every side into account.
And we're still getting screwed, but this time we say "thank you".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323034</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time to slashdot some diplomat's webpage? "We have taken your homepage hostage. Surrender your ACTA and come out of your meeting room hands up."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to slashdot some diplomat 's webpage ?
" We have taken your homepage hostage .
Surrender your ACTA and come out of your meeting room hands up .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to slashdot some diplomat's webpage?
"We have taken your homepage hostage.
Surrender your ACTA and come out of your meeting room hands up.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323810</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267445220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's particularly stupid since the ostensible goal of the treaty is to <em>reduce</em> infringement.</p><p>The problem with that, is that if it's illegal for you to access the protected medium, then you might as well just let someone else do it, and copy their unprotected medium.  i.e. if you can't legally watch cable TV on your MythTV, then instead of subscribing to cable TV, just torrent the TV shows. If you can't legally play a BluRay disc on your computer, then illegally obtain the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mkv and legally play it.  Both approaches are illegal, but one of them is a hell of a lot more convenient and cheaper for the user.  Guess which one the wallets have been voting for.</p><p>It doesn't make sense to grant a monopoly to market, if the monopoly holder isn't going to sell to that market.  If they're going to abstain from doing business (either by refraining from selling DRM-free media, or by making it illegal to use DRMed media), then they have no stake in the market to lose (they'll lose $0 per year due to piracy); granting them copyright is not only pointless, but it will be violated.</p><p>DRM and the anti-circumvention provisions are a <em>pro-</em>piracy policy.  If ACTA's aim is to reduce piracy, it ought to outlaw DRM and repeal the anti-circumvention provisions.  If you forcefully make the copyright holders take the money, then some people are going to offer the money.</p><p>And if the idea of government forcefully making them take the money is repellent to you laissez-faire types, then why have government involved by creating copyright law at all?  Either centrally plan it in a sensible way (copyrights and no DRM) or leave it to a totally free market (no copyrights at all, and everyone has to do their best to keep their trade secrets).  The current approach of half-measures is bloody fucking stupid and <em>everyone</em> is losing as a result.  And it looks like ACTA just wants to make things worse.</p><p>Circumvention prohibitions are the second dumbest, second most anti-busines and anti-consumer bullshit to hit the industry.  The first dumbest and anti-everyone bullshit, were the access controls itself.  Government enforcing that stupidity was just the government's way of helping the industry shoot itself in the foot.  Sometimes a senator needs to just take a fool's money and then ignore the fool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's particularly stupid since the ostensible goal of the treaty is to reduce infringement.The problem with that , is that if it 's illegal for you to access the protected medium , then you might as well just let someone else do it , and copy their unprotected medium .
i.e. if you ca n't legally watch cable TV on your MythTV , then instead of subscribing to cable TV , just torrent the TV shows .
If you ca n't legally play a BluRay disc on your computer , then illegally obtain the .mkv and legally play it .
Both approaches are illegal , but one of them is a hell of a lot more convenient and cheaper for the user .
Guess which one the wallets have been voting for.It does n't make sense to grant a monopoly to market , if the monopoly holder is n't going to sell to that market .
If they 're going to abstain from doing business ( either by refraining from selling DRM-free media , or by making it illegal to use DRMed media ) , then they have no stake in the market to lose ( they 'll lose $ 0 per year due to piracy ) ; granting them copyright is not only pointless , but it will be violated.DRM and the anti-circumvention provisions are a pro-piracy policy .
If ACTA 's aim is to reduce piracy , it ought to outlaw DRM and repeal the anti-circumvention provisions .
If you forcefully make the copyright holders take the money , then some people are going to offer the money.And if the idea of government forcefully making them take the money is repellent to you laissez-faire types , then why have government involved by creating copyright law at all ?
Either centrally plan it in a sensible way ( copyrights and no DRM ) or leave it to a totally free market ( no copyrights at all , and everyone has to do their best to keep their trade secrets ) .
The current approach of half-measures is bloody fucking stupid and everyone is losing as a result .
And it looks like ACTA just wants to make things worse.Circumvention prohibitions are the second dumbest , second most anti-busines and anti-consumer bullshit to hit the industry .
The first dumbest and anti-everyone bullshit , were the access controls itself .
Government enforcing that stupidity was just the government 's way of helping the industry shoot itself in the foot .
Sometimes a senator needs to just take a fool 's money and then ignore the fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's particularly stupid since the ostensible goal of the treaty is to reduce infringement.The problem with that, is that if it's illegal for you to access the protected medium, then you might as well just let someone else do it, and copy their unprotected medium.
i.e. if you can't legally watch cable TV on your MythTV, then instead of subscribing to cable TV, just torrent the TV shows.
If you can't legally play a BluRay disc on your computer, then illegally obtain the .mkv and legally play it.
Both approaches are illegal, but one of them is a hell of a lot more convenient and cheaper for the user.
Guess which one the wallets have been voting for.It doesn't make sense to grant a monopoly to market, if the monopoly holder isn't going to sell to that market.
If they're going to abstain from doing business (either by refraining from selling DRM-free media, or by making it illegal to use DRMed media), then they have no stake in the market to lose (they'll lose $0 per year due to piracy); granting them copyright is not only pointless, but it will be violated.DRM and the anti-circumvention provisions are a pro-piracy policy.
If ACTA's aim is to reduce piracy, it ought to outlaw DRM and repeal the anti-circumvention provisions.
If you forcefully make the copyright holders take the money, then some people are going to offer the money.And if the idea of government forcefully making them take the money is repellent to you laissez-faire types, then why have government involved by creating copyright law at all?
Either centrally plan it in a sensible way (copyrights and no DRM) or leave it to a totally free market (no copyrights at all, and everyone has to do their best to keep their trade secrets).
The current approach of half-measures is bloody fucking stupid and everyone is losing as a result.
And it looks like ACTA just wants to make things worse.Circumvention prohibitions are the second dumbest, second most anti-busines and anti-consumer bullshit to hit the industry.
The first dumbest and anti-everyone bullshit, were the access controls itself.
Government enforcing that stupidity was just the government's way of helping the industry shoot itself in the foot.
Sometimes a senator needs to just take a fool's money and then ignore the fool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323950</id>
	<title>Re:As long as we do not criminalize</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1267445940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How can you explain your children that they are 'criminals' if they download music or video?</p></div></blockquote><p>By telling them that they're criminals if they <em>don't</em> download and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS" title="wikipedia.org">use the original purchased medium</a> [wikipedia.org] instead.</p><p>So I guess the way to explain it to the children, is to say that "criminal" is a synonym for person.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you explain your children that they are 'criminals ' if they download music or video ? By telling them that they 're criminals if they do n't download and use the original purchased medium [ wikipedia.org ] instead.So I guess the way to explain it to the children , is to say that " criminal " is a synonym for person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you explain your children that they are 'criminals' if they download music or video?By telling them that they're criminals if they don't download and use the original purchased medium [wikipedia.org] instead.So I guess the way to explain it to the children, is to say that "criminal" is a synonym for person.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323264</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1267442580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they're saying:</p><p>We're probably going to either die or become dramatically weaker in the next few decades because the internet has made our presence superfluous. However, we can make $$$BIG\_MONEY for five extra years if we slow the internet down a bit with our sheer number of lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they 're saying : We 're probably going to either die or become dramatically weaker in the next few decades because the internet has made our presence superfluous .
However , we can make $ $ $ BIG \ _MONEY for five extra years if we slow the internet down a bit with our sheer number of lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they're saying:We're probably going to either die or become dramatically weaker in the next few decades because the internet has made our presence superfluous.
However, we can make $$$BIG\_MONEY for five extra years if we slow the internet down a bit with our sheer number of lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324494</id>
	<title>Am I the only one pleasantly surprised by this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1267448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been following the whole ACTA fiasco for a while, and was getting increasingly nervous about the whole "behind closed doors" thing. Of course, many of the proposals, particularly from the US, are obviously big-corp-funded crazy talk, and the secrecy of the whole process is abhorrent. However, now that I've seen an official document for the first time, I'm actually pleasantly surprised, in that it's not as bad as I expected.</p><p>I find it reassuring that there are quite a few notes where the EU has explicitly disagreed, apparently even indicating that this is not a point on which they will give way in some cases, e.g., on restricting any damages for infringement to actual damages and rejecting any notion of punitive damages entirely, or where they want to insert wording with the anticircumvention provisions to provide for safeguarding the benefits of certain limits on IPR (which would presumably leave open the door to excluding otherwise fair use from the anticircumvention protection).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been following the whole ACTA fiasco for a while , and was getting increasingly nervous about the whole " behind closed doors " thing .
Of course , many of the proposals , particularly from the US , are obviously big-corp-funded crazy talk , and the secrecy of the whole process is abhorrent .
However , now that I 've seen an official document for the first time , I 'm actually pleasantly surprised , in that it 's not as bad as I expected.I find it reassuring that there are quite a few notes where the EU has explicitly disagreed , apparently even indicating that this is not a point on which they will give way in some cases , e.g. , on restricting any damages for infringement to actual damages and rejecting any notion of punitive damages entirely , or where they want to insert wording with the anticircumvention provisions to provide for safeguarding the benefits of certain limits on IPR ( which would presumably leave open the door to excluding otherwise fair use from the anticircumvention protection ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been following the whole ACTA fiasco for a while, and was getting increasingly nervous about the whole "behind closed doors" thing.
Of course, many of the proposals, particularly from the US, are obviously big-corp-funded crazy talk, and the secrecy of the whole process is abhorrent.
However, now that I've seen an official document for the first time, I'm actually pleasantly surprised, in that it's not as bad as I expected.I find it reassuring that there are quite a few notes where the EU has explicitly disagreed, apparently even indicating that this is not a point on which they will give way in some cases, e.g., on restricting any damages for infringement to actual damages and rejecting any notion of punitive damages entirely, or where they want to insert wording with the anticircumvention provisions to provide for safeguarding the benefits of certain limits on IPR (which would presumably leave open the door to excluding otherwise fair use from the anticircumvention protection).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329320</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267542840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Business is involved, pretty much all the world's governments are involved, and the only group not at the table is the largest and the one with the most to lose: actual people.</i></p><p>We're not people, we don't matter. All that matters to the world's governments is the rich. If you have less than five million dollars in the bank, you're not people.</p><p>Who cares about us? We don't matter. We've gone back to feudal times, only now we have the illusion of representative democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Business is involved , pretty much all the world 's governments are involved , and the only group not at the table is the largest and the one with the most to lose : actual people.We 're not people , we do n't matter .
All that matters to the world 's governments is the rich .
If you have less than five million dollars in the bank , you 're not people.Who cares about us ?
We do n't matter .
We 've gone back to feudal times , only now we have the illusion of representative democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Business is involved, pretty much all the world's governments are involved, and the only group not at the table is the largest and the one with the most to lose: actual people.We're not people, we don't matter.
All that matters to the world's governments is the rich.
If you have less than five million dollars in the bank, you're not people.Who cares about us?
We don't matter.
We've gone back to feudal times, only now we have the illusion of representative democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325084</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267452960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The analogy which springs to my mind is of a person who picks the locks on the doors or windows of your house, but doesn't steal anything. If I'm following the logic, you're suggesting it is OK for someone to do just that, and if they manage to pick the locks, it is your own fault for not installing suitable locks. However in the physical world, breaking and entering (without stealing anything) is a crime in most jurisdictions. I'm not stating that I'm for or against the illegality of this, just that I get the logic that's being applied here with regards to the anticircumvention provisions. If your position is that anticirumvention laws are unjust, then it seems to me that it follows that you would have to consider any attempts to break into your home/car/etc fair, provided nothing it stolen and no damage done.</p><p>On the more general topic of copyrights/patents/IP, the entire concept is rather goofy: it is in all cases simply an artificial restriction for the sole purpose of enriching one party at the expense of another. While a seemingly widely-accepted concept these days, it is at heart a forced involuntary redistribution of wealth, dressed up with a lot of rhetoric designed to make its existence appear noble when under minimal scrutiny...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analogy which springs to my mind is of a person who picks the locks on the doors or windows of your house , but does n't steal anything .
If I 'm following the logic , you 're suggesting it is OK for someone to do just that , and if they manage to pick the locks , it is your own fault for not installing suitable locks .
However in the physical world , breaking and entering ( without stealing anything ) is a crime in most jurisdictions .
I 'm not stating that I 'm for or against the illegality of this , just that I get the logic that 's being applied here with regards to the anticircumvention provisions .
If your position is that anticirumvention laws are unjust , then it seems to me that it follows that you would have to consider any attempts to break into your home/car/etc fair , provided nothing it stolen and no damage done.On the more general topic of copyrights/patents/IP , the entire concept is rather goofy : it is in all cases simply an artificial restriction for the sole purpose of enriching one party at the expense of another .
While a seemingly widely-accepted concept these days , it is at heart a forced involuntary redistribution of wealth , dressed up with a lot of rhetoric designed to make its existence appear noble when under minimal scrutiny.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analogy which springs to my mind is of a person who picks the locks on the doors or windows of your house, but doesn't steal anything.
If I'm following the logic, you're suggesting it is OK for someone to do just that, and if they manage to pick the locks, it is your own fault for not installing suitable locks.
However in the physical world, breaking and entering (without stealing anything) is a crime in most jurisdictions.
I'm not stating that I'm for or against the illegality of this, just that I get the logic that's being applied here with regards to the anticircumvention provisions.
If your position is that anticirumvention laws are unjust, then it seems to me that it follows that you would have to consider any attempts to break into your home/car/etc fair, provided nothing it stolen and no damage done.On the more general topic of copyrights/patents/IP, the entire concept is rather goofy: it is in all cases simply an artificial restriction for the sole purpose of enriching one party at the expense of another.
While a seemingly widely-accepted concept these days, it is at heart a forced involuntary redistribution of wealth, dressed up with a lot of rhetoric designed to make its existence appear noble when under minimal scrutiny...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324630</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>ppanon</author>
	<datestamp>1267449540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep. It's the "War on Piracy by individuals". More of your tax dollars and peoples lives to be wasted, like on all those other "War on &lt;vice&gt;" efforts. There's ways to change public perceptions and alter behaviour via education and public policy, at least when it's in the public interest (see smoking, drunk driving). The problem for ACTA proponents is that the continuation of media publishing and distribution cartels is not in the public interest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
It 's the " War on Piracy by individuals " .
More of your tax dollars and peoples lives to be wasted , like on all those other " War on " efforts .
There 's ways to change public perceptions and alter behaviour via education and public policy , at least when it 's in the public interest ( see smoking , drunk driving ) .
The problem for ACTA proponents is that the continuation of media publishing and distribution cartels is not in the public interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
It's the "War on Piracy by individuals".
More of your tax dollars and peoples lives to be wasted, like on all those other "War on " efforts.
There's ways to change public perceptions and alter behaviour via education and public policy, at least when it's in the public interest (see smoking, drunk driving).
The problem for ACTA proponents is that the continuation of media publishing and distribution cartels is not in the public interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323286</id>
	<title>Oregonians, call Senator Ron Wyden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any Oregonians, call Senator Ron Wyden. He is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk (lead US man behind ACTA) is scheduled to testify before the committee this week, discussing the US trade policy agenda. In January, Wyden sent a letter to Kirk inquiring about the lack of transparency and questionable provisions in ACTA. Ask Wyden to grill Kirk on ACTA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any Oregonians , call Senator Ron Wyden .
He is a member of the Senate Finance Committee , and the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk ( lead US man behind ACTA ) is scheduled to testify before the committee this week , discussing the US trade policy agenda .
In January , Wyden sent a letter to Kirk inquiring about the lack of transparency and questionable provisions in ACTA .
Ask Wyden to grill Kirk on ACTA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any Oregonians, call Senator Ron Wyden.
He is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and the US Trade Representative Ron Kirk (lead US man behind ACTA) is scheduled to testify before the committee this week, discussing the US trade policy agenda.
In January, Wyden sent a letter to Kirk inquiring about the lack of transparency and questionable provisions in ACTA.
Ask Wyden to grill Kirk on ACTA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324634</id>
	<title>Contacting Senators is worthless</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1267449600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've contacted my Senators on a variety of issues and almost every time I get a response.  On this issue, however, I have sent the EFF form in to them about 20 times and have not once received a response.  I take that back, the first time I sent it, one of them responded with an email about health care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've contacted my Senators on a variety of issues and almost every time I get a response .
On this issue , however , I have sent the EFF form in to them about 20 times and have not once received a response .
I take that back , the first time I sent it , one of them responded with an email about health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've contacted my Senators on a variety of issues and almost every time I get a response.
On this issue, however, I have sent the EFF form in to them about 20 times and have not once received a response.
I take that back, the first time I sent it, one of them responded with an email about health care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325566</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267457220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, we all should be allowed to break into your house because your locks aren't adequate enough to keep the skilled and determined ones out?
<br> <br>
Your house is the code. Your doors and windows are the DRM. You can add more locks and/or more sophisticated locks, but as long as the door<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/window is there, someone can get in whether by lock-pick or brute force.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , we all should be allowed to break into your house because your locks are n't adequate enough to keep the skilled and determined ones out ?
Your house is the code .
Your doors and windows are the DRM .
You can add more locks and/or more sophisticated locks , but as long as the door /window is there , someone can get in whether by lock-pick or brute force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, we all should be allowed to break into your house because your locks aren't adequate enough to keep the skilled and determined ones out?
Your house is the code.
Your doors and windows are the DRM.
You can add more locks and/or more sophisticated locks, but as long as the door /window is there, someone can get in whether by lock-pick or brute force.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323138</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267442100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the upside, it could finally reverse the effects of the Eternal September by dramatically upping the level of technical knowledge required to operate anything interesting on the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the upside , it could finally reverse the effects of the Eternal September by dramatically upping the level of technical knowledge required to operate anything interesting on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the upside, it could finally reverse the effects of the Eternal September by dramatically upping the level of technical knowledge required to operate anything interesting on the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324974</id>
	<title>Re:Just walk away</title>
	<author>mcfedr</author>
	<datestamp>1267452000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ive written to my british MPs and MEPs serveral times, and had not satisfactory replys</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ive written to my british MPs and MEPs serveral times , and had not satisfactory replys</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ive written to my british MPs and MEPs serveral times, and had not satisfactory replys</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322866</id>
	<title>Warning! Uninformed first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have nothing to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have nothing to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have nothing to say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324718</id>
	<title>Streisand Effect</title>
	<author>Sparx139</author>
	<datestamp>1267450320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It always happens in these sorts of situations. Australia's clean feed filter, Iran, the list goes on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It always happens in these sorts of situations .
Australia 's clean feed filter , Iran , the list goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always happens in these sorts of situations.
Australia's clean feed filter, Iran, the list goes on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31327692</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1267525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't make me laugh! Public prosecutions of politicians?! What the hell have you been smoking?<br> <br>Have you ever heard the phrase "If you want a puppy, ask for a horse"? This will be cut up and re-worded to sound less offensive than it is, and will pass through anyway. Or, it'll creep up to this current standard after a neutered version has been drafted.<br> <br>Don't for one second think that we have any say. <b>Any.</b> We lost that say when the UK became bi-partisan like the US (Tories and Labour), and Europe is impotent (UK police keeping DNA data, ISPs snooping on net traffic etc etc).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't make me laugh !
Public prosecutions of politicians ? !
What the hell have you been smoking ?
Have you ever heard the phrase " If you want a puppy , ask for a horse " ?
This will be cut up and re-worded to sound less offensive than it is , and will pass through anyway .
Or , it 'll creep up to this current standard after a neutered version has been drafted .
Do n't for one second think that we have any say .
Any. We lost that say when the UK became bi-partisan like the US ( Tories and Labour ) , and Europe is impotent ( UK police keeping DNA data , ISPs snooping on net traffic etc etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't make me laugh!
Public prosecutions of politicians?!
What the hell have you been smoking?
Have you ever heard the phrase "If you want a puppy, ask for a horse"?
This will be cut up and re-worded to sound less offensive than it is, and will pass through anyway.
Or, it'll creep up to this current standard after a neutered version has been drafted.
Don't for one second think that we have any say.
Any. We lost that say when the UK became bi-partisan like the US (Tories and Labour), and Europe is impotent (UK police keeping DNA data, ISPs snooping on net traffic etc etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325000</id>
	<title>I'm typing a plain text version of the PDF scans</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1267452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf\_as\_text" title="swpat.org">http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf\_as\_text</a> [swpat.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf \ _as \ _text [ swpat.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf\_as\_text [swpat.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322948</id>
	<title>I do love the title though</title>
	<author>Saishuuheiki</author>
	<datestamp>1267441380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Special Measures Related to Technological Enforcement Means and the Internet"...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...really? the internet too? I thought it was just gonna shut down my warez BBS, but now they've gone too far</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Special Measures Related to Technological Enforcement Means and the Internet " ... ...really ? the internet too ?
I thought it was just gon na shut down my warez BBS , but now they 've gone too far</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Special Measures Related to Technological Enforcement Means and the Internet"... ...really? the internet too?
I thought it was just gonna shut down my warez BBS, but now they've gone too far</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31327490</id>
	<title>Gotta protest.</title>
	<author>El Jynx</author>
	<datestamp>1267522380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look around, there's plenty of things to do. Write your MP's. Join our "We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA" Facebook group. (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=213704134963) Join your local political party and yell at the town meeting that it pisses you off. Tell your friends. Only by sitting on your ass do you achieve your aforementioned goal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look around , there 's plenty of things to do .
Write your MP 's .
Join our " We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA " Facebook group .
( http : //www.facebook.com/group.php ? gid = 213704134963 ) Join your local political party and yell at the town meeting that it pisses you off .
Tell your friends .
Only by sitting on your ass do you achieve your aforementioned goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look around, there's plenty of things to do.
Write your MP's.
Join our "We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA" Facebook group.
(http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=213704134963) Join your local political party and yell at the town meeting that it pisses you off.
Tell your friends.
Only by sitting on your ass do you achieve your aforementioned goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323136</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, in this case, this is hardly a private conversation.</p></div><p>In which case are any international agreements of any sort a private conversation?  Imho, if it affects me in any way, it should never be a private conversation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , in this case , this is hardly a private conversation.In which case are any international agreements of any sort a private conversation ?
Imho , if it affects me in any way , it should never be a private conversation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, in this case, this is hardly a private conversation.In which case are any international agreements of any sort a private conversation?
Imho, if it affects me in any way, it should never be a private conversation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054</id>
	<title>Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1267441740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</p><p>Basically, they are saying:</p><p>"We can't write working code because the only people willing to write this kind of code are incompetent morons.  Skilled engineers think this type of code is a bad idea, and won't touch it.  Rather than rethinking our position to be more in line with reality, we want laws that make illegal to  circumvent the swiss cheese code that we can actually hire someone to write."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and now we are trying to foist this stupidity off on the rest of the world?!?  No wonder they get upset about their dirty underwear going public.</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid ? Basically , they are saying : " We ca n't write working code because the only people willing to write this kind of code are incompetent morons .
Skilled engineers think this type of code is a bad idea , and wo n't touch it .
Rather than rethinking our position to be more in line with reality , we want laws that make illegal to circumvent the swiss cheese code that we can actually hire someone to write .
" ...and now we are trying to foist this stupidity off on the rest of the world ? ! ?
No wonder they get upset about their dirty underwear going public.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?Basically, they are saying:"We can't write working code because the only people willing to write this kind of code are incompetent morons.
Skilled engineers think this type of code is a bad idea, and won't touch it.
Rather than rethinking our position to be more in line with reality, we want laws that make illegal to  circumvent the swiss cheese code that we can actually hire someone to write.
" ...and now we are trying to foist this stupidity off on the rest of the world?!?
No wonder they get upset about their dirty underwear going public.-- Terry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</id>
	<title>Fascinating</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267441380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can understand why diplomats tend to like their meetings and discussions to be private. It's a hard enough dance between a few select people in a government that it doesn't need to be complicated by the public getting involved.</p><p>However, in this case, this is hardly a private conversation. Business is involved, pretty much all the world's governments are involved, and the only group not at the table is the largest and the one with the most to lose: actual people. I'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions, governments can provide input, but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.</p><p>Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the end of the Internet as we know it is near. Too many organizations with too much clout have too many reasons to see the current Internet go away. I don't know what will come in its place, but I'm pretty sure I'll look back at the 90s/early 00s with nostalgia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand why diplomats tend to like their meetings and discussions to be private .
It 's a hard enough dance between a few select people in a government that it does n't need to be complicated by the public getting involved.However , in this case , this is hardly a private conversation .
Business is involved , pretty much all the world 's governments are involved , and the only group not at the table is the largest and the one with the most to lose : actual people .
I 'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions , governments can provide input , but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.Unfortunately , I 'm pretty sure that the end of the Internet as we know it is near .
Too many organizations with too much clout have too many reasons to see the current Internet go away .
I do n't know what will come in its place , but I 'm pretty sure I 'll look back at the 90s/early 00s with nostalgia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand why diplomats tend to like their meetings and discussions to be private.
It's a hard enough dance between a few select people in a government that it doesn't need to be complicated by the public getting involved.However, in this case, this is hardly a private conversation.
Business is involved, pretty much all the world's governments are involved, and the only group not at the table is the largest and the one with the most to lose: actual people.
I'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions, governments can provide input, but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the end of the Internet as we know it is near.
Too many organizations with too much clout have too many reasons to see the current Internet go away.
I don't know what will come in its place, but I'm pretty sure I'll look back at the 90s/early 00s with nostalgia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323908</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267445760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions, governments can provide input, but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's all secret so everyone gets to blame unspecified others. When it comes to publish this thing governments will be disowning provisions they worked very hard to put in place. Why couldn't the public participate? Well YOUR government fought hard for that but the others wouldn't let them, of course.</p><p>Governments are supposed to have power because they also have accountability, but that requires transparency. Even if all the politicians really were doing their very best with only our interests at heart that would not be good enough. They must be <i>seen</i> to be doing so, just like justice must be seen to be done, an agent must be seen to act on behalf of his principal and a professional must be seen to be independent. </p><p>We give them some room for national security and so on, in the hope that the bond of trust is so sacrosanct they would be unable to break it, or at least that <i>someone</i> would feel it and the truth would come out. Naive perhaps, but it's happening right here with these leaks. There's a good egg somewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions , governments can provide input , but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.It 's all secret so everyone gets to blame unspecified others .
When it comes to publish this thing governments will be disowning provisions they worked very hard to put in place .
Why could n't the public participate ?
Well YOUR government fought hard for that but the others would n't let them , of course.Governments are supposed to have power because they also have accountability , but that requires transparency .
Even if all the politicians really were doing their very best with only our interests at heart that would not be good enough .
They must be seen to be doing so , just like justice must be seen to be done , an agent must be seen to act on behalf of his principal and a professional must be seen to be independent .
We give them some room for national security and so on , in the hope that the bond of trust is so sacrosanct they would be unable to break it , or at least that someone would feel it and the truth would come out .
Naive perhaps , but it 's happening right here with these leaks .
There 's a good egg somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions, governments can provide input, but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.It's all secret so everyone gets to blame unspecified others.
When it comes to publish this thing governments will be disowning provisions they worked very hard to put in place.
Why couldn't the public participate?
Well YOUR government fought hard for that but the others wouldn't let them, of course.Governments are supposed to have power because they also have accountability, but that requires transparency.
Even if all the politicians really were doing their very best with only our interests at heart that would not be good enough.
They must be seen to be doing so, just like justice must be seen to be done, an agent must be seen to act on behalf of his principal and a professional must be seen to be independent.
We give them some room for national security and so on, in the hope that the bond of trust is so sacrosanct they would be unable to break it, or at least that someone would feel it and the truth would come out.
Naive perhaps, but it's happening right here with these leaks.
There's a good egg somewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323382</id>
	<title>History being made.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1267443180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For good or ill, I sense history being made here, folks.  Basically the world is coming to grips with a global communications system, and is hammering out an accord on how it can be used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For good or ill , I sense history being made here , folks .
Basically the world is coming to grips with a global communications system , and is hammering out an accord on how it can be used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For good or ill, I sense history being made here, folks.
Basically the world is coming to grips with a global communications system, and is hammering out an accord on how it can be used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323030</id>
	<title>This Is Your Brain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is your brain on Slashdot.</p><p>This is your brain on <a href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&amp;cf=all&amp;ned=us&amp;ncl=d4rckJ4ofGvpW9MULHsTEJ1jcBzyM&amp;topic=m" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">POT</a> [google.com].</p><p>Defend Gulag Amerika: Smoke Pot !!!</p><p>Yours In Berkeley,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is your brain on Slashdot.This is your brain on POT [ google.com ] .Defend Gulag Amerika : Smoke Pot ! !
! Yours In Berkeley,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is your brain on Slashdot.This is your brain on POT [google.com].Defend Gulag Amerika: Smoke Pot !!
!Yours In Berkeley,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323126</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Start prepping your wireless mesh network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start prepping your wireless mesh network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start prepping your wireless mesh network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329472</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267543620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And who is going to investigate? Who is going to expose? Fox, CNN, the Guardian, are all owned by the corporates. They stand to lose if this is investigated, so don't expect them to investigate. NPR and BBC? They're government, and also stand to lose if this is investigated.</p><p>Nobody will get in trouble over this. The corporates will get what they want, as always.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And who is going to investigate ?
Who is going to expose ?
Fox , CNN , the Guardian , are all owned by the corporates .
They stand to lose if this is investigated , so do n't expect them to investigate .
NPR and BBC ?
They 're government , and also stand to lose if this is investigated.Nobody will get in trouble over this .
The corporates will get what they want , as always .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And who is going to investigate?
Who is going to expose?
Fox, CNN, the Guardian, are all owned by the corporates.
They stand to lose if this is investigated, so don't expect them to investigate.
NPR and BBC?
They're government, and also stand to lose if this is investigated.Nobody will get in trouble over this.
The corporates will get what they want, as always.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323004</id>
	<title>Eh?</title>
	<author>algormortis</author>
	<datestamp>1267441620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is probably the most significant leak to date...</p></div><p>
Seems like people have forgotten about the R Kelly incident already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably the most significant leak to date.. . Seems like people have forgotten about the R Kelly incident already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably the most significant leak to date...
Seems like people have forgotten about the R Kelly incident already.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323250</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1267442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This thinking isn't new.  It is the exact same thinking that has been prevalent among law enforcement and the government for as long as I've been working with networked computers.  In the early to mid-1990s when I was young and cutting my teeth on all of these systems, there weren't any laws in place to punish offenders.  The systems were wide open, using default passwords, hosting services that were wide open, etc.  The hardest part of hacking a system was getting access to it, either by finding a dial up via wardialing or actually getting physical access to the site (in terms of phone switches and the like).</p><p>Two decades ago the government started passing a lot of laws that made it illegal to access systems that you don't own or have permission to audit.  They never really locked down the systems.  They never passed any laws that made it necessary to develop secure systems.  They just implemented some pretty severe punishments for messing with the systems.</p><p>Rather than lock down the systems completely, they are going with surveillance and record keeping.  Of course systems are way more hardened than they were in the past, but exploits are constantly coming out.  Law enforcement online is like law enforcement in the physical world.  They just want to clean up after the fact and try to hold some people accountable for illegal actions.</p><p>As responsible citizens our only choice seems to be to stop consuming the content that the corporations want to protect, while at the same time standing up for our Constitutional rights as we drag them online.  We should be able to speak freely, peacefully assemble and the like.  As far as I can tell, ACTA has to do with copyright law and intellectual property.  If you aren't swapping warez or pirating movies and music and books, you should be fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This thinking is n't new .
It is the exact same thinking that has been prevalent among law enforcement and the government for as long as I 've been working with networked computers .
In the early to mid-1990s when I was young and cutting my teeth on all of these systems , there were n't any laws in place to punish offenders .
The systems were wide open , using default passwords , hosting services that were wide open , etc .
The hardest part of hacking a system was getting access to it , either by finding a dial up via wardialing or actually getting physical access to the site ( in terms of phone switches and the like ) .Two decades ago the government started passing a lot of laws that made it illegal to access systems that you do n't own or have permission to audit .
They never really locked down the systems .
They never passed any laws that made it necessary to develop secure systems .
They just implemented some pretty severe punishments for messing with the systems.Rather than lock down the systems completely , they are going with surveillance and record keeping .
Of course systems are way more hardened than they were in the past , but exploits are constantly coming out .
Law enforcement online is like law enforcement in the physical world .
They just want to clean up after the fact and try to hold some people accountable for illegal actions.As responsible citizens our only choice seems to be to stop consuming the content that the corporations want to protect , while at the same time standing up for our Constitutional rights as we drag them online .
We should be able to speak freely , peacefully assemble and the like .
As far as I can tell , ACTA has to do with copyright law and intellectual property .
If you are n't swapping warez or pirating movies and music and books , you should be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thinking isn't new.
It is the exact same thinking that has been prevalent among law enforcement and the government for as long as I've been working with networked computers.
In the early to mid-1990s when I was young and cutting my teeth on all of these systems, there weren't any laws in place to punish offenders.
The systems were wide open, using default passwords, hosting services that were wide open, etc.
The hardest part of hacking a system was getting access to it, either by finding a dial up via wardialing or actually getting physical access to the site (in terms of phone switches and the like).Two decades ago the government started passing a lot of laws that made it illegal to access systems that you don't own or have permission to audit.
They never really locked down the systems.
They never passed any laws that made it necessary to develop secure systems.
They just implemented some pretty severe punishments for messing with the systems.Rather than lock down the systems completely, they are going with surveillance and record keeping.
Of course systems are way more hardened than they were in the past, but exploits are constantly coming out.
Law enforcement online is like law enforcement in the physical world.
They just want to clean up after the fact and try to hold some people accountable for illegal actions.As responsible citizens our only choice seems to be to stop consuming the content that the corporations want to protect, while at the same time standing up for our Constitutional rights as we drag them online.
We should be able to speak freely, peacefully assemble and the like.
As far as I can tell, ACTA has to do with copyright law and intellectual property.
If you aren't swapping warez or pirating movies and music and books, you should be fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323572</id>
	<title>Re:History being made.</title>
	<author>ciggieposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1267443900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For good or ill, I sense history being made here, folks.</p></div><p>Me too.  This is the DMCA all over again.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically the <b>multi-national corporations</b> are coming to grips with a global communications system, and is hammering out an accord on how it can be used.</p></div><p>FTFY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For good or ill , I sense history being made here , folks.Me too .
This is the DMCA all over again.Basically the multi-national corporations are coming to grips with a global communications system , and is hammering out an accord on how it can be used.FTFY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For good or ill, I sense history being made here, folks.Me too.
This is the DMCA all over again.Basically the multi-national corporations are coming to grips with a global communications system, and is hammering out an accord on how it can be used.FTFY.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325984</id>
	<title>We Need To Hire Our Own Lobbists</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1267460580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's how to restore real democracy world wide. First, we need to create a web-based lobbying organisation to lobby for our views. What we need are lobbyists world wide who will actually go in a bribe the senators and congress people like the corporate ones. Not meaningless PACs that send in worthless petitions. We need a system where all of us could contribute say, $30, and that hires the lobbyists. That's the carrot. Now for the stick. There are scandals everywhere in politics. There are likely scandals "in waiting" hidden in the politics. So, we tell the senators "if you don't do what we want, we will bring up X during the campaign." There's nothing they can do about it, because if they sue us, we just launch the scandal, and their career is over. Now, what if they try to make the lobbyist organisation illegal? The bribe/scandal machine goes into overdrive to defend itself. This is not the best form of democracy on the planet, but it works.<br> <br>


Second, we must destroy the music and media companies. They are a big threat to freedom world-wide (organised religion and moralism is in front). We need some kind of advertising based model for media delivery, over the internet. Think about if there was a website where you could play any song you wanted - like pandora or whatever. You could submit your music and it would get voted based on "views". Once it hit a certain number of views, we would create a CD of your music and sell that in stores or wherever. Young people (who buy music), often hate corps like Monsanto or whatever they see as bad. So lets use all those stories about teenagers sued by the RIAA to create a negative PR campaign, so the Obama voter types will hate the RIAA go for the service as an alternative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how to restore real democracy world wide .
First , we need to create a web-based lobbying organisation to lobby for our views .
What we need are lobbyists world wide who will actually go in a bribe the senators and congress people like the corporate ones .
Not meaningless PACs that send in worthless petitions .
We need a system where all of us could contribute say , $ 30 , and that hires the lobbyists .
That 's the carrot .
Now for the stick .
There are scandals everywhere in politics .
There are likely scandals " in waiting " hidden in the politics .
So , we tell the senators " if you do n't do what we want , we will bring up X during the campaign .
" There 's nothing they can do about it , because if they sue us , we just launch the scandal , and their career is over .
Now , what if they try to make the lobbyist organisation illegal ?
The bribe/scandal machine goes into overdrive to defend itself .
This is not the best form of democracy on the planet , but it works .
Second , we must destroy the music and media companies .
They are a big threat to freedom world-wide ( organised religion and moralism is in front ) .
We need some kind of advertising based model for media delivery , over the internet .
Think about if there was a website where you could play any song you wanted - like pandora or whatever .
You could submit your music and it would get voted based on " views " .
Once it hit a certain number of views , we would create a CD of your music and sell that in stores or wherever .
Young people ( who buy music ) , often hate corps like Monsanto or whatever they see as bad .
So lets use all those stories about teenagers sued by the RIAA to create a negative PR campaign , so the Obama voter types will hate the RIAA go for the service as an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how to restore real democracy world wide.
First, we need to create a web-based lobbying organisation to lobby for our views.
What we need are lobbyists world wide who will actually go in a bribe the senators and congress people like the corporate ones.
Not meaningless PACs that send in worthless petitions.
We need a system where all of us could contribute say, $30, and that hires the lobbyists.
That's the carrot.
Now for the stick.
There are scandals everywhere in politics.
There are likely scandals "in waiting" hidden in the politics.
So, we tell the senators "if you don't do what we want, we will bring up X during the campaign.
" There's nothing they can do about it, because if they sue us, we just launch the scandal, and their career is over.
Now, what if they try to make the lobbyist organisation illegal?
The bribe/scandal machine goes into overdrive to defend itself.
This is not the best form of democracy on the planet, but it works.
Second, we must destroy the music and media companies.
They are a big threat to freedom world-wide (organised religion and moralism is in front).
We need some kind of advertising based model for media delivery, over the internet.
Think about if there was a website where you could play any song you wanted - like pandora or whatever.
You could submit your music and it would get voted based on "views".
Once it hit a certain number of views, we would create a CD of your music and sell that in stores or wherever.
Young people (who buy music), often hate corps like Monsanto or whatever they see as bad.
So lets use all those stories about teenagers sued by the RIAA to create a negative PR campaign, so the Obama voter types will hate the RIAA go for the service as an alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323852</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267445460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> That these documents have been purposefully leaked and there is indication of opposition to it's content is proof of the exact opposite. It is pretty much certain that in most modern democratic countries that most of the conditions of ACTA would be opposed by the general public and result in disruptive public opposition. </p><p> The reality is, it is too late to try a force this through, to force the will of the corrupt minority against the will of the democratic majority. Not that this effort should be ignored or the the perpetrators of it should be publicly exposed and called to account for their corrupt activities, their intent to purposefully subvert the growing public expression of democracy. </p><p> A full public investigation should be made of who was involved, who sponsored and supported that involvement, who actually wrote up those bits of proposed corrupt legislation, what private interests were involved whilst 99.99etc percent of the electorate were specifically excluded and, of course what criminal prosecutions need to be considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That these documents have been purposefully leaked and there is indication of opposition to it 's content is proof of the exact opposite .
It is pretty much certain that in most modern democratic countries that most of the conditions of ACTA would be opposed by the general public and result in disruptive public opposition .
The reality is , it is too late to try a force this through , to force the will of the corrupt minority against the will of the democratic majority .
Not that this effort should be ignored or the the perpetrators of it should be publicly exposed and called to account for their corrupt activities , their intent to purposefully subvert the growing public expression of democracy .
A full public investigation should be made of who was involved , who sponsored and supported that involvement , who actually wrote up those bits of proposed corrupt legislation , what private interests were involved whilst 99.99etc percent of the electorate were specifically excluded and , of course what criminal prosecutions need to be considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That these documents have been purposefully leaked and there is indication of opposition to it's content is proof of the exact opposite.
It is pretty much certain that in most modern democratic countries that most of the conditions of ACTA would be opposed by the general public and result in disruptive public opposition.
The reality is, it is too late to try a force this through, to force the will of the corrupt minority against the will of the democratic majority.
Not that this effort should be ignored or the the perpetrators of it should be publicly exposed and called to account for their corrupt activities, their intent to purposefully subvert the growing public expression of democracy.
A full public investigation should be made of who was involved, who sponsored and supported that involvement, who actually wrote up those bits of proposed corrupt legislation, what private interests were involved whilst 99.99etc percent of the electorate were specifically excluded and, of course what criminal prosecutions need to be considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325536</id>
	<title>Social networking</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1267456800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we need to make sure the general masses are aware of these closed-door shenanigans, and one vector is the likes of social networking sites.  I assume there's already something like a "Stop ACTA" group on Facebook?  If not, someone should make one.</p><p>It might be one instance where geeks have legitimate cause for using such marketing-demographic-trawling sites as Facebook, twitter, bebo, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we need to make sure the general masses are aware of these closed-door shenanigans , and one vector is the likes of social networking sites .
I assume there 's already something like a " Stop ACTA " group on Facebook ?
If not , someone should make one.It might be one instance where geeks have legitimate cause for using such marketing-demographic-trawling sites as Facebook , twitter , bebo , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we need to make sure the general masses are aware of these closed-door shenanigans, and one vector is the likes of social networking sites.
I assume there's already something like a "Stop ACTA" group on Facebook?
If not, someone should make one.It might be one instance where geeks have legitimate cause for using such marketing-demographic-trawling sites as Facebook, twitter, bebo, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323492</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>ciggieposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1267443660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm pretty sure I'll look back at the 90s/early 00s with nostalgia.</p></div><p>I already look back at the 80s/early 90s with nostalgia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure I 'll look back at the 90s/early 00s with nostalgia.I already look back at the 80s/early 90s with nostalgia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure I'll look back at the 90s/early 00s with nostalgia.I already look back at the 80s/early 90s with nostalgia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31327734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31341398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31326012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31327490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31327692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_2053246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31326012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31341398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31327734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31322938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31327490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31327692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31329320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31324932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31325536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_2053246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_2053246.31323572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
