<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_02_2056201</id>
	<title>A Second Lessig Fair-Use Video Is Suppressed By WMG</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267526880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:xpticalNO@SPAMgmail.com" rel="nofollow">Bios\_Hakr</a> points out an ironic use of the DMCA: for the second time, a video tutorial on fair use that Larry Lessig uploaded to YouTube <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0354498358.shtml">has been muzzled</a>. This time the sound has been pulled from the video; last time the video was taken off of YouTube. (Video and sound for <a href="http://blip.tv/file/3283837">the new "webside chat"</a> can be experienced together on BlipTV.) Both times, Warner Music Group was the party holding copyright on a song that Lessig used in an unarguably fair-use manner. TechDirt is careful not to assume that an actual DMCA takedown notice was issued, on the likelihood that Google's automatic copyright-violation detectors did the deed. <i>"The unintended consequences of asking tool providers [e.g., Google] to judge what is and what is not copyright infringement lead to tremendous problems with companies shooting first and asking questions later. They are silencing speech, on the threat that it <em>might</em> infringe on copyright. This is backwards. We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company. We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas &mdash; not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model. We should never be silencing videos because they <em>might</em> infringe on copyright."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bios \ _Hakr points out an ironic use of the DMCA : for the second time , a video tutorial on fair use that Larry Lessig uploaded to YouTube has been muzzled .
This time the sound has been pulled from the video ; last time the video was taken off of YouTube .
( Video and sound for the new " webside chat " can be experienced together on BlipTV .
) Both times , Warner Music Group was the party holding copyright on a song that Lessig used in an unarguably fair-use manner .
TechDirt is careful not to assume that an actual DMCA takedown notice was issued , on the likelihood that Google 's automatic copyright-violation detectors did the deed .
" The unintended consequences of asking tool providers [ e.g. , Google ] to judge what is and what is not copyright infringement lead to tremendous problems with companies shooting first and asking questions later .
They are silencing speech , on the threat that it might infringe on copyright .
This is backwards .
We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech , not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company .
We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas    not lock it up and take it down because one company does n't know how to adapt its business model .
We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bios\_Hakr points out an ironic use of the DMCA: for the second time, a video tutorial on fair use that Larry Lessig uploaded to YouTube has been muzzled.
This time the sound has been pulled from the video; last time the video was taken off of YouTube.
(Video and sound for the new "webside chat" can be experienced together on BlipTV.
) Both times, Warner Music Group was the party holding copyright on a song that Lessig used in an unarguably fair-use manner.
TechDirt is careful not to assume that an actual DMCA takedown notice was issued, on the likelihood that Google's automatic copyright-violation detectors did the deed.
"The unintended consequences of asking tool providers [e.g., Google] to judge what is and what is not copyright infringement lead to tremendous problems with companies shooting first and asking questions later.
They are silencing speech, on the threat that it might infringe on copyright.
This is backwards.
We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company.
We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas — not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model.
We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31343376</id>
	<title>If Google did this, they are within their rights.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267620480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since Google is the publisher for YouTube content, the decision to publish or not to publish is theirs.  You can disagree with their decision, and you are free to start up your own video-publishing site and attempt to compete with them (and I have no doubt \_somebody\_ will come forward to host the Lessig video), but you can't make Google publish stuff they don't want to publish, just like you can't make the local paper print your letter to the editor if they decide not to.<br><br>However, if somebody else is using legal action or the threat thereof to manipulate what Google will or won't publish, then that would be a different thing entirely.  In that case (assuming the video's use of whatever it uses is fair use as the summary suggests), that would be third-party censorship.<br><br>The wording in the summary (notably, "arguably") also makes me wonder on what grounds the video's use of the song is considered fair use.  I'd like to see the reasoning there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Google is the publisher for YouTube content , the decision to publish or not to publish is theirs .
You can disagree with their decision , and you are free to start up your own video-publishing site and attempt to compete with them ( and I have no doubt \ _somebody \ _ will come forward to host the Lessig video ) , but you ca n't make Google publish stuff they do n't want to publish , just like you ca n't make the local paper print your letter to the editor if they decide not to.However , if somebody else is using legal action or the threat thereof to manipulate what Google will or wo n't publish , then that would be a different thing entirely .
In that case ( assuming the video 's use of whatever it uses is fair use as the summary suggests ) , that would be third-party censorship.The wording in the summary ( notably , " arguably " ) also makes me wonder on what grounds the video 's use of the song is considered fair use .
I 'd like to see the reasoning there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Google is the publisher for YouTube content, the decision to publish or not to publish is theirs.
You can disagree with their decision, and you are free to start up your own video-publishing site and attempt to compete with them (and I have no doubt \_somebody\_ will come forward to host the Lessig video), but you can't make Google publish stuff they don't want to publish, just like you can't make the local paper print your letter to the editor if they decide not to.However, if somebody else is using legal action or the threat thereof to manipulate what Google will or won't publish, then that would be a different thing entirely.
In that case (assuming the video's use of whatever it uses is fair use as the summary suggests), that would be third-party censorship.The wording in the summary (notably, "arguably") also makes me wonder on what grounds the video's use of the song is considered fair use.
I'd like to see the reasoning there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31340462</id>
	<title>Slashdot supressing stories as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267551180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot keeps modding down this story: In a followup to this Slashdot story http://science.slashdot.org/story/03/01/21/201251/WTC-Left-Sedimentary-Fingerprint , a physicist has found what is claimed to be nano thermetic residue in WTC dust and he has written a paper for peer review, which can be found here: http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/Full\_Thermite\_paper.pdf   In addition, over 1000 architects and engineers have signed a petition that calls for a new independent investigation into the collapse of the three towers at WTC in lower NYC on September 11, 2001.  Here are links to the press release http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/1000-AEs-Press-Release-2.doc and here is a link to the Washington Post covereage of the event http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot keeps modding down this story : In a followup to this Slashdot story http : //science.slashdot.org/story/03/01/21/201251/WTC-Left-Sedimentary-Fingerprint , a physicist has found what is claimed to be nano thermetic residue in WTC dust and he has written a paper for peer review , which can be found here : http : //www.ae911truth.org/downloads/Full \ _Thermite \ _paper.pdf In addition , over 1000 architects and engineers have signed a petition that calls for a new independent investigation into the collapse of the three towers at WTC in lower NYC on September 11 , 2001 .
Here are links to the press release http : //www.ae911truth.org/downloads/1000-AEs-Press-Release-2.doc and here is a link to the Washington Post covereage of the event http : //washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot keeps modding down this story: In a followup to this Slashdot story http://science.slashdot.org/story/03/01/21/201251/WTC-Left-Sedimentary-Fingerprint , a physicist has found what is claimed to be nano thermetic residue in WTC dust and he has written a paper for peer review, which can be found here: http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/Full\_Thermite\_paper.pdf   In addition, over 1000 architects and engineers have signed a petition that calls for a new independent investigation into the collapse of the three towers at WTC in lower NYC on September 11, 2001.
Here are links to the press release http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/1000-AEs-Press-Release-2.doc and here is a link to the Washington Post covereage of the event http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337318</id>
	<title>well duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, sue google, get a court order asking for just that.. force them to get the issue argued in court.</p><p>unless it's going to cost companies MORE to err on the side of caution than it's going to cost if they don't.. nothing will change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , sue google , get a court order asking for just that.. force them to get the issue argued in court.unless it 's going to cost companies MORE to err on the side of caution than it 's going to cost if they do n't.. nothing will change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, sue google, get a court order asking for just that.. force them to get the issue argued in court.unless it's going to cost companies MORE to err on the side of caution than it's going to cost if they don't.. nothing will change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337376</id>
	<title>Any alternatives that stick to their guns?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1267531080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there any Youtube alternatives that don't take content down so easily? With HTML5 and the video tag I imagine it would be a lot easier now to create something like that.</p><p>Internet decentralization is good, and we need to take advantage of it and not put everything on Google's servers (and not put everything on Microsoft's servers, and not put everything on (insert freedom-loving startup based in Sealand here)'s servers) so that internet freedom doesn't rest on a single pedestal. Single pedestals can be brought down, but a million can't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any Youtube alternatives that do n't take content down so easily ?
With HTML5 and the video tag I imagine it would be a lot easier now to create something like that.Internet decentralization is good , and we need to take advantage of it and not put everything on Google 's servers ( and not put everything on Microsoft 's servers , and not put everything on ( insert freedom-loving startup based in Sealand here ) 's servers ) so that internet freedom does n't rest on a single pedestal .
Single pedestals can be brought down , but a million ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any Youtube alternatives that don't take content down so easily?
With HTML5 and the video tag I imagine it would be a lot easier now to create something like that.Internet decentralization is good, and we need to take advantage of it and not put everything on Google's servers (and not put everything on Microsoft's servers, and not put everything on (insert freedom-loving startup based in Sealand here)'s servers) so that internet freedom doesn't rest on a single pedestal.
Single pedestals can be brought down, but a million can't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338930</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>Tanman</author>
	<datestamp>1267538400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, sir, but you are wrong.  There is no law that says google has to allow you to use Youtube to post your diatribes.  The parent poster was not referring to the content of your expression, he was referring to the private owners' ability to refuse to allow you to post on their service since they own it and it's theirs.</p><p>I wish people would mod you down and mod up parent, since he is right and you are out-of-context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , sir , but you are wrong .
There is no law that says google has to allow you to use Youtube to post your diatribes .
The parent poster was not referring to the content of your expression , he was referring to the private owners ' ability to refuse to allow you to post on their service since they own it and it 's theirs.I wish people would mod you down and mod up parent , since he is right and you are out-of-context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, sir, but you are wrong.
There is no law that says google has to allow you to use Youtube to post your diatribes.
The parent poster was not referring to the content of your expression, he was referring to the private owners' ability to refuse to allow you to post on their service since they own it and it's theirs.I wish people would mod you down and mod up parent, since he is right and you are out-of-context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337292</id>
	<title>Oh cmon!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot users, go away! The video is starting to stop! You are SLASHDOTTING IT!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot users , go away !
The video is starting to stop !
You are SLASHDOTTING IT !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot users, go away!
The video is starting to stop!
You are SLASHDOTTING IT!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338296</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267535220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DMCA has an obvious flaw, Takedown notices should be accompanied by a "copyright declaration" stating both that the issuer of the takedown notice is the copyright holder or agent with authority to speek for the copyright holder, and defines the work that that is infinged. This document is considered sufficent evidence for automatic purgory charges for the issuer on proof of false declaration. (as to the punishment range a court could hand down, the same punishment range as if someone committed purgory in a murder trial.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DMCA has an obvious flaw , Takedown notices should be accompanied by a " copyright declaration " stating both that the issuer of the takedown notice is the copyright holder or agent with authority to speek for the copyright holder , and defines the work that that is infinged .
This document is considered sufficent evidence for automatic purgory charges for the issuer on proof of false declaration .
( as to the punishment range a court could hand down , the same punishment range as if someone committed purgory in a murder trial .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DMCA has an obvious flaw, Takedown notices should be accompanied by a "copyright declaration" stating both that the issuer of the takedown notice is the copyright holder or agent with authority to speek for the copyright holder, and defines the work that that is infinged.
This document is considered sufficent evidence for automatic purgory charges for the issuer on proof of false declaration.
(as to the punishment range a court could hand down, the same punishment range as if someone committed purgory in a murder trial.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337442</id>
	<title>The hint is in the summary.</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267531320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company. We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas &mdash; not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model. We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright."</p></div><p>I think it's quite obvious what's going on. The new sacred cows of America are not free speech, individual pursuit of happiness and safety from tyranny, but corporate profits and dictating morals to others.</p><p>Sad, really. Well, there's still hope that maybe the US won't make Churchill into a liar when he said that America always does the right thing - after it tried everything else. But it's not looking good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech , not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company .
We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas    not lock it up and take it down because one company does n't know how to adapt its business model .
We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright .
" I think it 's quite obvious what 's going on .
The new sacred cows of America are not free speech , individual pursuit of happiness and safety from tyranny , but corporate profits and dictating morals to others.Sad , really .
Well , there 's still hope that maybe the US wo n't make Churchill into a liar when he said that America always does the right thing - after it tried everything else .
But it 's not looking good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company.
We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas — not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model.
We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright.
"I think it's quite obvious what's going on.
The new sacred cows of America are not free speech, individual pursuit of happiness and safety from tyranny, but corporate profits and dictating morals to others.Sad, really.
Well, there's still hope that maybe the US won't make Churchill into a liar when he said that America always does the right thing - after it tried everything else.
But it's not looking good.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338458</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267535940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are mistaken in assuming the word 'property' refers to 'content'. It clearly does not. In this case, 'property' refers to the infrastructure of youtube which is owned by Google, a private company. Google has zero obligation to host your rant on xenu and the lizard people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are mistaken in assuming the word 'property ' refers to 'content' .
It clearly does not .
In this case , 'property ' refers to the infrastructure of youtube which is owned by Google , a private company .
Google has zero obligation to host your rant on xenu and the lizard people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are mistaken in assuming the word 'property' refers to 'content'.
It clearly does not.
In this case, 'property' refers to the infrastructure of youtube which is owned by Google, a private company.
Google has zero obligation to host your rant on xenu and the lizard people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337478</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1267531560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't an argument specifically on one's Constitutional right to free speech.  It's more about third parties performing censorship activities that they otherwise would have no reason to perform, except that they are unduly pressured by the content companies into performing those activities, to the detriment of their own customers, on the basis of flawed assertions of copyright and a deliberate misinterpretation of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't an argument specifically on one 's Constitutional right to free speech .
It 's more about third parties performing censorship activities that they otherwise would have no reason to perform , except that they are unduly pressured by the content companies into performing those activities , to the detriment of their own customers , on the basis of flawed assertions of copyright and a deliberate misinterpretation of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't an argument specifically on one's Constitutional right to free speech.
It's more about third parties performing censorship activities that they otherwise would have no reason to perform, except that they are unduly pressured by the content companies into performing those activities, to the detriment of their own customers, on the basis of flawed assertions of copyright and a deliberate misinterpretation of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337848</id>
	<title>Re:The hint is in the summary.</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1267533300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it's quite obvious what's going on. The new sacred cows of America are not free speech, individual pursuit of happiness and safety from tyranny, but corporate profits and dictating morals to others.</p></div><p> <i>New</i> sacred cows?</p><p>Where were you 100 years ago (+/- 30 years) when monopolies were running rampant, the prohibitionists were girding themselves for a Constitutional Amendment, and saying "God Damn" in public was considered a jailable offense under indecency/obscenity/profanity laws?</p><p>I'm not necessarily arguing for or against your point, just showing how amazingly without context it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's quite obvious what 's going on .
The new sacred cows of America are not free speech , individual pursuit of happiness and safety from tyranny , but corporate profits and dictating morals to others .
New sacred cows ? Where were you 100 years ago ( + /- 30 years ) when monopolies were running rampant , the prohibitionists were girding themselves for a Constitutional Amendment , and saying " God Damn " in public was considered a jailable offense under indecency/obscenity/profanity laws ? I 'm not necessarily arguing for or against your point , just showing how amazingly without context it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's quite obvious what's going on.
The new sacred cows of America are not free speech, individual pursuit of happiness and safety from tyranny, but corporate profits and dictating morals to others.
New sacred cows?Where were you 100 years ago (+/- 30 years) when monopolies were running rampant, the prohibitionists were girding themselves for a Constitutional Amendment, and saying "God Damn" in public was considered a jailable offense under indecency/obscenity/profanity laws?I'm not necessarily arguing for or against your point, just showing how amazingly without context it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337594</id>
	<title>The future is here</title>
	<author>Superdarion</author>
	<datestamp>1267532100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they go to your OWN website and take down your own copyright material because it might infringe some non-specified third party's intellectual property, then you can complain about free speech and whatever.<br> <br>


No wait... that is already happening. Moving on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they go to your OWN website and take down your own copyright material because it might infringe some non-specified third party 's intellectual property , then you can complain about free speech and whatever .
No wait... that is already happening .
Moving on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they go to your OWN website and take down your own copyright material because it might infringe some non-specified third party's intellectual property, then you can complain about free speech and whatever.
No wait... that is already happening.
Moving on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31340228</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives that stick to their guns?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267549020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you just need to put stuff on servers in free countries, not the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you just need to put stuff on servers in free countries , not the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you just need to put stuff on servers in free countries, not the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337702</id>
	<title>You can have your country,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267532580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer living in a world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer living in a world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer living in a world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339786</id>
	<title>Re:Subcontracting enforcement</title>
	<author>SQL Error</author>
	<datestamp>1267545000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31347316</id>
	<title>Re:Free Speech is dead (just like your privacy)</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1267639260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No doubt, the MPAA is obviously too big to fail!</p><p>Since they can't adapt to the changing world, well by golly the government is going to force the changing world to adapt to them, damnit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt , the MPAA is obviously too big to fail ! Since they ca n't adapt to the changing world , well by golly the government is going to force the changing world to adapt to them , damnit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt, the MPAA is obviously too big to fail!Since they can't adapt to the changing world, well by golly the government is going to force the changing world to adapt to them, damnit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337364</id>
	<title>bahh, Lessig's a ****-disturber.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267531020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like when the police question you while you're walking around taking pictures. Sure, you may be within your rights, and there may be no laws saying you can't walk around with a camera, but you know what? You're just trying to be difficult. And Lessig's just trying to be difficult. All that the police want is to sniff out the terrorists, and the terrorists are bad, right!? And so are music pirates. And you can't fault Warner for just wanting to protect their few dollars. Just remember, those who make waves are always up to no good.</p><p>*cough*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like when the police question you while you 're walking around taking pictures .
Sure , you may be within your rights , and there may be no laws saying you ca n't walk around with a camera , but you know what ?
You 're just trying to be difficult .
And Lessig 's just trying to be difficult .
All that the police want is to sniff out the terrorists , and the terrorists are bad , right ! ?
And so are music pirates .
And you ca n't fault Warner for just wanting to protect their few dollars .
Just remember , those who make waves are always up to no good .
* cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like when the police question you while you're walking around taking pictures.
Sure, you may be within your rights, and there may be no laws saying you can't walk around with a camera, but you know what?
You're just trying to be difficult.
And Lessig's just trying to be difficult.
All that the police want is to sniff out the terrorists, and the terrorists are bad, right!?
And so are music pirates.
And you can't fault Warner for just wanting to protect their few dollars.
Just remember, those who make waves are always up to no good.
*cough*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337850</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1267533300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That doesn't mean that they can tell you its illegal and remove it.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Not so sure about that.  It's a free service, they can certainly remove the video.  It's their servers.  I am not playing Devil's advocate here or anything, but a lot of these protestations about Free Speech are concerning activities that are happening on <i> <b>private property</b></i> .  I have a problem with telling YouTube that it must host content, any content, regardless if I agree with it or not.</p><p>What I do have a problem with is when the DMCA is abused.  If WMG used the DMCA to attempt to force YouTube into taking down the video, that is a different matter entirely and one that falls into oppression and suppression of Free Speech.  It's not just YouTube either that is harassed in this fashion.  Plenty of web site owners, hosting providers, ISPs, get this bullshit all the time in an effort to suppress Free Speech, transparency in government, unpopular speech, etc.</p><p>We don't know if this was YouTube's decision (within their rights) or simply a reaction to DMCA take down requests by WMG (They decided to cave in to the demands more easily than we would like).</p><p>I fail to see how YouTube is not within it's rights to do any of this.</p><blockquote><div><p>they are saying something is illegal when its not</p></div></blockquote><p>AFAIK, they are not doing that at all.  That's what confuses me so much about this.  I get notices all the time:</p><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Dear XXXXXXXXXX,</p><p>Your video, XXXXX, <b>may</b> have content that is owned or licensed by XXXXXXX Group.</p><p>No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>- The YouTube Team</p></div> </blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>They never actually stated it was illegal.  Only that there was a possibility it was.  I was not told I had to do anything either.</p><p>I have received <i>hundreds</i> of these notices as well, and to date, I have not had any videos removed at all. This probably is *not* the automated fingerprinting at YouTube doing this.  I would bet it is a reaction to a take down notice.</p><p>Even if they did state it was illegal, when it was not, how is that 'illegal'?  I assume that is what you mean when you say, 'they can't'?  Or did you mean to say, 'they shouldn't'?</p><p>People and businesses have a right to be stupid and say stupid things.  Not libelous or slanderous things, but they have a right to say wrong and stupid things.  We can also take our business elsewhere too.</p><p>In the end, I would not give so much grief to YouTube about this.  They are just trying to survive in a corrupt in inequitable environment.  What I would do is write a letter to WMG telling them that you have decided to not give them any business at all, and <b> <i>stick to your guns</i></b> .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't mean that they can tell you its illegal and remove it .
Not so sure about that .
It 's a free service , they can certainly remove the video .
It 's their servers .
I am not playing Devil 's advocate here or anything , but a lot of these protestations about Free Speech are concerning activities that are happening on private property .
I have a problem with telling YouTube that it must host content , any content , regardless if I agree with it or not.What I do have a problem with is when the DMCA is abused .
If WMG used the DMCA to attempt to force YouTube into taking down the video , that is a different matter entirely and one that falls into oppression and suppression of Free Speech .
It 's not just YouTube either that is harassed in this fashion .
Plenty of web site owners , hosting providers , ISPs , get this bullshit all the time in an effort to suppress Free Speech , transparency in government , unpopular speech , etc.We do n't know if this was YouTube 's decision ( within their rights ) or simply a reaction to DMCA take down requests by WMG ( They decided to cave in to the demands more easily than we would like ) .I fail to see how YouTube is not within it 's rights to do any of this.they are saying something is illegal when its notAFAIK , they are not doing that at all .
That 's what confuses me so much about this .
I get notices all the time : Dear XXXXXXXXXX,Your video , XXXXX , may have content that is owned or licensed by XXXXXXX Group.No action is required on your part ; however , if you are interested in learning how this affects your video , please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.Sincerely,- The YouTube Team They never actually stated it was illegal .
Only that there was a possibility it was .
I was not told I had to do anything either.I have received hundreds of these notices as well , and to date , I have not had any videos removed at all .
This probably is * not * the automated fingerprinting at YouTube doing this .
I would bet it is a reaction to a take down notice.Even if they did state it was illegal , when it was not , how is that 'illegal ' ?
I assume that is what you mean when you say , 'they ca n't ' ?
Or did you mean to say , 'they should n't ' ? People and businesses have a right to be stupid and say stupid things .
Not libelous or slanderous things , but they have a right to say wrong and stupid things .
We can also take our business elsewhere too.In the end , I would not give so much grief to YouTube about this .
They are just trying to survive in a corrupt in inequitable environment .
What I would do is write a letter to WMG telling them that you have decided to not give them any business at all , and stick to your guns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't mean that they can tell you its illegal and remove it.
Not so sure about that.
It's a free service, they can certainly remove the video.
It's their servers.
I am not playing Devil's advocate here or anything, but a lot of these protestations about Free Speech are concerning activities that are happening on  private property .
I have a problem with telling YouTube that it must host content, any content, regardless if I agree with it or not.What I do have a problem with is when the DMCA is abused.
If WMG used the DMCA to attempt to force YouTube into taking down the video, that is a different matter entirely and one that falls into oppression and suppression of Free Speech.
It's not just YouTube either that is harassed in this fashion.
Plenty of web site owners, hosting providers, ISPs, get this bullshit all the time in an effort to suppress Free Speech, transparency in government, unpopular speech, etc.We don't know if this was YouTube's decision (within their rights) or simply a reaction to DMCA take down requests by WMG (They decided to cave in to the demands more easily than we would like).I fail to see how YouTube is not within it's rights to do any of this.they are saying something is illegal when its notAFAIK, they are not doing that at all.
That's what confuses me so much about this.
I get notices all the time:Dear XXXXXXXXXX,Your video, XXXXX, may have content that is owned or licensed by XXXXXXX Group.No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.Sincerely,- The YouTube Team  They never actually stated it was illegal.
Only that there was a possibility it was.
I was not told I had to do anything either.I have received hundreds of these notices as well, and to date, I have not had any videos removed at all.
This probably is *not* the automated fingerprinting at YouTube doing this.
I would bet it is a reaction to a take down notice.Even if they did state it was illegal, when it was not, how is that 'illegal'?
I assume that is what you mean when you say, 'they can't'?
Or did you mean to say, 'they shouldn't'?People and businesses have a right to be stupid and say stupid things.
Not libelous or slanderous things, but they have a right to say wrong and stupid things.
We can also take our business elsewhere too.In the end, I would not give so much grief to YouTube about this.
They are just trying to survive in a corrupt in inequitable environment.
What I would do is write a letter to WMG telling them that you have decided to not give them any business at all, and  stick to your guns .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338170</id>
	<title>I think Lessig should decide</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1267534620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if he's trying to communicate or just challenge the system. If it's the former, he should upload a video that can't be removed on the basis of copyright fair use or not. If it's the latter, well, he's made his point by being censored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if he 's trying to communicate or just challenge the system .
If it 's the former , he should upload a video that ca n't be removed on the basis of copyright fair use or not .
If it 's the latter , well , he 's made his point by being censored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if he's trying to communicate or just challenge the system.
If it's the former, he should upload a video that can't be removed on the basis of copyright fair use or not.
If it's the latter, well, he's made his point by being censored.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338914</id>
	<title>Re:Subcontracting enforcement</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1267538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The corporation are removing content out of fear of lawsuits. They are NOT doing it for their personal profit</p></div><p>Agree with the first part, but they're still afraid of lawsuits because they reduce their personal profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The corporation are removing content out of fear of lawsuits .
They are NOT doing it for their personal profitAgree with the first part , but they 're still afraid of lawsuits because they reduce their personal profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The corporation are removing content out of fear of lawsuits.
They are NOT doing it for their personal profitAgree with the first part, but they're still afraid of lawsuits because they reduce their personal profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31340372</id>
	<title>Re:Subcontracting enforcement</title>
	<author>JD-1027</author>
	<datestamp>1267550340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337396</id>
	<title>you mean this one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267531200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JIp3yStpmg" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JIp3yStpmg</a> [youtube.com] "webside chat"?</p><p>works with sound here (germany).... dunno what you mean, though its possible that the dmca counternotice was already done and accepted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 9JIp3yStpmg [ youtube.com ] " webside chat " ? works with sound here ( germany ) .... dunno what you mean , though its possible that the dmca counternotice was already done and accepted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JIp3yStpmg [youtube.com] "webside chat"?works with sound here (germany).... dunno what you mean, though its possible that the dmca counternotice was already done and accepted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337846</id>
	<title>this is not about free speech</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1267533240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is about fair use of copyrighted material, the threat and confusion created by DMCA, and the problems caused by automated take-downs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about fair use of copyrighted material , the threat and confusion created by DMCA , and the problems caused by automated take-downs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about fair use of copyrighted material, the threat and confusion created by DMCA, and the problems caused by automated take-downs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337560</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1267531860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> problem is, they are saying something is illegal when its not.</p></div><p>I don't believe they've actually said it's illegal. If they receive a DMCA, they take the video down. They don't investigate. They're not making any kind of judgement. If it trips their "copyright infringeor detector," they take it down, they don't say "hey, it's illegal." Most you'll get is probably "this video has been taken down due to a ToS violation" or "at the request of" notifications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>problem is , they are saying something is illegal when its not.I do n't believe they 've actually said it 's illegal .
If they receive a DMCA , they take the video down .
They do n't investigate .
They 're not making any kind of judgement .
If it trips their " copyright infringeor detector , " they take it down , they do n't say " hey , it 's illegal .
" Most you 'll get is probably " this video has been taken down due to a ToS violation " or " at the request of " notifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> problem is, they are saying something is illegal when its not.I don't believe they've actually said it's illegal.
If they receive a DMCA, they take the video down.
They don't investigate.
They're not making any kind of judgement.
If it trips their "copyright infringeor detector," they take it down, they don't say "hey, it's illegal.
" Most you'll get is probably "this video has been taken down due to a ToS violation" or "at the request of" notifications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339412</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>bws111</author>
	<datestamp>1267541820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if someone uses a computer to transfer the money in your bank account to theirs they haven't actually stolen your property?  Even if they take it as cash, what have they actually stolen?  According to your thinking, just paper (the only thing that is tangible).  Any value it has is only because of some ink on it, and that isn't worth very much.  The first definition of property in the dictionary is: the right to process, use, and dispose of something; ownership.  I see nothing in that phrase that precludes the right to own, use, and dispose of sounds and images.
</p><p>Where do you get the idea that copyright means you are the one who created it?  The very word itself is self explanatory: rights to copy.  There are other words to describe who created it (author, composer, creator, etc).  Certainly copyright is originally held by the creator, but there should be no reason he can't sell that right, just like anything else he owns.
</p><p>Besides, you completely missed the point of the statement.  The property he is referring to is the infrastructure owned by YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if someone uses a computer to transfer the money in your bank account to theirs they have n't actually stolen your property ?
Even if they take it as cash , what have they actually stolen ?
According to your thinking , just paper ( the only thing that is tangible ) .
Any value it has is only because of some ink on it , and that is n't worth very much .
The first definition of property in the dictionary is : the right to process , use , and dispose of something ; ownership .
I see nothing in that phrase that precludes the right to own , use , and dispose of sounds and images .
Where do you get the idea that copyright means you are the one who created it ?
The very word itself is self explanatory : rights to copy .
There are other words to describe who created it ( author , composer , creator , etc ) .
Certainly copyright is originally held by the creator , but there should be no reason he ca n't sell that right , just like anything else he owns .
Besides , you completely missed the point of the statement .
The property he is referring to is the infrastructure owned by YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if someone uses a computer to transfer the money in your bank account to theirs they haven't actually stolen your property?
Even if they take it as cash, what have they actually stolen?
According to your thinking, just paper (the only thing that is tangible).
Any value it has is only because of some ink on it, and that isn't worth very much.
The first definition of property in the dictionary is: the right to process, use, and dispose of something; ownership.
I see nothing in that phrase that precludes the right to own, use, and dispose of sounds and images.
Where do you get the idea that copyright means you are the one who created it?
The very word itself is self explanatory: rights to copy.
There are other words to describe who created it (author, composer, creator, etc).
Certainly copyright is originally held by the creator, but there should be no reason he can't sell that right, just like anything else he owns.
Besides, you completely missed the point of the statement.
The property he is referring to is the infrastructure owned by YouTube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338390</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1267535580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>.. does not give you the right to use someone's property to express it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Music is not property. Video is not property. Words are not property. Someone can have <i>copyrights</i> of some content, but that does not mean the content is somehow "theirs". It's supposed to mean they were the ones that created it, though it doesn't mean that anymore.</p><p>Mickey Mouse is not the property of the Disney corporation, no matter how much they stamp their feet about on the issue. He isn't their property because he <i>can't</i> be their property. Mickey Mouse is not a real mouse. He's not a thing. He's an idea. And you can't own an idea. However, in our great free society, you can control the distribution of an idea.</p><p>People own things. They can sometimes also own rights. Sometimes they can own rights over ideas. But they can't own ideas, or sounds, or images. I can't believe I've even making a post which has to explain this fact. This is where the madness of modern "intellectual <b>property</b>" pundits has lead us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. does not give you the right to use someone 's property to express it.Music is not property .
Video is not property .
Words are not property .
Someone can have copyrights of some content , but that does not mean the content is somehow " theirs " .
It 's supposed to mean they were the ones that created it , though it does n't mean that anymore.Mickey Mouse is not the property of the Disney corporation , no matter how much they stamp their feet about on the issue .
He is n't their property because he ca n't be their property .
Mickey Mouse is not a real mouse .
He 's not a thing .
He 's an idea .
And you ca n't own an idea .
However , in our great free society , you can control the distribution of an idea.People own things .
They can sometimes also own rights .
Sometimes they can own rights over ideas .
But they ca n't own ideas , or sounds , or images .
I ca n't believe I 've even making a post which has to explain this fact .
This is where the madness of modern " intellectual property " pundits has lead us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. does not give you the right to use someone's property to express it.Music is not property.
Video is not property.
Words are not property.
Someone can have copyrights of some content, but that does not mean the content is somehow "theirs".
It's supposed to mean they were the ones that created it, though it doesn't mean that anymore.Mickey Mouse is not the property of the Disney corporation, no matter how much they stamp their feet about on the issue.
He isn't their property because he can't be their property.
Mickey Mouse is not a real mouse.
He's not a thing.
He's an idea.
And you can't own an idea.
However, in our great free society, you can control the distribution of an idea.People own things.
They can sometimes also own rights.
Sometimes they can own rights over ideas.
But they can't own ideas, or sounds, or images.
I can't believe I've even making a post which has to explain this fact.
This is where the madness of modern "intellectual property" pundits has lead us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338806</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267537620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure he meant "property" as in YouTube's servers.  He wasn't talking about music or ideas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure he meant " property " as in YouTube 's servers .
He was n't talking about music or ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure he meant "property" as in YouTube's servers.
He wasn't talking about music or ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338650</id>
	<title>1st Amndmnt is law, freedom of speech is principle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267536780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've noticed that anytime there's a complaint about censorship, there's a number of "insightful" comments repeating that the hosting service has the legal right to do so, even though there was no case being made that the service (Youtube in this case) acted illegally or had no legal right to do so.  How has it become so fashionable that whenever someone objects to censorship, so many people's knee jerk reaction is to defend that censorship based on legal grounds rather than take a stand to promote a free and open society?</p><p>

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a law that governs the relationship between the government and citizens.  Freedom of speech is the principle that this law was designed to protect.  If your support for freedom of speech goes only as far as the legal rights granted you, that's fine, but you don't need to reduce it to a legal argument, because it is not.  Don't worry, we understand exactly what the First Amendment does and does not protect, but we also believe in the broader principle of free speech that is at the core of a free, open, and enlightened society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noticed that anytime there 's a complaint about censorship , there 's a number of " insightful " comments repeating that the hosting service has the legal right to do so , even though there was no case being made that the service ( Youtube in this case ) acted illegally or had no legal right to do so .
How has it become so fashionable that whenever someone objects to censorship , so many people 's knee jerk reaction is to defend that censorship based on legal grounds rather than take a stand to promote a free and open society ?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a law that governs the relationship between the government and citizens .
Freedom of speech is the principle that this law was designed to protect .
If your support for freedom of speech goes only as far as the legal rights granted you , that 's fine , but you do n't need to reduce it to a legal argument , because it is not .
Do n't worry , we understand exactly what the First Amendment does and does not protect , but we also believe in the broader principle of free speech that is at the core of a free , open , and enlightened society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noticed that anytime there's a complaint about censorship, there's a number of "insightful" comments repeating that the hosting service has the legal right to do so, even though there was no case being made that the service (Youtube in this case) acted illegally or had no legal right to do so.
How has it become so fashionable that whenever someone objects to censorship, so many people's knee jerk reaction is to defend that censorship based on legal grounds rather than take a stand to promote a free and open society?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a law that governs the relationship between the government and citizens.
Freedom of speech is the principle that this law was designed to protect.
If your support for freedom of speech goes only as far as the legal rights granted you, that's fine, but you don't need to reduce it to a legal argument, because it is not.
Don't worry, we understand exactly what the First Amendment does and does not protect, but we also believe in the broader principle of free speech that is at the core of a free, open, and enlightened society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337362</id>
	<title>Counternotice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267531020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Lessig is now required to fill out a counternotice challenging the takedown [...] The system is broken.</em></p><p>Seems to me the system is broken *IF* the video isn't restored and doesn't remain that way following the counternotice.</p><p>Seems to me the system is also broken if there actually was a DMCA notice from Warner and they fail to pay Lessig damages too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lessig is now required to fill out a counternotice challenging the takedown [ ... ] The system is broken.Seems to me the system is broken * IF * the video is n't restored and does n't remain that way following the counternotice.Seems to me the system is also broken if there actually was a DMCA notice from Warner and they fail to pay Lessig damages too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lessig is now required to fill out a counternotice challenging the takedown [...] The system is broken.Seems to me the system is broken *IF* the video isn't restored and doesn't remain that way following the counternotice.Seems to me the system is also broken if there actually was a DMCA notice from Warner and they fail to pay Lessig damages too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31341804</id>
	<title>Re:Free Speech</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1267649700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then companies should not be guaranteed free speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then companies should not be guaranteed free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then companies should not be guaranteed free speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31345502</id>
	<title>1st amendment only applies to companies now</title>
	<author>mrFur</author>
	<datestamp>1267631880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The supreme court gave away one of the last vestiges of individual liberty by enshrining corporations as bodies with first amendment rights.  Corporate profits are now more important than you are, so don't worry.  Next they'll have 4th amendment rights - and have private armies - wait, those are called contractors in foreign wars...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The supreme court gave away one of the last vestiges of individual liberty by enshrining corporations as bodies with first amendment rights .
Corporate profits are now more important than you are , so do n't worry .
Next they 'll have 4th amendment rights - and have private armies - wait , those are called contractors in foreign wars.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The supreme court gave away one of the last vestiges of individual liberty by enshrining corporations as bodies with first amendment rights.
Corporate profits are now more important than you are, so don't worry.
Next they'll have 4th amendment rights - and have private armies - wait, those are called contractors in foreign wars...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31362340</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1267696020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've stopped using YouTube for all my videos because of their copyright take down actions.</p></div></blockquote><p>And have you told YouTube this? , and do YouTube give a flying fuck about not having your content?</p><p>How are YouTube meant to make any money, I wonder? Or is it simply that I've got an efficent-enough set of AdBlock filters that I don't notice the failed advertising.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've stopped using YouTube for all my videos because of their copyright take down actions.And have you told YouTube this ?
, and do YouTube give a flying fuck about not having your content ? How are YouTube meant to make any money , I wonder ?
Or is it simply that I 've got an efficent-enough set of AdBlock filters that I do n't notice the failed advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've stopped using YouTube for all my videos because of their copyright take down actions.And have you told YouTube this?
, and do YouTube give a flying fuck about not having your content?How are YouTube meant to make any money, I wonder?
Or is it simply that I've got an efficent-enough set of AdBlock filters that I don't notice the failed advertising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31340292</id>
	<title>Summary is inaccurate</title>
	<author>KeithIrwin</author>
	<datestamp>1267549500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is correct to say that Warner issued the previous takedown notice, but it's not correct to say that they actually owned the copyright to any of the songs in the video.  Warner's takedown notice was due to the Muppet version of the song "Mahna Mahna" which was published on a Muppet's Greatest Hits album released by Rhino (a Warner Subsidiary).  However, Warner does not own the copyright to that recording of that song.  They were just licensed to release it.  The copyright is owned by the copyright holder of the original recording of that song, which is currently Disney by way of the Muppet's Holding Company.  Warner almost certainly accidentally added this CD to their song database without checking the actual copyright status of it.</p><p>I had been hoping to see something come out of that, but I never saw any updates from Lessig about what happened in the long term (counter-notice or whatnot).  If you look at his blog, the last update was <a href="http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/04/update\_on\_warner\_music.html" title="lessig.org"> here</a> [lessig.org] which reveals that it was "Mahna Mahna" which lead to the takedown notice.  Given that the song was only licensed by Warner and not owned by them, I don't understand how they could issue a takedown notice without committing perjury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is correct to say that Warner issued the previous takedown notice , but it 's not correct to say that they actually owned the copyright to any of the songs in the video .
Warner 's takedown notice was due to the Muppet version of the song " Mahna Mahna " which was published on a Muppet 's Greatest Hits album released by Rhino ( a Warner Subsidiary ) .
However , Warner does not own the copyright to that recording of that song .
They were just licensed to release it .
The copyright is owned by the copyright holder of the original recording of that song , which is currently Disney by way of the Muppet 's Holding Company .
Warner almost certainly accidentally added this CD to their song database without checking the actual copyright status of it.I had been hoping to see something come out of that , but I never saw any updates from Lessig about what happened in the long term ( counter-notice or whatnot ) .
If you look at his blog , the last update was here [ lessig.org ] which reveals that it was " Mahna Mahna " which lead to the takedown notice .
Given that the song was only licensed by Warner and not owned by them , I do n't understand how they could issue a takedown notice without committing perjury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is correct to say that Warner issued the previous takedown notice, but it's not correct to say that they actually owned the copyright to any of the songs in the video.
Warner's takedown notice was due to the Muppet version of the song "Mahna Mahna" which was published on a Muppet's Greatest Hits album released by Rhino (a Warner Subsidiary).
However, Warner does not own the copyright to that recording of that song.
They were just licensed to release it.
The copyright is owned by the copyright holder of the original recording of that song, which is currently Disney by way of the Muppet's Holding Company.
Warner almost certainly accidentally added this CD to their song database without checking the actual copyright status of it.I had been hoping to see something come out of that, but I never saw any updates from Lessig about what happened in the long term (counter-notice or whatnot).
If you look at his blog, the last update was  here [lessig.org] which reveals that it was "Mahna Mahna" which lead to the takedown notice.
Given that the song was only licensed by Warner and not owned by them, I don't understand how they could issue a takedown notice without committing perjury.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31343226</id>
	<title>DMCA-Shopping</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1267618860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon's <a href="http://aws.amazon.com/terms/#notice-and-procedure-for-making-claims-of-copyright-infringement" title="amazon.com">DMCA procedures</a> [amazon.com] are very deliberative.  If you don't like youtube's enforcement policies, shop around!  Host your file on S3, and post a video preview on youtube with a link to S3.</p><p>For example, Amazon's procedure requires an electronic or physical signature on the takedown notice and a statement made under \_penalty of perjury\_ that the notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.  This won't slow down a legitimate owner or agent much, but it will give you and Amazon a basis to sue if the takedown notice doesn't come from an owner or authorized agent.  (Personally, I suspect that a fair number of takedown notices are not coming from people who have been properly authorized.  People claim copyright on all sorts of things that aren't theirs to claim at all -- even large publishing businesses who ought to know better.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon 's DMCA procedures [ amazon.com ] are very deliberative .
If you do n't like youtube 's enforcement policies , shop around !
Host your file on S3 , and post a video preview on youtube with a link to S3.For example , Amazon 's procedure requires an electronic or physical signature on the takedown notice and a statement made under \ _penalty of perjury \ _ that the notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner 's behalf .
This wo n't slow down a legitimate owner or agent much , but it will give you and Amazon a basis to sue if the takedown notice does n't come from an owner or authorized agent .
( Personally , I suspect that a fair number of takedown notices are not coming from people who have been properly authorized .
People claim copyright on all sorts of things that are n't theirs to claim at all -- even large publishing businesses who ought to know better .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon's DMCA procedures [amazon.com] are very deliberative.
If you don't like youtube's enforcement policies, shop around!
Host your file on S3, and post a video preview on youtube with a link to S3.For example, Amazon's procedure requires an electronic or physical signature on the takedown notice and a statement made under \_penalty of perjury\_ that the notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.
This won't slow down a legitimate owner or agent much, but it will give you and Amazon a basis to sue if the takedown notice doesn't come from an owner or authorized agent.
(Personally, I suspect that a fair number of takedown notices are not coming from people who have been properly authorized.
People claim copyright on all sorts of things that aren't theirs to claim at all -- even large publishing businesses who ought to know better.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337450</id>
	<title>Free Speech != Right of ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267531380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... free broadcast (hosting, distribution)</p><p>... having people being forced to listen to your rant</p><p>... having people not disagreeing with you, or actively trying to mute you</p><p>Don't say that Google supressing videos like they want is a matter of free speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... free broadcast ( hosting , distribution ) ... having people being forced to listen to your rant... having people not disagreeing with you , or actively trying to mute youDo n't say that Google supressing videos like they want is a matter of free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... free broadcast (hosting, distribution)... having people being forced to listen to your rant... having people not disagreeing with you, or actively trying to mute youDon't say that Google supressing videos like they want is a matter of free speech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338016</id>
	<title>Subcontracting enforcement</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1267533960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many of you are talking about free speech having to do with the government, not the corporations.  <b>This is completely correct, if you are naive.</b>
<p>It's called subcontracting.  Let's assume that the government does not want people to do X.   But it knows it can't legally outlaw it.  For example, to listen to a political commenter they dislike (say Glenn Beck or John Stewart, depending on who's president.)
</p><p>So instead they subcontract out the work to corporations.  So they give people the right to sue a corporation for huge amounts of money if they insult gays, liberals, etc. / conservatives, religions, etc. (depending on Beck or Stewart)
</p><p> <b>Indirect enforcement is still enforcement.</b>   And that is what this is.  This is a corporation doing some that the government wants, in order to avoid fines for failing to do it.
</p><p>It doesn't matter that government is doing this indirectly.  The corporation are removing content out of fear of lawsuits.   They are NOT doing it for their personal profit/political views/etc. etc.   This makes their actions proxy for the government.  <b>Free Speech rules apply.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of you are talking about free speech having to do with the government , not the corporations .
This is completely correct , if you are naive .
It 's called subcontracting .
Let 's assume that the government does not want people to do X. But it knows it ca n't legally outlaw it .
For example , to listen to a political commenter they dislike ( say Glenn Beck or John Stewart , depending on who 's president .
) So instead they subcontract out the work to corporations .
So they give people the right to sue a corporation for huge amounts of money if they insult gays , liberals , etc .
/ conservatives , religions , etc .
( depending on Beck or Stewart ) Indirect enforcement is still enforcement .
And that is what this is .
This is a corporation doing some that the government wants , in order to avoid fines for failing to do it .
It does n't matter that government is doing this indirectly .
The corporation are removing content out of fear of lawsuits .
They are NOT doing it for their personal profit/political views/etc .
etc. This makes their actions proxy for the government .
Free Speech rules apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of you are talking about free speech having to do with the government, not the corporations.
This is completely correct, if you are naive.
It's called subcontracting.
Let's assume that the government does not want people to do X.   But it knows it can't legally outlaw it.
For example, to listen to a political commenter they dislike (say Glenn Beck or John Stewart, depending on who's president.
)
So instead they subcontract out the work to corporations.
So they give people the right to sue a corporation for huge amounts of money if they insult gays, liberals, etc.
/ conservatives, religions, etc.
(depending on Beck or Stewart)
 Indirect enforcement is still enforcement.
And that is what this is.
This is a corporation doing some that the government wants, in order to avoid fines for failing to do it.
It doesn't matter that government is doing this indirectly.
The corporation are removing content out of fear of lawsuits.
They are NOT doing it for their personal profit/political views/etc.
etc.   This makes their actions proxy for the government.
Free Speech rules apply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31345558</id>
	<title>Forecasting</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1267632060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am predicting that we have approached a point where the second derivative with respect to time of the public's sentiment towards Google will be negative for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am predicting that we have approached a point where the second derivative with respect to time of the public 's sentiment towards Google will be negative for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am predicting that we have approached a point where the second derivative with respect to time of the public's sentiment towards Google will be negative for a long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339822</id>
	<title>Re:Counternotice</title>
	<author>Jarjarthejedi</author>
	<datestamp>1267545300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the system is broken when anyone can accuse anyone else of a crime and have them punished until they prove they didn't do it. That's called Guilty until proven Innocent and while it might be legal in Civil cases it's definitely not right.</p><p>The burden of proof should lie with the copyright holder to demonstrate that they own the copyright on something before they claim copyright infringement, and then to give some reason why they believe it violates fair use (i.e. it's too long, commercial use, etc).</p><p>Is it an unfair burden to put on the copyright holder? Fine. That's better than putting a harder burden (proving someone doesn't have copyright and that it is fair use) on a random individual. You want to have something taken down, demonstrate why it should be taken down, don't just file a standard letter that says you believe it should be taken down and expect it to work.</p><p>The System is broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the system is broken when anyone can accuse anyone else of a crime and have them punished until they prove they did n't do it .
That 's called Guilty until proven Innocent and while it might be legal in Civil cases it 's definitely not right.The burden of proof should lie with the copyright holder to demonstrate that they own the copyright on something before they claim copyright infringement , and then to give some reason why they believe it violates fair use ( i.e .
it 's too long , commercial use , etc ) .Is it an unfair burden to put on the copyright holder ?
Fine. That 's better than putting a harder burden ( proving someone does n't have copyright and that it is fair use ) on a random individual .
You want to have something taken down , demonstrate why it should be taken down , do n't just file a standard letter that says you believe it should be taken down and expect it to work.The System is broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the system is broken when anyone can accuse anyone else of a crime and have them punished until they prove they didn't do it.
That's called Guilty until proven Innocent and while it might be legal in Civil cases it's definitely not right.The burden of proof should lie with the copyright holder to demonstrate that they own the copyright on something before they claim copyright infringement, and then to give some reason why they believe it violates fair use (i.e.
it's too long, commercial use, etc).Is it an unfair burden to put on the copyright holder?
Fine. That's better than putting a harder burden (proving someone doesn't have copyright and that it is fair use) on a random individual.
You want to have something taken down, demonstrate why it should be taken down, don't just file a standard letter that says you believe it should be taken down and expect it to work.The System is broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337624</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1267532220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But YouTube wants to display the content.  They just don't want to be held liable for alleged copyright infringement that they have no reasonable way of determining whether it's being violated.
<br> <br>
If YouTube don't want this video that's fine but they're not making an unbiased decision here.  WMG is pressuring the decision, backed by the government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But YouTube wants to display the content .
They just do n't want to be held liable for alleged copyright infringement that they have no reasonable way of determining whether it 's being violated .
If YouTube do n't want this video that 's fine but they 're not making an unbiased decision here .
WMG is pressuring the decision , backed by the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But YouTube wants to display the content.
They just don't want to be held liable for alleged copyright infringement that they have no reasonable way of determining whether it's being violated.
If YouTube don't want this video that's fine but they're not making an unbiased decision here.
WMG is pressuring the decision, backed by the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31343520</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives that stick to their guns?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267621440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Are there any Youtube alternatives that<br>&gt; don't take content down so easily?<br><br>Why not host it on your own web server?<br><br>Surely you don't think hosting video is technically hard?  Dude, just throw it in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/www/ and Bob is your uncle.  Don't make it harder than it needs to be.<br><br>They could try to attack you via your DNS registrar and/or upstream connectivity provider, but in most cases that should be rather harder than just asking a server admin to take down a file.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Are there any Youtube alternatives that &gt; do n't take content down so easily ? Why not host it on your own web server ? Surely you do n't think hosting video is technically hard ?
Dude , just throw it in /var/www/ and Bob is your uncle .
Do n't make it harder than it needs to be.They could try to attack you via your DNS registrar and/or upstream connectivity provider , but in most cases that should be rather harder than just asking a server admin to take down a file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Are there any Youtube alternatives that&gt; don't take content down so easily?Why not host it on your own web server?Surely you don't think hosting video is technically hard?
Dude, just throw it in /var/www/ and Bob is your uncle.
Don't make it harder than it needs to be.They could try to attack you via your DNS registrar and/or upstream connectivity provider, but in most cases that should be rather harder than just asking a server admin to take down a file.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339344</id>
	<title>Wanking Music Gestapo!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267541340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've been going out of their way in silencing videos left and right, so this wouldn't be the first. Some vids just aren't the same nor as funny when they murder the audio portion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been going out of their way in silencing videos left and right , so this would n't be the first .
Some vids just are n't the same nor as funny when they murder the audio portion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been going out of their way in silencing videos left and right, so this wouldn't be the first.
Some vids just aren't the same nor as funny when they murder the audio portion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337764</id>
	<title>The problem with fair use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267532880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary says, "...used in an unarguably fair-use manner," but the problem is that there are no definitions of fair use that  can't be argued. There are guidelines, but the only way to determine that a use is fair is to argue it in a court and prevail. Sure there may be uses that are so clear cut that a reasonable person would agree that the use is fair, and prior case law helps guide decisions, but try asking a lawyer to confirm your use to be fair use, and you'll rarely get a clear answer.
<br> <br>
I'm not saying this is not a case of fair use, but in having a system where the one way to be certain is to go to trial is going to lead to conservative behavior in users of content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary says , " ...used in an unarguably fair-use manner , " but the problem is that there are no definitions of fair use that ca n't be argued .
There are guidelines , but the only way to determine that a use is fair is to argue it in a court and prevail .
Sure there may be uses that are so clear cut that a reasonable person would agree that the use is fair , and prior case law helps guide decisions , but try asking a lawyer to confirm your use to be fair use , and you 'll rarely get a clear answer .
I 'm not saying this is not a case of fair use , but in having a system where the one way to be certain is to go to trial is going to lead to conservative behavior in users of content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary says, "...used in an unarguably fair-use manner," but the problem is that there are no definitions of fair use that  can't be argued.
There are guidelines, but the only way to determine that a use is fair is to argue it in a court and prevail.
Sure there may be uses that are so clear cut that a reasonable person would agree that the use is fair, and prior case law helps guide decisions, but try asking a lawyer to confirm your use to be fair use, and you'll rarely get a clear answer.
I'm not saying this is not a case of fair use, but in having a system where the one way to be certain is to go to trial is going to lead to conservative behavior in users of content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338892</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1267538100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You grossly misunderstood the parent. He does not mean that you can't use someone else's copyrighted stuff, he means that you can't force someone else to host your free speech on their servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You grossly misunderstood the parent .
He does not mean that you ca n't use someone else 's copyrighted stuff , he means that you ca n't force someone else to host your free speech on their servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You grossly misunderstood the parent.
He does not mean that you can't use someone else's copyrighted stuff, he means that you can't force someone else to host your free speech on their servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337666</id>
	<title>Re:Free Speech</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1267532400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't guaranteed by companies.</p></div><p>But if they're benefiting from the internet, particularly using it is their primary vehicle for delivery, then it should be.  The internet came into being funded by a government that cherishes the idea, and abandoning it now is morally reprehensible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't guaranteed by companies.But if they 're benefiting from the internet , particularly using it is their primary vehicle for delivery , then it should be .
The internet came into being funded by a government that cherishes the idea , and abandoning it now is morally reprehensible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't guaranteed by companies.But if they're benefiting from the internet, particularly using it is their primary vehicle for delivery, then it should be.
The internet came into being funded by a government that cherishes the idea, and abandoning it now is morally reprehensible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337310</id>
	<title>Free Speech is dead (just like your privacy)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The contents of this post have been removed because they *might* harm some company's profit margin, and we know that in the USA, corporations are WAAAAY more important than people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The contents of this post have been removed because they * might * harm some company 's profit margin , and we know that in the USA , corporations are WAAAAY more important than people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The contents of this post have been removed because they *might* harm some company's profit margin, and we know that in the USA, corporations are WAAAAY more important than people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337296</id>
	<title>Free Speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't guaranteed by companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't guaranteed by companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't guaranteed by companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337490</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267531560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. Lessig himself uses the full power of copyright law to protect his most current works despite preaching about how free is better.  Perhaps if he actually practiced what he preached it would be different - but he doesn't.</p><p>Guess when his actions would cost him money it is OK to use the most restrictive copyright possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Lessig himself uses the full power of copyright law to protect his most current works despite preaching about how free is better .
Perhaps if he actually practiced what he preached it would be different - but he does n't.Guess when his actions would cost him money it is OK to use the most restrictive copyright possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Lessig himself uses the full power of copyright law to protect his most current works despite preaching about how free is better.
Perhaps if he actually practiced what he preached it would be different - but he doesn't.Guess when his actions would cost him money it is OK to use the most restrictive copyright possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338756</id>
	<title>Re:Counternotice</title>
	<author>DinkyDogg</author>
	<datestamp>1267537320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the counternotice is that it requires the uploader to identify himself to his accusers. If you were accused by a mutli-national corporation of infringing their copyrights, how eager would you be to identify yourself to them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the counternotice is that it requires the uploader to identify himself to his accusers .
If you were accused by a mutli-national corporation of infringing their copyrights , how eager would you be to identify yourself to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the counternotice is that it requires the uploader to identify himself to his accusers.
If you were accused by a mutli-national corporation of infringing their copyrights, how eager would you be to identify yourself to them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31346012</id>
	<title>You spelled copytrite wrong.  /nt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267633860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filter error.  Repossession.  Nonsense to make the<br>whatchamacallit happy.  Other noise.  Funny joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filter error .
Repossession. Nonsense to make thewhatchamacallit happy .
Other noise .
Funny joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filter error.
Repossession.  Nonsense to make thewhatchamacallit happy.
Other noise.
Funny joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337458</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267531440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That doesn't mean that they can tell you its illegal and remove it. <br> <br>

Its like this, I own a billboard company, I can choose which advertisers can and can't advertise on there. However, it becomes a bit tricky if I say "I can't print this, this is illegal" when its not. Of course Google can do whatever they want to, the problem is, they are saying something is illegal when its not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't mean that they can tell you its illegal and remove it .
Its like this , I own a billboard company , I can choose which advertisers can and ca n't advertise on there .
However , it becomes a bit tricky if I say " I ca n't print this , this is illegal " when its not .
Of course Google can do whatever they want to , the problem is , they are saying something is illegal when its not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't mean that they can tell you its illegal and remove it.
Its like this, I own a billboard company, I can choose which advertisers can and can't advertise on there.
However, it becomes a bit tricky if I say "I can't print this, this is illegal" when its not.
Of course Google can do whatever they want to, the problem is, they are saying something is illegal when its not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337806</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1267533000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;.. does not give you the right to use someone's property to express it.</p><p>Yes it does.  It's called the fair use doctrine.  Without which there would probably be no academic papers at all.  There would be no movie or book reviews.  There would be no informed criticism at all.  There would be no parody.</p><p>Bad troll.  No cookie.</p><p>People who modded you up are tools.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; .. does not give you the right to use someone 's property to express it.Yes it does .
It 's called the fair use doctrine .
Without which there would probably be no academic papers at all .
There would be no movie or book reviews .
There would be no informed criticism at all .
There would be no parody.Bad troll .
No cookie.People who modded you up are tools.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;.. does not give you the right to use someone's property to express it.Yes it does.
It's called the fair use doctrine.
Without which there would probably be no academic papers at all.
There would be no movie or book reviews.
There would be no informed criticism at all.
There would be no parody.Bad troll.
No cookie.People who modded you up are tools.--BMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337878</id>
	<title>Muzzled?</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1267533360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The presentation was not muzzled.  YouTube merely stopped hosting it.  He's welcome to distribute it himself in any way he sees fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The presentation was not muzzled .
YouTube merely stopped hosting it .
He 's welcome to distribute it himself in any way he sees fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The presentation was not muzzled.
YouTube merely stopped hosting it.
He's welcome to distribute it himself in any way he sees fit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294</id>
	<title>Freedom of speech ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. does not give you the right to use someone's property to express it. There are no protections in the Constitution that says a newspaper can't create rules for printing editorials, or YouTube can't determe what can and can't be displayed.
<br> <br>
Don't like it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. start your own newspaper or video service. Or use <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/" title="vimeo.com" rel="nofollow">Vimeo</a> [vimeo.com]. I've stopped using YouTube for all my videos because of their copyright take down actions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. does not give you the right to use someone 's property to express it .
There are no protections in the Constitution that says a newspaper ca n't create rules for printing editorials , or YouTube ca n't determe what can and ca n't be displayed .
Do n't like it .. start your own newspaper or video service .
Or use Vimeo [ vimeo.com ] .
I 've stopped using YouTube for all my videos because of their copyright take down actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. does not give you the right to use someone's property to express it.
There are no protections in the Constitution that says a newspaper can't create rules for printing editorials, or YouTube can't determe what can and can't be displayed.
Don't like it .. start your own newspaper or video service.
Or use Vimeo [vimeo.com].
I've stopped using YouTube for all my videos because of their copyright take down actions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31342410</id>
	<title>Companies the new law enforcement??</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267611600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We really (start to) live in an industrial feudalism like I always foretold.</p><p>With companies owning the &ldquo;town&rdquo;, and making the rules.</p><p>I guess it&rsquo;s a natural result of two things:<br>1. Natural selection, life, and the law of the jungle resulting from it.<br>2. Groupings of humans becoming way too large (&gt;50-100 people), and thereby making accountability and morale of the individuals to their communities go away and everyone becoming an anonymous face.</p><p>I guess if I would found a country, I&rsquo;d make it illegal for a group to consist of more than 50 entities. (A entity could also be a group, to allow larger groupings. But the rules would make it so that these groups could not act as one to void the limitation.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We really ( start to ) live in an industrial feudalism like I always foretold.With companies owning the    town    , and making the rules.I guess it    s a natural result of two things : 1 .
Natural selection , life , and the law of the jungle resulting from it.2 .
Groupings of humans becoming way too large ( &gt; 50-100 people ) , and thereby making accountability and morale of the individuals to their communities go away and everyone becoming an anonymous face.I guess if I would found a country , I    d make it illegal for a group to consist of more than 50 entities .
( A entity could also be a group , to allow larger groupings .
But the rules would make it so that these groups could not act as one to void the limitation .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really (start to) live in an industrial feudalism like I always foretold.With companies owning the “town”, and making the rules.I guess it’s a natural result of two things:1.
Natural selection, life, and the law of the jungle resulting from it.2.
Groupings of humans becoming way too large (&gt;50-100 people), and thereby making accountability and morale of the individuals to their communities go away and everyone becoming an anonymous face.I guess if I would found a country, I’d make it illegal for a group to consist of more than 50 entities.
(A entity could also be a group, to allow larger groupings.
But the rules would make it so that these groups could not act as one to void the limitation.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337898</id>
	<title>Can we say....</title>
	<author>Erinnys Tisiphone</author>
	<datestamp>1267533420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Streisand Effect?

Now, off to find a copy of that video...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Streisand Effect ?
Now , off to find a copy of that video.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Streisand Effect?
Now, off to find a copy of that video...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339496</id>
	<title>Re:Any alternatives that stick to their guns?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267542780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try tudou.com. It's in China where they don't really do the whole western copyright thing. Just don't diss the locals and you should be fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try tudou.com .
It 's in China where they do n't really do the whole western copyright thing .
Just do n't diss the locals and you should be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try tudou.com.
It's in China where they don't really do the whole western copyright thing.
Just don't diss the locals and you should be fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337376</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31362340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31340372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31340228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31347316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31343520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2056201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31341804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31347316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31362340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31341804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31340372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31340228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31343520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31339822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31338170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2056201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2056201.31337292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
