<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_04_0323246</id>
	<title>DMCA Amendment Proposed For UK</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267693560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Grumbleduke writes <i>"During today's debate in the UK's House of Lords on the much-criticized <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital\_Economy\_Bill">Digital Economy Bill</a>, the unpopular Clause 17 (which would have allowed the government to alter copyright law much more easily than it currently can) was voted out in favor of a DMCA-style take-down system for websites and ISPs. <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/032/amend/ml032-iira.htm">The new amendment known as 120A</a> sets up a system whereby a copyright owner could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to pay the copyright owner's legal fees. This amendment was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, which had so far been seen as the defenders of the internet and with the Conservative party supporting them. The UK's <a href="http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2010/mar/3/uks-dmca-clause-17-falls-what-cost/">Pirate Party</a> and <a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/confirmed-web-blocking-in-digital-economy-bill">Open Rights Group</a> have both strongly criticized this new amendment."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grumbleduke writes " During today 's debate in the UK 's House of Lords on the much-criticized Digital Economy Bill , the unpopular Clause 17 ( which would have allowed the government to alter copyright law much more easily than it currently can ) was voted out in favor of a DMCA-style take-down system for websites and ISPs .
The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to pay the copyright owner 's legal fees .
This amendment was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party , which had so far been seen as the defenders of the internet and with the Conservative party supporting them .
The UK 's Pirate Party and Open Rights Group have both strongly criticized this new amendment .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grumbleduke writes "During today's debate in the UK's House of Lords on the much-criticized Digital Economy Bill, the unpopular Clause 17 (which would have allowed the government to alter copyright law much more easily than it currently can) was voted out in favor of a DMCA-style take-down system for websites and ISPs.
The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to pay the copyright owner's legal fees.
This amendment was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, which had so far been seen as the defenders of the internet and with the Conservative party supporting them.
The UK's Pirate Party and Open Rights Group have both strongly criticized this new amendment.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357190</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1267713240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bollocks. Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players.</p> </div><p>That doesn't really seem to match reality. The worse, more formulaic music is selling more and making tons of money. There are people who make quality music and sell it online in unencumbered formats, but they aren't making nearly as much money as the "pop" producers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bollocks .
Make better , less formulated music , do n't compress the hell out of it , and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players .
That does n't really seem to match reality .
The worse , more formulaic music is selling more and making tons of money .
There are people who make quality music and sell it online in unencumbered formats , but they are n't making nearly as much money as the " pop " producers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bollocks.
Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players.
That doesn't really seem to match reality.
The worse, more formulaic music is selling more and making tons of money.
There are people who make quality music and sell it online in unencumbered formats, but they aren't making nearly as much money as the "pop" producers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31358024</id>
	<title>Re:Pirate Party?</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1267718760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can anyone take you seriously when your mascots are an elephant or a donkey?...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can anyone take you seriously when your mascots are an elephant or a donkey ? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can anyone take you seriously when your mascots are an elephant or a donkey?...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31358552</id>
	<title>Re:I did actually write to the Lib Dem Party</title>
	<author>Grumbleduke</author>
	<datestamp>1267721700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I pointed out in my <a href="http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2010/mar/3/uks-dmca-clause-17-falls-what-cost/" title="pirateparty.org.uk">original article</a> [pirateparty.org.uk] that response from Lord Clement-Jones just highlights his lack of understanding.</p><p>He makes a major mistake in <i>the first sentence</i> - I pretty much stopped reading after then - although his assurances about it involving due process are worthless as the debate (and text) made it clear that the Court is not expected to be involved and if it is, the service provider will have to pay all the costs.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing.</p></div><p> <b>Wrong!</b>"P2P" or even the word "peer" do not appear at any point in the current text of the bill. The original recommendation in the Digital Britain report was limited to P2P if I remember correctly, and the major consultation over the summer (that I wrote 20,000 words on pointing out many of the flaws in their plans) was on P2P only, but when the actual text was published it had been expanded to cover <b>any online activity</b>.</p><p>Lord Clement-Jones may have seemed technologically competent and knowledgeable, but that was just in comparison to the government Ministers, so doesn't say much. The direct debate between him and the Earl of Erroll highlighted just how limited his understanding was.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I pointed out in my original article [ pirateparty.org.uk ] that response from Lord Clement-Jones just highlights his lack of understanding.He makes a major mistake in the first sentence - I pretty much stopped reading after then - although his assurances about it involving due process are worthless as the debate ( and text ) made it clear that the Court is not expected to be involved and if it is , the service provider will have to pay all the costs.The Digital Economy Bill , as currently drafted , only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement , namely peer-to-peer file sharing .
Wrong ! " P2P " or even the word " peer " do not appear at any point in the current text of the bill .
The original recommendation in the Digital Britain report was limited to P2P if I remember correctly , and the major consultation over the summer ( that I wrote 20,000 words on pointing out many of the flaws in their plans ) was on P2P only , but when the actual text was published it had been expanded to cover any online activity.Lord Clement-Jones may have seemed technologically competent and knowledgeable , but that was just in comparison to the government Ministers , so does n't say much .
The direct debate between him and the Earl of Erroll highlighted just how limited his understanding was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I pointed out in my original article [pirateparty.org.uk] that response from Lord Clement-Jones just highlights his lack of understanding.He makes a major mistake in the first sentence - I pretty much stopped reading after then - although his assurances about it involving due process are worthless as the debate (and text) made it clear that the Court is not expected to be involved and if it is, the service provider will have to pay all the costs.The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing.
Wrong!"P2P" or even the word "peer" do not appear at any point in the current text of the bill.
The original recommendation in the Digital Britain report was limited to P2P if I remember correctly, and the major consultation over the summer (that I wrote 20,000 words on pointing out many of the flaws in their plans) was on P2P only, but when the actual text was published it had been expanded to cover any online activity.Lord Clement-Jones may have seemed technologically competent and knowledgeable, but that was just in comparison to the government Ministers, so doesn't say much.
The direct debate between him and the Earl of Erroll highlighted just how limited his understanding was.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356276</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267703040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us (music producers) from making a living.</p> </div><p>Why should I care whether you can make a living or not?
<br>
<br>
I might care about the continued production of content (the music itself), but you most certainly are not necessary for that to continue. You might believe you are and you might believe you are entitled to make a living doing what you've always done, but that in no way makes it so. Many industries have changed over time and left people out of work and their old roles redundant -- we didn't legislate to keep those industries in limbo and those old roles viable -- nor should we legislate to keep your industry in limbo or your role viable.
<br>
<br>
It's the, "but, but, we're so important" attitude that really bites my ass. No, you're not -- you're Artie Fufkin -- now bend over and ask us all to collectively kick your ass. C'mon, for a man -- do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us ( music producers ) from making a living .
Why should I care whether you can make a living or not ?
I might care about the continued production of content ( the music itself ) , but you most certainly are not necessary for that to continue .
You might believe you are and you might believe you are entitled to make a living doing what you 've always done , but that in no way makes it so .
Many industries have changed over time and left people out of work and their old roles redundant -- we did n't legislate to keep those industries in limbo and those old roles viable -- nor should we legislate to keep your industry in limbo or your role viable .
It 's the , " but , but , we 're so important " attitude that really bites my ass .
No , you 're not -- you 're Artie Fufkin -- now bend over and ask us all to collectively kick your ass .
C'mon , for a man -- do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us (music producers) from making a living.
Why should I care whether you can make a living or not?
I might care about the continued production of content (the music itself), but you most certainly are not necessary for that to continue.
You might believe you are and you might believe you are entitled to make a living doing what you've always done, but that in no way makes it so.
Many industries have changed over time and left people out of work and their old roles redundant -- we didn't legislate to keep those industries in limbo and those old roles viable -- nor should we legislate to keep your industry in limbo or your role viable.
It's the, "but, but, we're so important" attitude that really bites my ass.
No, you're not -- you're Artie Fufkin -- now bend over and ask us all to collectively kick your ass.
C'mon, for a man -- do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356252</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1267702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm over 40 you insensitive clod. And I'm technically literate!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm over 40 you insensitive clod .
And I 'm technically literate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm over 40 you insensitive clod.
And I'm technically literate!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356052</id>
	<title>Please stop using the word "table"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, when you "table" a bill you kill it, whereas in the UK when you "table" a bill you introduce it. It can only cause confusion, so please find another word to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , when you " table " a bill you kill it , whereas in the UK when you " table " a bill you introduce it .
It can only cause confusion , so please find another word to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, when you "table" a bill you kill it, whereas in the UK when you "table" a bill you introduce it.
It can only cause confusion, so please find another word to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357658</id>
	<title>Some utterly unconnected facts</title>
	<author>Andy\_R</author>
	<datestamp>1267716360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lord Clement Jones "is paid &pound;70,000 in respect of his services as Co-Chairman of DLA Piper's global government relations practice" according to <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg06.htm" title="parliament.uk">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg06.htm</a> [parliament.uk]</p><p>DLA Piper works on behalf of the MusicFIRST coalition.</p><p>The RIAA is a founding member of the MusicFIRST coalition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lord Clement Jones " is paid   70,000 in respect of his services as Co-Chairman of DLA Piper 's global government relations practice " according to http : //www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg06.htm [ parliament.uk ] DLA Piper works on behalf of the MusicFIRST coalition.The RIAA is a founding member of the MusicFIRST coalition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lord Clement Jones "is paid £70,000 in respect of his services as Co-Chairman of DLA Piper's global government relations practice" according to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg06.htm [parliament.uk]DLA Piper works on behalf of the MusicFIRST coalition.The RIAA is a founding member of the MusicFIRST coalition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355968</id>
	<title>ISP has no rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the ISP refuses the take-down notice, the copyright-holder can seek a court injunction.  It doesn't speak of the ISP having rights in this process.  Does a High court tribunal give the defendant a voice?  Despite the USA forcing the ACTA upon its 'allies', those countries, such as the UK prefer to have trade agreements mirrored in law.  This usually means a subtly different process between what the parliament approves and what the trade agreements demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ISP refuses the take-down notice , the copyright-holder can seek a court injunction .
It does n't speak of the ISP having rights in this process .
Does a High court tribunal give the defendant a voice ?
Despite the USA forcing the ACTA upon its 'allies ' , those countries , such as the UK prefer to have trade agreements mirrored in law .
This usually means a subtly different process between what the parliament approves and what the trade agreements demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the ISP refuses the take-down notice, the copyright-holder can seek a court injunction.
It doesn't speak of the ISP having rights in this process.
Does a High court tribunal give the defendant a voice?
Despite the USA forcing the ACTA upon its 'allies', those countries, such as the UK prefer to have trade agreements mirrored in law.
This usually means a subtly different process between what the parliament approves and what the trade agreements demand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357176</id>
	<title>Not party policy(?)</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an amendment proposed by a Lord. Does anyone have a reference that this is coming from Lib Dem party policy? The Lords can propose what they like, it doesn't have to be with their party politics.</p><p>If you're going to use this as an axe to grind, do it against the Lords proposing this, not Lib Dem MPs who work in a completely different House.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an amendment proposed by a Lord .
Does anyone have a reference that this is coming from Lib Dem party policy ?
The Lords can propose what they like , it does n't have to be with their party politics.If you 're going to use this as an axe to grind , do it against the Lords proposing this , not Lib Dem MPs who work in a completely different House .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an amendment proposed by a Lord.
Does anyone have a reference that this is coming from Lib Dem party policy?
The Lords can propose what they like, it doesn't have to be with their party politics.If you're going to use this as an axe to grind, do it against the Lords proposing this, not Lib Dem MPs who work in a completely different House.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355880</id>
	<title>This is bad ?</title>
	<author>artg</author>
	<datestamp>1267698000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.

OK, it's harder for Joe Public to see a popular website, but it keeps the government's sticky fingers off the law, and 'satisfies' the DRM lobby with a technically unfeasible sop.

Meanwhile, anyone who cares still has access via proxies, ssh tunnels, blah blah blah</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a good tradeoff to me .
OK , it 's harder for Joe Public to see a popular website , but it keeps the government 's sticky fingers off the law , and 'satisfies ' the DRM lobby with a technically unfeasible sop .
Meanwhile , anyone who cares still has access via proxies , ssh tunnels , blah blah blah</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.
OK, it's harder for Joe Public to see a popular website, but it keeps the government's sticky fingers off the law, and 'satisfies' the DRM lobby with a technically unfeasible sop.
Meanwhile, anyone who cares still has access via proxies, ssh tunnels, blah blah blah</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355934</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1267698600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean since 1998? I'm pretty sure music producers have been in limbo of lost revenue since the invention of the home recording devices like the compact cassette. And the music performers have been in severe limbo of lost revenue since the invention of the phonograph.</p><p>But as Lawrence Lessig already pointed out, this hasn't killed culture or entertainment, but resulted in new forms of entertainment (and income through other means).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean since 1998 ?
I 'm pretty sure music producers have been in limbo of lost revenue since the invention of the home recording devices like the compact cassette .
And the music performers have been in severe limbo of lost revenue since the invention of the phonograph.But as Lawrence Lessig already pointed out , this has n't killed culture or entertainment , but resulted in new forms of entertainment ( and income through other means ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean since 1998?
I'm pretty sure music producers have been in limbo of lost revenue since the invention of the home recording devices like the compact cassette.
And the music performers have been in severe limbo of lost revenue since the invention of the phonograph.But as Lawrence Lessig already pointed out, this hasn't killed culture or entertainment, but resulted in new forms of entertainment (and income through other means).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357152</id>
	<title>A Lords Amendment Doesn't Mean Party Policy!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267713000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that this is happening in the House of Lords. Of course yes, as a Lib Dem voter I am horrified by this, but it's important to work out whether this amendment actually came from official Lib Dem party policy, or was an amendment put forward by Lib Dem and Tory <i>Lords</i>.</p><p>From the link, all it shows is an amendment proposed by a Lib Dem Lord. A Lord can propose what they like (this is both the advantage and disadvantage on the system - they're not tied to party policy).</p><p>Please don't throw away your vote for your <i>MP</i> for the House of Commons, based on what <i>someone else</i> is doing in a completely different House! Please write to your Lib Dem MP, let them know what you think, and hope ensure that this doesn't come Lib Dem policy (and preferably, get them to distance themselves from this amendment).</p><p>(Even in the House of Commons, sometimes you can have individual MPs proposing amendments that aren't party policy. I don't care whether you decide to vote based on your individual MP, or party policy, but deciding who you vote for based on the actions of other MPs is just throwing away your vote.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that this is happening in the House of Lords .
Of course yes , as a Lib Dem voter I am horrified by this , but it 's important to work out whether this amendment actually came from official Lib Dem party policy , or was an amendment put forward by Lib Dem and Tory Lords.From the link , all it shows is an amendment proposed by a Lib Dem Lord .
A Lord can propose what they like ( this is both the advantage and disadvantage on the system - they 're not tied to party policy ) .Please do n't throw away your vote for your MP for the House of Commons , based on what someone else is doing in a completely different House !
Please write to your Lib Dem MP , let them know what you think , and hope ensure that this does n't come Lib Dem policy ( and preferably , get them to distance themselves from this amendment ) .
( Even in the House of Commons , sometimes you can have individual MPs proposing amendments that are n't party policy .
I do n't care whether you decide to vote based on your individual MP , or party policy , but deciding who you vote for based on the actions of other MPs is just throwing away your vote .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that this is happening in the House of Lords.
Of course yes, as a Lib Dem voter I am horrified by this, but it's important to work out whether this amendment actually came from official Lib Dem party policy, or was an amendment put forward by Lib Dem and Tory Lords.From the link, all it shows is an amendment proposed by a Lib Dem Lord.
A Lord can propose what they like (this is both the advantage and disadvantage on the system - they're not tied to party policy).Please don't throw away your vote for your MP for the House of Commons, based on what someone else is doing in a completely different House!
Please write to your Lib Dem MP, let them know what you think, and hope ensure that this doesn't come Lib Dem policy (and preferably, get them to distance themselves from this amendment).
(Even in the House of Commons, sometimes you can have individual MPs proposing amendments that aren't party policy.
I don't care whether you decide to vote based on your individual MP, or party policy, but deciding who you vote for based on the actions of other MPs is just throwing away your vote.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357432</id>
	<title>Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267714740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also this comment makes some good points: <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html#comment-109185" title="libdemvoice.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html#comment-109185</a> [libdemvoice.org]</p><p>(Though depressingly there are a lot of comments from people who simply don't understand basic politics, such as those saying he's lost their vote - since when did they vote for a Lord? - to people talking as if the Lib Dems now can't criticise what's been proposed as "their" amendment; in reality, it's not uncommon for Lords of the same party to propose amendments disagreeing with the Government, in fact, even in the Commons, there may be disagreement between individual MPs and their own party.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also this comment makes some good points : http : //www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html # comment-109185 [ libdemvoice.org ] ( Though depressingly there are a lot of comments from people who simply do n't understand basic politics , such as those saying he 's lost their vote - since when did they vote for a Lord ?
- to people talking as if the Lib Dems now ca n't criticise what 's been proposed as " their " amendment ; in reality , it 's not uncommon for Lords of the same party to propose amendments disagreeing with the Government , in fact , even in the Commons , there may be disagreement between individual MPs and their own party .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also this comment makes some good points: http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html#comment-109185 [libdemvoice.org](Though depressingly there are a lot of comments from people who simply don't understand basic politics, such as those saying he's lost their vote - since when did they vote for a Lord?
- to people talking as if the Lib Dems now can't criticise what's been proposed as "their" amendment; in reality, it's not uncommon for Lords of the same party to propose amendments disagreeing with the Government, in fact, even in the Commons, there may be disagreement between individual MPs and their own party.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870</id>
	<title>Change is coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267697940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us (music producers) from making a living. I'm not the biggest fan of the DMCA but it's still a push in the right direction.

We've been stuck in this limbo of lost revenue since 1998 (napster era) and we'll be this way forever it seems. If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should. Many countries will follow suit on any action.

The DMCA sucks for users, but doing nothing is worse for the entertainment industries by far. Sitting around while ISPs play the middle ground simply isn't fair to anyone. Any action is going to be better than what we're doing now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us ( music producers ) from making a living .
I 'm not the biggest fan of the DMCA but it 's still a push in the right direction .
We 've been stuck in this limbo of lost revenue since 1998 ( napster era ) and we 'll be this way forever it seems .
If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should .
Many countries will follow suit on any action .
The DMCA sucks for users , but doing nothing is worse for the entertainment industries by far .
Sitting around while ISPs play the middle ground simply is n't fair to anyone .
Any action is going to be better than what we 're doing now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us (music producers) from making a living.
I'm not the biggest fan of the DMCA but it's still a push in the right direction.
We've been stuck in this limbo of lost revenue since 1998 (napster era) and we'll be this way forever it seems.
If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should.
Many countries will follow suit on any action.
The DMCA sucks for users, but doing nothing is worse for the entertainment industries by far.
Sitting around while ISPs play the middle ground simply isn't fair to anyone.
Any action is going to be better than what we're doing now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31380180</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267884840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Sweden just announced, that they will not accept ACTA, if it changes any local law AT ALL. Which it would.<br>Which means they won&rsquo;t ratify it. Which means it will not happen. At least there.<br>Which means we have a safe haven. Which means everybody is going to use it, and Sweden will come under massive pressure from the mafia.<br>But they got the Pirate Party. And that one is only getting stronger with the pressure.<br>So in any case: We win.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Sweden just announced , that they will not accept ACTA , if it changes any local law AT ALL .
Which it would.Which means they won    t ratify it .
Which means it will not happen .
At least there.Which means we have a safe haven .
Which means everybody is going to use it , and Sweden will come under massive pressure from the mafia.But they got the Pirate Party .
And that one is only getting stronger with the pressure.So in any case : We win .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Sweden just announced, that they will not accept ACTA, if it changes any local law AT ALL.
Which it would.Which means they won’t ratify it.
Which means it will not happen.
At least there.Which means we have a safe haven.
Which means everybody is going to use it, and Sweden will come under massive pressure from the mafia.But they got the Pirate Party.
And that one is only getting stronger with the pressure.So in any case: We win.
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356822</id>
	<title>Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds pretty reasonable - especially (e).</p><p>Not making your 'back catalogue' accessible? No blocking of sites linking to someone elses copy of it.</p><p>Book out of print and not available as an ebook? No blocking of sites linking to an electronic copy someone else has produced.</p><p>This'll be interesting for Disney who regularly restrict the availability of their copyrighted works as a buisiness model.<br>And it also seems to provide a get-out clause for linking to films &amp; games that are not available in the UK and have not been sent to the BBFC for certification.</p><p>I also think it could be used as a defence of modchip makers if their products give enough additional functionality that console makers block. i.e. I believe this would require console makers allow homebrew or allow modchips!</p><p>And the removal of the blanket powers for the government to make changes to the copyright legislation with the need for further papers/bills is a huge win for the public. It shows that the house of lords won't go for this in general (as well as benefiting this bill).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds pretty reasonable - especially ( e ) .Not making your 'back catalogue ' accessible ?
No blocking of sites linking to someone elses copy of it.Book out of print and not available as an ebook ?
No blocking of sites linking to an electronic copy someone else has produced.This 'll be interesting for Disney who regularly restrict the availability of their copyrighted works as a buisiness model.And it also seems to provide a get-out clause for linking to films &amp; games that are not available in the UK and have not been sent to the BBFC for certification.I also think it could be used as a defence of modchip makers if their products give enough additional functionality that console makers block .
i.e. I believe this would require console makers allow homebrew or allow modchips ! And the removal of the blanket powers for the government to make changes to the copyright legislation with the need for further papers/bills is a huge win for the public .
It shows that the house of lords wo n't go for this in general ( as well as benefiting this bill ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds pretty reasonable - especially (e).Not making your 'back catalogue' accessible?
No blocking of sites linking to someone elses copy of it.Book out of print and not available as an ebook?
No blocking of sites linking to an electronic copy someone else has produced.This'll be interesting for Disney who regularly restrict the availability of their copyrighted works as a buisiness model.And it also seems to provide a get-out clause for linking to films &amp; games that are not available in the UK and have not been sent to the BBFC for certification.I also think it could be used as a defence of modchip makers if their products give enough additional functionality that console makers block.
i.e. I believe this would require console makers allow homebrew or allow modchips!And the removal of the blanket powers for the government to make changes to the copyright legislation with the need for further papers/bills is a huge win for the public.
It shows that the house of lords won't go for this in general (as well as benefiting this bill).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357044</id>
	<title>I did actually write to the Lib Dem Party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267712160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I said I was disgusted with the proposal etc. and here is their reply; from the horses mouth no less.</p><p>Thank you for your email yesterday. Please see Lord Clement-Jones' justification for his amendment here:</p><p>"The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing. Around 35\% of all online copyright infringement takes place on non peer-to-peer sites and services. Particular threats concern &ldquo;cyberlockers&rdquo; which are hosted abroad.</p><p>There are websites which consistently infringe copyright, many of them based outside the UK in countries such as Russia and beyond the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Many of these websites refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content.</p><p>It is a result of this situation that the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the Lords which has the support of the Conservatives that enables the High Court to grant an injunction requiring Internet Service Providers to block access to sites.</p><p>The amendment (amendment 120A) has generated some concern on the internet in the last few days.</p><p>Amendment 120A makes an explicit reference to human rights implications being taken into consideration by the Courts whilst they consider the imposition of an injunction. Such a safeguard is paramount to our concerns.</p><p>The intention is also for the injunction to only be possible for sites where there is a substantial proportion of infringing material that is either hosted by that particular site or is accessed through the particular site in question.</p><p>The injunction will only be granted where copyright owners had first requested ISP&rsquo;s to block access to the site and where they had also requested the site operator to stop providing access to the infringing material (either by removing the material itself or removing the ability to access the material).</p><p>There already exists a remedy under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (section 97A) which grants copyright owners a broad power to apply to the Court for an injunction. Therefore, all amendment 120A does is enhance this power by giving copyright owners a more clearly defined route.</p><p>Site blocking is not a new phenomenon, the most well-known being the recommended list of sites to block provided by the Internet Watch Foundation</p><p>Clause 17, the Government&rsquo;s completely objectionable power to enable the Secretary of State to attempt to amend copyright law at any time is deleted by the joint Lib Dem and Conservative amendment.</p><p>Unlike Clause 17, amendment 120A depoliticises the process. The amendment will ensure any action will be heard before the High Court. The liberal principle of equality before the law remains intact allowing both sides to make their case before a judge, not by appeal to the Secretary of State.</p><p>Before making an injunction, under the amendment the Court has to have regard to whether the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access. This is designed to ensure that copyright owners continue to develop innovative ways of enabling their material to be accessed online legally, such as Spotify, before turning to legal action.</p><p>To conclude, the Lib Dems are not seeking to censor the internet but are responding to genuine concerns from the creative industries about providing a process whereby their material can be satisfactorily accessed legally."</p><p>Best wishes,</p><p>Dan Murch<br>Liberal Democrat Policy Research Unit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I said I was disgusted with the proposal etc .
and here is their reply ; from the horses mouth no less.Thank you for your email yesterday .
Please see Lord Clement-Jones ' justification for his amendment here : " The Digital Economy Bill , as currently drafted , only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement , namely peer-to-peer file sharing .
Around 35 \ % of all online copyright infringement takes place on non peer-to-peer sites and services .
Particular threats concern    cyberlockers    which are hosted abroad.There are websites which consistently infringe copyright , many of them based outside the UK in countries such as Russia and beyond the jurisdiction of the UK courts .
Many of these websites refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content.It is a result of this situation that the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the Lords which has the support of the Conservatives that enables the High Court to grant an injunction requiring Internet Service Providers to block access to sites.The amendment ( amendment 120A ) has generated some concern on the internet in the last few days.Amendment 120A makes an explicit reference to human rights implications being taken into consideration by the Courts whilst they consider the imposition of an injunction .
Such a safeguard is paramount to our concerns.The intention is also for the injunction to only be possible for sites where there is a substantial proportion of infringing material that is either hosted by that particular site or is accessed through the particular site in question.The injunction will only be granted where copyright owners had first requested ISP    s to block access to the site and where they had also requested the site operator to stop providing access to the infringing material ( either by removing the material itself or removing the ability to access the material ) .There already exists a remedy under the Copyright , Designs and Patents Act ( section 97A ) which grants copyright owners a broad power to apply to the Court for an injunction .
Therefore , all amendment 120A does is enhance this power by giving copyright owners a more clearly defined route.Site blocking is not a new phenomenon , the most well-known being the recommended list of sites to block provided by the Internet Watch FoundationClause 17 , the Government    s completely objectionable power to enable the Secretary of State to attempt to amend copyright law at any time is deleted by the joint Lib Dem and Conservative amendment.Unlike Clause 17 , amendment 120A depoliticises the process .
The amendment will ensure any action will be heard before the High Court .
The liberal principle of equality before the law remains intact allowing both sides to make their case before a judge , not by appeal to the Secretary of State.Before making an injunction , under the amendment the Court has to have regard to whether the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access .
This is designed to ensure that copyright owners continue to develop innovative ways of enabling their material to be accessed online legally , such as Spotify , before turning to legal action.To conclude , the Lib Dems are not seeking to censor the internet but are responding to genuine concerns from the creative industries about providing a process whereby their material can be satisfactorily accessed legally .
" Best wishes,Dan MurchLiberal Democrat Policy Research Unit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I said I was disgusted with the proposal etc.
and here is their reply; from the horses mouth no less.Thank you for your email yesterday.
Please see Lord Clement-Jones' justification for his amendment here:"The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing.
Around 35\% of all online copyright infringement takes place on non peer-to-peer sites and services.
Particular threats concern “cyberlockers” which are hosted abroad.There are websites which consistently infringe copyright, many of them based outside the UK in countries such as Russia and beyond the jurisdiction of the UK courts.
Many of these websites refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content.It is a result of this situation that the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the Lords which has the support of the Conservatives that enables the High Court to grant an injunction requiring Internet Service Providers to block access to sites.The amendment (amendment 120A) has generated some concern on the internet in the last few days.Amendment 120A makes an explicit reference to human rights implications being taken into consideration by the Courts whilst they consider the imposition of an injunction.
Such a safeguard is paramount to our concerns.The intention is also for the injunction to only be possible for sites where there is a substantial proportion of infringing material that is either hosted by that particular site or is accessed through the particular site in question.The injunction will only be granted where copyright owners had first requested ISP’s to block access to the site and where they had also requested the site operator to stop providing access to the infringing material (either by removing the material itself or removing the ability to access the material).There already exists a remedy under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (section 97A) which grants copyright owners a broad power to apply to the Court for an injunction.
Therefore, all amendment 120A does is enhance this power by giving copyright owners a more clearly defined route.Site blocking is not a new phenomenon, the most well-known being the recommended list of sites to block provided by the Internet Watch FoundationClause 17, the Government’s completely objectionable power to enable the Secretary of State to attempt to amend copyright law at any time is deleted by the joint Lib Dem and Conservative amendment.Unlike Clause 17, amendment 120A depoliticises the process.
The amendment will ensure any action will be heard before the High Court.
The liberal principle of equality before the law remains intact allowing both sides to make their case before a judge, not by appeal to the Secretary of State.Before making an injunction, under the amendment the Court has to have regard to whether the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access.
This is designed to ensure that copyright owners continue to develop innovative ways of enabling their material to be accessed online legally, such as Spotify, before turning to legal action.To conclude, the Lib Dems are not seeking to censor the internet but are responding to genuine concerns from the creative industries about providing a process whereby their material can be satisfactorily accessed legally.
"Best wishes,Dan MurchLiberal Democrat Policy Research Unit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356274</id>
	<title>Parent modded troll? WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267702980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The usual keywords like "crack" "moderators" "on".</p><p>Re-arrange into a well know slashdot saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The usual keywords like " crack " " moderators " " on " .Re-arrange into a well know slashdot saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The usual keywords like "crack" "moderators" "on".Re-arrange into a well know slashdot saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31361750</id>
	<title>Re:New Zealand has started already</title>
	<author>billybacs</author>
	<datestamp>1267736220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you almost completely, but I Think the distinction should be made between being accused/convicted of copyright infringement and actually committing a "real" crime. To use the road analogy below, you do lose your license if you kill someone with your car. If you're caught hacking Google or stealing financial records, you absolutely should be banned from the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you almost completely , but I Think the distinction should be made between being accused/convicted of copyright infringement and actually committing a " real " crime .
To use the road analogy below , you do lose your license if you kill someone with your car .
If you 're caught hacking Google or stealing financial records , you absolutely should be banned from the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you almost completely, but I Think the distinction should be made between being accused/convicted of copyright infringement and actually committing a "real" crime.
To use the road analogy below, you do lose your license if you kill someone with your car.
If you're caught hacking Google or stealing financial records, you absolutely should be banned from the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356074</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>SlashDread</author>
	<datestamp>1267700160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey! I resent that! I won't let that happen too!</p><p>A technically literate over 40.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey !
I resent that !
I wo n't let that happen too ! A technically literate over 40 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey!
I resent that!
I won't let that happen too!A technically literate over 40.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356634</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1267707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have some news for you: Music is nice to have, but I value my freedom and the Internet more. If you're going to stand between me and that, you're the one I can do without. And if you somehow succeed in instituting draconian laws, I'll make sure that not a cent of my money goes to you, and will simply find some other way to entretain myself.</p><p>If you want me to buy your music, make quality, unrestricted music. Drop the awful compression, drop the DRM, and drop the bullshit. Offer FLAC for download with no strings attached, selling individual tracks, and I could be interested. Sell DRMed stuff, and I definitely won't be.</p><p>BTW, I'm surprised you complain yet miss such an obvious chance to advertise your work. What do you make?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have some news for you : Music is nice to have , but I value my freedom and the Internet more .
If you 're going to stand between me and that , you 're the one I can do without .
And if you somehow succeed in instituting draconian laws , I 'll make sure that not a cent of my money goes to you , and will simply find some other way to entretain myself.If you want me to buy your music , make quality , unrestricted music .
Drop the awful compression , drop the DRM , and drop the bullshit .
Offer FLAC for download with no strings attached , selling individual tracks , and I could be interested .
Sell DRMed stuff , and I definitely wo n't be.BTW , I 'm surprised you complain yet miss such an obvious chance to advertise your work .
What do you make ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have some news for you: Music is nice to have, but I value my freedom and the Internet more.
If you're going to stand between me and that, you're the one I can do without.
And if you somehow succeed in instituting draconian laws, I'll make sure that not a cent of my money goes to you, and will simply find some other way to entretain myself.If you want me to buy your music, make quality, unrestricted music.
Drop the awful compression, drop the DRM, and drop the bullshit.
Offer FLAC for download with no strings attached, selling individual tracks, and I could be interested.
Sell DRMed stuff, and I definitely won't be.BTW, I'm surprised you complain yet miss such an obvious chance to advertise your work.
What do you make?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356288</id>
	<title>Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1267703100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm of the same feeling here, I was certainly a Lib Dem voter until I read this. However, I do intend to seek clarification- is this just some Lord going off on his own little journey, or does it have party support?</p><p>The summary makes no fucking sense either, it seems to imply the Conservatives support the Lib Dems stance of challenging large parts of the bill. This is outright false, the Tories have only agreed to challenge clause 17 which gives Mandelson full control over copyright law with no parliamentary oversight and nothing more, in fact, to date, other than that, the only real noise we've heard from Tories officials on the bill is that they think the whole 3 strikes thing should've been done sooner, they believed it should've happened already.</p><p>I don't know who wrote the summary, but they clearly have no idea of the UK political situation regarding the DEB.</p><p>Certainly if the Tories get in, I think it's likely the DEB will remain as is, or perhaps be even worse, because they're at least as pro-music industry as Labour, possible more so, because David Cameron has a hard on for celebrities- i.e. putting a creative industries person in charge of his broadband/internet review rather than a technologist, putting Carol Vorderman (a highly numerate TV presenter) in charge of his maths review, rather than you know, a mathematician, missing the point that numeracy is just a tiny part of maths and hence being part the fucking problem with current maths education in not understanding maths himself. But then, I suppose putting people who would actually be competent at those roles, such as Tim Berners-Lee and Marcus du Sautoy would require some level of competence, which is a rare thing in public sector.</p><p>Of course, there are people for and against it in every party, the problem is those who are against it in the likes of the Conservatives such as David Davis no longer hold the power they once did. Those in Labour who disagreed with 3 strikes such as David Lammy and Stephen Timms have been mysteriously dragged into line to oddly now support it contradicting their original comments- I assume this is one of Dark Lord Mandelson's jedi mind tricks which would make sense in the context that Lammy is now in Mandelson's department.</p><p>Really, I don't expect that the Lib Dems would be perfect, but the difference with the Lib Dems is that their smarter people like Clegg, Cable, Huhne all hold prominent positions in the party, whilst in the other two parties, the smart people are marginalised and supressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm of the same feeling here , I was certainly a Lib Dem voter until I read this .
However , I do intend to seek clarification- is this just some Lord going off on his own little journey , or does it have party support ? The summary makes no fucking sense either , it seems to imply the Conservatives support the Lib Dems stance of challenging large parts of the bill .
This is outright false , the Tories have only agreed to challenge clause 17 which gives Mandelson full control over copyright law with no parliamentary oversight and nothing more , in fact , to date , other than that , the only real noise we 've heard from Tories officials on the bill is that they think the whole 3 strikes thing should 've been done sooner , they believed it should 've happened already.I do n't know who wrote the summary , but they clearly have no idea of the UK political situation regarding the DEB.Certainly if the Tories get in , I think it 's likely the DEB will remain as is , or perhaps be even worse , because they 're at least as pro-music industry as Labour , possible more so , because David Cameron has a hard on for celebrities- i.e .
putting a creative industries person in charge of his broadband/internet review rather than a technologist , putting Carol Vorderman ( a highly numerate TV presenter ) in charge of his maths review , rather than you know , a mathematician , missing the point that numeracy is just a tiny part of maths and hence being part the fucking problem with current maths education in not understanding maths himself .
But then , I suppose putting people who would actually be competent at those roles , such as Tim Berners-Lee and Marcus du Sautoy would require some level of competence , which is a rare thing in public sector.Of course , there are people for and against it in every party , the problem is those who are against it in the likes of the Conservatives such as David Davis no longer hold the power they once did .
Those in Labour who disagreed with 3 strikes such as David Lammy and Stephen Timms have been mysteriously dragged into line to oddly now support it contradicting their original comments- I assume this is one of Dark Lord Mandelson 's jedi mind tricks which would make sense in the context that Lammy is now in Mandelson 's department.Really , I do n't expect that the Lib Dems would be perfect , but the difference with the Lib Dems is that their smarter people like Clegg , Cable , Huhne all hold prominent positions in the party , whilst in the other two parties , the smart people are marginalised and supressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm of the same feeling here, I was certainly a Lib Dem voter until I read this.
However, I do intend to seek clarification- is this just some Lord going off on his own little journey, or does it have party support?The summary makes no fucking sense either, it seems to imply the Conservatives support the Lib Dems stance of challenging large parts of the bill.
This is outright false, the Tories have only agreed to challenge clause 17 which gives Mandelson full control over copyright law with no parliamentary oversight and nothing more, in fact, to date, other than that, the only real noise we've heard from Tories officials on the bill is that they think the whole 3 strikes thing should've been done sooner, they believed it should've happened already.I don't know who wrote the summary, but they clearly have no idea of the UK political situation regarding the DEB.Certainly if the Tories get in, I think it's likely the DEB will remain as is, or perhaps be even worse, because they're at least as pro-music industry as Labour, possible more so, because David Cameron has a hard on for celebrities- i.e.
putting a creative industries person in charge of his broadband/internet review rather than a technologist, putting Carol Vorderman (a highly numerate TV presenter) in charge of his maths review, rather than you know, a mathematician, missing the point that numeracy is just a tiny part of maths and hence being part the fucking problem with current maths education in not understanding maths himself.
But then, I suppose putting people who would actually be competent at those roles, such as Tim Berners-Lee and Marcus du Sautoy would require some level of competence, which is a rare thing in public sector.Of course, there are people for and against it in every party, the problem is those who are against it in the likes of the Conservatives such as David Davis no longer hold the power they once did.
Those in Labour who disagreed with 3 strikes such as David Lammy and Stephen Timms have been mysteriously dragged into line to oddly now support it contradicting their original comments- I assume this is one of Dark Lord Mandelson's jedi mind tricks which would make sense in the context that Lammy is now in Mandelson's department.Really, I don't expect that the Lib Dems would be perfect, but the difference with the Lib Dems is that their smarter people like Clegg, Cable, Huhne all hold prominent positions in the party, whilst in the other two parties, the smart people are marginalised and supressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</id>
	<title>One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had been contemplating voting Liberal Democrat as they seemed to have at least one MP who actually has a clue (Vince Cable) - which is one more than the other parties can muster.

I'll go and read up on this and if they did table this then that's my vote going somewhere else... of to check the Pirate Party site to see if they are going to have a candidate here at the next general election.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had been contemplating voting Liberal Democrat as they seemed to have at least one MP who actually has a clue ( Vince Cable ) - which is one more than the other parties can muster .
I 'll go and read up on this and if they did table this then that 's my vote going somewhere else... of to check the Pirate Party site to see if they are going to have a candidate here at the next general election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had been contemplating voting Liberal Democrat as they seemed to have at least one MP who actually has a clue (Vince Cable) - which is one more than the other parties can muster.
I'll go and read up on this and if they did table this then that's my vote going somewhere else... of to check the Pirate Party site to see if they are going to have a candidate here at the next general election.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356018</id>
	<title>Blanket law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with these laws are that they pretty much cover anything and can easily be misused and breaking an injunction costs $$$ which means these laws favor corporations not consumers. A government is supposed to protect it's citizens and not play into the hands of large corporations.</p><p>A better solution would be for the record industry to realize CD is DEAD!!! Try to embrace the internet not fight against it, adapt or die a simple darwinian principle.</p><p>If you need a law like this make sure it's specific and that it target's real problems. The current problem with Piracy is born of record companies inadequacy to adapt and offer an alternative. Apple store is one of the few that exists and even there the record companies don't really like it.</p><p>I agree piracy is bad, but also it's like civil disobedience it points out there is a problem. There are lots of examples of civil disobedience that have inspired good change instead of more fear mongering and draconian rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with these laws are that they pretty much cover anything and can easily be misused and breaking an injunction costs $ $ $ which means these laws favor corporations not consumers .
A government is supposed to protect it 's citizens and not play into the hands of large corporations.A better solution would be for the record industry to realize CD is DEAD ! ! !
Try to embrace the internet not fight against it , adapt or die a simple darwinian principle.If you need a law like this make sure it 's specific and that it target 's real problems .
The current problem with Piracy is born of record companies inadequacy to adapt and offer an alternative .
Apple store is one of the few that exists and even there the record companies do n't really like it.I agree piracy is bad , but also it 's like civil disobedience it points out there is a problem .
There are lots of examples of civil disobedience that have inspired good change instead of more fear mongering and draconian rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with these laws are that they pretty much cover anything and can easily be misused and breaking an injunction costs $$$ which means these laws favor corporations not consumers.
A government is supposed to protect it's citizens and not play into the hands of large corporations.A better solution would be for the record industry to realize CD is DEAD!!!
Try to embrace the internet not fight against it, adapt or die a simple darwinian principle.If you need a law like this make sure it's specific and that it target's real problems.
The current problem with Piracy is born of record companies inadequacy to adapt and offer an alternative.
Apple store is one of the few that exists and even there the record companies don't really like it.I agree piracy is bad, but also it's like civil disobedience it points out there is a problem.
There are lots of examples of civil disobedience that have inspired good change instead of more fear mongering and draconian rules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357254</id>
	<title>Far worse than the DMCA</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267713720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DMCA and similar laws are about taking down the source. Whilst there are problems with this, to be fair, this isn't too unreasonable: it tackles the source rather than someone simply looking at the site, and it allows people to dispute the claim. It also means that ISPs and hosts don't have to worry about liability. (The worrying parts of the DMCA are surely the bits to do with criminalising things that can circumvent a copy protection method, no matter how trivial.)</p><p>But this proposal in the UK appears to be talking about <i>blocking</i> the sites. As in censorship - as in something the UK currently only do for (potential) child pr0n. As in the sort of thing that's causing an outrage in Australia, yet here we are now considering it for mere possible hosting of copyrighted files...</p><p>(Also see the post below about an email from the Lord who proposed this, where he references the Internet Watch Foundation, which is the UK organisation that provides the blocklist.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but the DMCA and similar laws are about taking down the source .
Whilst there are problems with this , to be fair , this is n't too unreasonable : it tackles the source rather than someone simply looking at the site , and it allows people to dispute the claim .
It also means that ISPs and hosts do n't have to worry about liability .
( The worrying parts of the DMCA are surely the bits to do with criminalising things that can circumvent a copy protection method , no matter how trivial .
) But this proposal in the UK appears to be talking about blocking the sites .
As in censorship - as in something the UK currently only do for ( potential ) child pr0n .
As in the sort of thing that 's causing an outrage in Australia , yet here we are now considering it for mere possible hosting of copyrighted files... ( Also see the post below about an email from the Lord who proposed this , where he references the Internet Watch Foundation , which is the UK organisation that provides the blocklist .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DMCA and similar laws are about taking down the source.
Whilst there are problems with this, to be fair, this isn't too unreasonable: it tackles the source rather than someone simply looking at the site, and it allows people to dispute the claim.
It also means that ISPs and hosts don't have to worry about liability.
(The worrying parts of the DMCA are surely the bits to do with criminalising things that can circumvent a copy protection method, no matter how trivial.
)But this proposal in the UK appears to be talking about blocking the sites.
As in censorship - as in something the UK currently only do for (potential) child pr0n.
As in the sort of thing that's causing an outrage in Australia, yet here we are now considering it for mere possible hosting of copyrighted files...(Also see the post below about an email from the Lord who proposed this, where he references the Internet Watch Foundation, which is the UK organisation that provides the blocklist.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356754</id>
	<title>Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267709460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this rate, and judging from all the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ articles, your only hope is for Kim Jong Il to recover a Supreme Alien Weapon from the Sea of Japan and colonizing your country. That way you would probably keep some of your freedoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this rate , and judging from all the ./ articles , your only hope is for Kim Jong Il to recover a Supreme Alien Weapon from the Sea of Japan and colonizing your country .
That way you would probably keep some of your freedoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this rate, and judging from all the ./ articles, your only hope is for Kim Jong Il to recover a Supreme Alien Weapon from the Sea of Japan and colonizing your country.
That way you would probably keep some of your freedoms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355972</id>
	<title>Hmmm... could backfire</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1267699080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone somewhere will have published a novel about a bunch of lying thieving scumbag politicians working only to enrich themselves who bring in a load of legislation and powers that enable a police state. That person can then issue takedown notices against ALL government servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone somewhere will have published a novel about a bunch of lying thieving scumbag politicians working only to enrich themselves who bring in a load of legislation and powers that enable a police state .
That person can then issue takedown notices against ALL government servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone somewhere will have published a novel about a bunch of lying thieving scumbag politicians working only to enrich themselves who bring in a load of legislation and powers that enable a police state.
That person can then issue takedown notices against ALL government servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356138</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1267701120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit.<br>
<br>
Take this from someone who sees 100+ concerts a year &amp; buys alot of CD's:<br>
Piracy is <b>NOT</b> the problem, quality is.<br>
<br>
About 99\% of current music simply sucks monkey balls, they would have to <b>pay m</b> to even listen to me<br>
Ripping off customers: Why do cd's feature different numbers of tracks for different countries?!<br>
Artificial scarcity: Some cd's don't see a release in this or that country for no logical reason, or are unavailable for sale because, well, they stopped making them<br>
No means of listening to the whole cd before actually buying the bloody thing<br>
<br>
That said, i'm a big last.fm user, and i  still buy a lot of cd's at concerts directly of the bands (whom tend to be smaller bands mostly), but sampling a cd before buying it requires piracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
Take this from someone who sees 100 + concerts a year &amp; buys alot of CD 's : Piracy is NOT the problem , quality is .
About 99 \ % of current music simply sucks monkey balls , they would have to pay m to even listen to me Ripping off customers : Why do cd 's feature different numbers of tracks for different countries ? !
Artificial scarcity : Some cd 's do n't see a release in this or that country for no logical reason , or are unavailable for sale because , well , they stopped making them No means of listening to the whole cd before actually buying the bloody thing That said , i 'm a big last.fm user , and i still buy a lot of cd 's at concerts directly of the bands ( whom tend to be smaller bands mostly ) , but sampling a cd before buying it requires piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
Take this from someone who sees 100+ concerts a year &amp; buys alot of CD's:
Piracy is NOT the problem, quality is.
About 99\% of current music simply sucks monkey balls, they would have to pay m to even listen to me
Ripping off customers: Why do cd's feature different numbers of tracks for different countries?!
Artificial scarcity: Some cd's don't see a release in this or that country for no logical reason, or are unavailable for sale because, well, they stopped making them
No means of listening to the whole cd before actually buying the bloody thing

That said, i'm a big last.fm user, and i  still buy a lot of cd's at concerts directly of the bands (whom tend to be smaller bands mostly), but sampling a cd before buying it requires piracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356150</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1267701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bollocks. Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players.</p></div><p>Wrong.  This is exactly what the majority of consumers want.  Case in point, American Idol.  Lady Gaga, etc.
<br> <br>
Sure, they spend an asston on promotion and create the hype, but people happily eat it up. No, they can't help but eat it up or feel like a loser because it's been drilled into them that they NEED to hear the next throwaway artist or risk not being hip and cast out of society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bollocks .
Make better , less formulated music , do n't compress the hell out of it , and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players.Wrong .
This is exactly what the majority of consumers want .
Case in point , American Idol .
Lady Gaga , etc .
Sure , they spend an asston on promotion and create the hype , but people happily eat it up .
No , they ca n't help but eat it up or feel like a loser because it 's been drilled into them that they NEED to hear the next throwaway artist or risk not being hip and cast out of society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bollocks.
Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players.Wrong.
This is exactly what the majority of consumers want.
Case in point, American Idol.
Lady Gaga, etc.
Sure, they spend an asston on promotion and create the hype, but people happily eat it up.
No, they can't help but eat it up or feel like a loser because it's been drilled into them that they NEED to hear the next throwaway artist or risk not being hip and cast out of society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356086</id>
	<title>Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>I confirm I'm not a</author>
	<datestamp>1267700340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For goodness sake let them know what you've just told us. A polite letter explaining that you were seriously intending to support them, but won't now, will do more than you might expect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For goodness sake let them know what you 've just told us .
A polite letter explaining that you were seriously intending to support them , but wo n't now , will do more than you might expect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For goodness sake let them know what you've just told us.
A polite letter explaining that you were seriously intending to support them, but won't now, will do more than you might expect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356540</id>
	<title>Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267706400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> at least one MP who actually has a clue (Vince Cable)</p></div><p>I wonder if you're reffering to the same Vince Cable that supported a call to ciminalise patent infringement?</p><p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232130.stm</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>at least one MP who actually has a clue ( Vince Cable ) I wonder if you 're reffering to the same Vince Cable that supported a call to ciminalise patent infringement ? http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232130.stm</tokentext>
<sentencetext> at least one MP who actually has a clue (Vince Cable)I wonder if you're reffering to the same Vince Cable that supported a call to ciminalise patent infringement?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232130.stm
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355994</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see what you did there...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see what you did there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see what you did there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31365222</id>
	<title>Re:New Zealand has started already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current NZ proposals include: right to fair hearing before an independent tribunal; anonymity protection for the accused until the tribunal orders otherwise; and no disconnection of service without a court order. Seriously, you have a problem with <em>that</em>, you're hard to please. The <a href="http://creativefreedom.org.nz/2010/02/a-statement-about-mondays-internet-blackout/" title="creativefreedom.org.nz" rel="nofollow">Creative Freedom Foundation</a> [creativefreedom.org.nz] is all for it.</p><p>Meanwhile, the government is actually <a href="http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC\_\_\_\_42582.aspx" title="med.govt.nz" rel="nofollow">asking for our input</a> [med.govt.nz] on the next ACTA round.</p><p>I sent mine in yesterday. If you haven't sent yours by the time submissions close at the end of this month, pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for your opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current NZ proposals include : right to fair hearing before an independent tribunal ; anonymity protection for the accused until the tribunal orders otherwise ; and no disconnection of service without a court order .
Seriously , you have a problem with that , you 're hard to please .
The Creative Freedom Foundation [ creativefreedom.org.nz ] is all for it.Meanwhile , the government is actually asking for our input [ med.govt.nz ] on the next ACTA round.I sent mine in yesterday .
If you have n't sent yours by the time submissions close at the end of this month , pardon me if I do n't have much sympathy for your opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current NZ proposals include: right to fair hearing before an independent tribunal; anonymity protection for the accused until the tribunal orders otherwise; and no disconnection of service without a court order.
Seriously, you have a problem with that, you're hard to please.
The Creative Freedom Foundation [creativefreedom.org.nz] is all for it.Meanwhile, the government is actually asking for our input [med.govt.nz] on the next ACTA round.I sent mine in yesterday.
If you haven't sent yours by the time submissions close at the end of this month, pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for your opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357028</id>
	<title>Sigh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267712040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they simply forgetting that the whole purpose of copyright law is to stimulate creativity?</p><p>Here's some points that would actually work in that direction:</p><ul><li> Don't let copyright expire too much in the future. We want artists (especially good ones) to work on new material, not spend the rest of their lives on a multi-million dollar yacht.</li><li>Stimulate that the work be released in source form, so that others can build on it. For computer programs, we are already see the positive effects this may have. For music, releasing not just the final (mixed) song, but also the sheet music, and the distinct tracks used in the recording would be absolutely fabulous. For movies, release an uncut version. For digital animations, release the 3d representations. For hardware, release the schematics and VHDL code, etc. Don't allow vendor lock-in of any kind.</li><li>Stimulate the teaching of arts by professional artists.</li></ul><p>This is just from the top of my head, but there are probably many more things to say about this than the actual debate is covering right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they simply forgetting that the whole purpose of copyright law is to stimulate creativity ? Here 's some points that would actually work in that direction : Do n't let copyright expire too much in the future .
We want artists ( especially good ones ) to work on new material , not spend the rest of their lives on a multi-million dollar yacht.Stimulate that the work be released in source form , so that others can build on it .
For computer programs , we are already see the positive effects this may have .
For music , releasing not just the final ( mixed ) song , but also the sheet music , and the distinct tracks used in the recording would be absolutely fabulous .
For movies , release an uncut version .
For digital animations , release the 3d representations .
For hardware , release the schematics and VHDL code , etc .
Do n't allow vendor lock-in of any kind.Stimulate the teaching of arts by professional artists.This is just from the top of my head , but there are probably many more things to say about this than the actual debate is covering right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they simply forgetting that the whole purpose of copyright law is to stimulate creativity?Here's some points that would actually work in that direction: Don't let copyright expire too much in the future.
We want artists (especially good ones) to work on new material, not spend the rest of their lives on a multi-million dollar yacht.Stimulate that the work be released in source form, so that others can build on it.
For computer programs, we are already see the positive effects this may have.
For music, releasing not just the final (mixed) song, but also the sheet music, and the distinct tracks used in the recording would be absolutely fabulous.
For movies, release an uncut version.
For digital animations, release the 3d representations.
For hardware, release the schematics and VHDL code, etc.
Don't allow vendor lock-in of any kind.Stimulate the teaching of arts by professional artists.This is just from the top of my head, but there are probably many more things to say about this than the actual debate is covering right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356606</id>
	<title>UK won't have a "Digital Economy"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267707660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets see. If Digital is a codeword for RBS, a Northern Rock Model.<br>UK makes computer Hardware / Adds value: No.<br>UK software research and Development growing: No<br>UK hosting porn and download servers: No<br>UK Digital Gambling: No<br>In a position that will CREATE jobs: No<br>Will help out struggling UK CD shops: No.</p><p>I see a sea of red ink, and punters subscribing to crypto proxies. In Yes Minister speak, this is not helping, but putting the boot in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see .
If Digital is a codeword for RBS , a Northern Rock Model.UK makes computer Hardware / Adds value : No.UK software research and Development growing : NoUK hosting porn and download servers : NoUK Digital Gambling : NoIn a position that will CREATE jobs : NoWill help out struggling UK CD shops : No.I see a sea of red ink , and punters subscribing to crypto proxies .
In Yes Minister speak , this is not helping , but putting the boot in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see.
If Digital is a codeword for RBS, a Northern Rock Model.UK makes computer Hardware / Adds value: No.UK software research and Development growing: NoUK hosting porn and download servers: NoUK Digital Gambling: NoIn a position that will CREATE jobs: NoWill help out struggling UK CD shops: No.I see a sea of red ink, and punters subscribing to crypto proxies.
In Yes Minister speak, this is not helping, but putting the boot in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31358436</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267721040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blocking IPs has worked so well in China, what with that great firewall and all.  Why no one can get any online content that the Chinese officials have deems inappropriate, like porn.  Sooooo, the British now want to give it a go too??  Oh, yes, those Ruskie pirates will be quaking in their boots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blocking IPs has worked so well in China , what with that great firewall and all .
Why no one can get any online content that the Chinese officials have deems inappropriate , like porn .
Sooooo , the British now want to give it a go too ? ?
Oh , yes , those Ruskie pirates will be quaking in their boots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blocking IPs has worked so well in China, what with that great firewall and all.
Why no one can get any online content that the Chinese officials have deems inappropriate, like porn.
Sooooo, the British now want to give it a go too??
Oh, yes, those Ruskie pirates will be quaking in their boots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267698960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bollocks. Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players. As for doing nothing, that's what you want to do, right? Not change? Your old business model doesn't work any more, so man up and deal with it. Improve your marketing and online distribution, stream it from your site for a taste, and sell CDs and whatnot online. Christ, you bitch about lost sales but you don't even have a link to your website in your profile!</p><p>You'd rather fuck the entire online communication revolution because you can't compete? No. We (the entire technically literate world under 40) won't let that happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bollocks .
Make better , less formulated music , do n't compress the hell out of it , and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players .
As for doing nothing , that 's what you want to do , right ?
Not change ?
Your old business model does n't work any more , so man up and deal with it .
Improve your marketing and online distribution , stream it from your site for a taste , and sell CDs and whatnot online .
Christ , you bitch about lost sales but you do n't even have a link to your website in your profile ! You 'd rather fuck the entire online communication revolution because you ca n't compete ?
No. We ( the entire technically literate world under 40 ) wo n't let that happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bollocks.
Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players.
As for doing nothing, that's what you want to do, right?
Not change?
Your old business model doesn't work any more, so man up and deal with it.
Improve your marketing and online distribution, stream it from your site for a taste, and sell CDs and whatnot online.
Christ, you bitch about lost sales but you don't even have a link to your website in your profile!You'd rather fuck the entire online communication revolution because you can't compete?
No. We (the entire technically literate world under 40) won't let that happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356948</id>
	<title>Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>mrsmiggs</author>
	<datestamp>1267711500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lord Clement Jones has replied to critism of the ammendment<br><a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html" title="libdemvoice.org">http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html</a> [libdemvoice.org]</p><p>To sum up he argues that; this is only an addition to existing power of copyright holders in the UK and simply clarifies their role in the process.</p><p>I do think he misses the point however that this ammendment puts emphasis on the ISPs which provide any service that can access this material rather than those which host the material. It's one step closer to to a great firewall of the UK, I think this has been missed by commentators who have compared it to the DMCA and the vitriol in their critcism has somewhat distorted the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lord Clement Jones has replied to critism of the ammendmenthttp : //www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html [ libdemvoice.org ] To sum up he argues that ; this is only an addition to existing power of copyright holders in the UK and simply clarifies their role in the process.I do think he misses the point however that this ammendment puts emphasis on the ISPs which provide any service that can access this material rather than those which host the material .
It 's one step closer to to a great firewall of the UK , I think this has been missed by commentators who have compared it to the DMCA and the vitriol in their critcism has somewhat distorted the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lord Clement Jones has replied to critism of the ammendmenthttp://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html [libdemvoice.org]To sum up he argues that; this is only an addition to existing power of copyright holders in the UK and simply clarifies their role in the process.I do think he misses the point however that this ammendment puts emphasis on the ISPs which provide any service that can access this material rather than those which host the material.
It's one step closer to to a great firewall of the UK, I think this has been missed by commentators who have compared it to the DMCA and the vitriol in their critcism has somewhat distorted the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356070</id>
	<title>links the the relevant pages</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1267700100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>page 27 requires that "<i>the online service providers act expeditiously, in accordance with applicable law, to remove or disable access to infringing material or infringing activity upon obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement</i>" - i.e. upon receiving a cease-and-desist letter.</p><p> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf\_as\_text#Page\_3" title="swpat.org">Page 3</a> [swpat.org] has the current working text about "<i>n order to a party to desist from an infringement</i>" and which the EU wants to be written as "<i>The Parties shall also ensure that the right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right."</i> </p><p>
<a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf\_as\_text#Page\_30" title="swpat.org">Page 30</a> [swpat.org] contains the Japanese proposal which is the current working text: <i>3 ter. Each Party shall enable right holders, who have given effective notification to an online service provider of materials that they claim with valid reasons to be infringing their copyright or related rights, to expeditiously obtain from that provider information on the identity of the relevant subscriber.</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>page 27 requires that " the online service providers act expeditiously , in accordance with applicable law , to remove or disable access to infringing material or infringing activity upon obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement " - i.e .
upon receiving a cease-and-desist letter .
Page 3 [ swpat.org ] has the current working text about " n order to a party to desist from an infringement " and which the EU wants to be written as " The Parties shall also ensure that the right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right .
" Page 30 [ swpat.org ] contains the Japanese proposal which is the current working text : 3 ter .
Each Party shall enable right holders , who have given effective notification to an online service provider of materials that they claim with valid reasons to be infringing their copyright or related rights , to expeditiously obtain from that provider information on the identity of the relevant subscriber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>page 27 requires that "the online service providers act expeditiously, in accordance with applicable law, to remove or disable access to infringing material or infringing activity upon obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement" - i.e.
upon receiving a cease-and-desist letter.
Page 3 [swpat.org] has the current working text about "n order to a party to desist from an infringement" and which the EU wants to be written as "The Parties shall also ensure that the right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right.
" 
Page 30 [swpat.org] contains the Japanese proposal which is the current working text: 3 ter.
Each Party shall enable right holders, who have given effective notification to an online service provider of materials that they claim with valid reasons to be infringing their copyright or related rights, to expeditiously obtain from that provider information on the identity of the relevant subscriber. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357302</id>
	<title>Re:I did actually write to the Lib Dem Party</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1267714080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an interesting reply, but I think it misses the major problem with the idea behind this legislation, which proposes to ban access to any site where some unspecified majority of content is infringing (the required amount presumably to be established later by courts in the case law on the issue).  The problem with this is that many of these sites also contain useful non-infringing content that can often be difficult to acquire elsewhere, e.g. I've come across a number of small free/shareware software authors who use rapidshare as their primary distribution point.  Killing access to these sites also kills legitimate content, which absolutely should not be permitted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an interesting reply , but I think it misses the major problem with the idea behind this legislation , which proposes to ban access to any site where some unspecified majority of content is infringing ( the required amount presumably to be established later by courts in the case law on the issue ) .
The problem with this is that many of these sites also contain useful non-infringing content that can often be difficult to acquire elsewhere , e.g .
I 've come across a number of small free/shareware software authors who use rapidshare as their primary distribution point .
Killing access to these sites also kills legitimate content , which absolutely should not be permitted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an interesting reply, but I think it misses the major problem with the idea behind this legislation, which proposes to ban access to any site where some unspecified majority of content is infringing (the required amount presumably to be established later by courts in the case law on the issue).
The problem with this is that many of these sites also contain useful non-infringing content that can often be difficult to acquire elsewhere, e.g.
I've come across a number of small free/shareware software authors who use rapidshare as their primary distribution point.
Killing access to these sites also kills legitimate content, which absolutely should not be permitted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356938</id>
	<title>Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters</title>
	<author>pdunning</author>
	<datestamp>1267711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's worth noting that this "UK DMCA" will require a court injunction. I.e. not just a take-down notice. There are also lines in there for facilitating legal access. Does this mean abandonware etc can't be locked up by copyright years after production ends?
I also fail to see why national security should affect copyright - we have the official secrets act for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting that this " UK DMCA " will require a court injunction .
I.e. not just a take-down notice .
There are also lines in there for facilitating legal access .
Does this mean abandonware etc ca n't be locked up by copyright years after production ends ?
I also fail to see why national security should affect copyright - we have the official secrets act for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting that this "UK DMCA" will require a court injunction.
I.e. not just a take-down notice.
There are also lines in there for facilitating legal access.
Does this mean abandonware etc can't be locked up by copyright years after production ends?
I also fail to see why national security should affect copyright - we have the official secrets act for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356004</id>
	<title>Overly broad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Took a quick look, it seems they have not made any provisions for making the block as specific as possible - if I am correct, this could turn properly silly: The entire of myspace.com blocked because someone claims that so-and-so on myspace.com infringes their copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Took a quick look , it seems they have not made any provisions for making the block as specific as possible - if I am correct , this could turn properly silly : The entire of myspace.com blocked because someone claims that so-and-so on myspace.com infringes their copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Took a quick look, it seems they have not made any provisions for making the block as specific as possible - if I am correct, this could turn properly silly: The entire of myspace.com blocked because someone claims that so-and-so on myspace.com infringes their copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356040</id>
	<title>New Zealand has started already</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1267699740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ACTA Jr has been <a href="http://creativefreedom.org.nz/2010/02/the-copyright-infringing-file-sharing-bill-has-been-introduced-into-parliament/" title="creativefreedom.org.nz">introduced to Parliament</a> [creativefreedom.org.nz] in New Zealand a week ago. It includes 3 strikes, and responsibility for the ISP to keep IP address records.</p><p>We've had a few talks about it at work, and the general consensus is that it's a joke, with so many ways to render the IP addresses "evidence" questionable... and subjective application of the disconnection criteria and fines... but it's one we have to stop. You don't lose your phone if you break a law with it, and you shouldn't lose your internet connection (email, facebook, skype, etc) for the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ACTA Jr has been introduced to Parliament [ creativefreedom.org.nz ] in New Zealand a week ago .
It includes 3 strikes , and responsibility for the ISP to keep IP address records.We 've had a few talks about it at work , and the general consensus is that it 's a joke , with so many ways to render the IP addresses " evidence " questionable... and subjective application of the disconnection criteria and fines... but it 's one we have to stop .
You do n't lose your phone if you break a law with it , and you should n't lose your internet connection ( email , facebook , skype , etc ) for the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ACTA Jr has been introduced to Parliament [creativefreedom.org.nz] in New Zealand a week ago.
It includes 3 strikes, and responsibility for the ISP to keep IP address records.We've had a few talks about it at work, and the general consensus is that it's a joke, with so many ways to render the IP addresses "evidence" questionable... and subjective application of the disconnection criteria and fines... but it's one we have to stop.
You don't lose your phone if you break a law with it, and you shouldn't lose your internet connection (email, facebook, skype, etc) for the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31359400</id>
	<title>Re:Pirate Party?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267725300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I think that name might be more effective than people think in the long run. Believe it or not, the younger generations (30- or so) really respect the kind of in-your-face, disgracefully honest type of naming convention displayed by that title. Something to keep in mind is that the younger generations are the ones that adopted iPods and MP3 players and file downloading tenaciously from the get go. These younger generations also tend to be the ones getting sued by the media conglomerates right now. These younger generations are also the ones that have been raised in an increasingly snake-oil salesman consumer culture. As such, we have become extraordinarily numb and cynical to anything that is packaged in a polite, easy to digest manner. We ignore everything that screams glamor and goodness because we have been screwed and bullshitted from a young age. We are addicted to dramatic, flourishy titles because they appeal to our sense of absurdity that this whole world sells. As such, I think the Pirate Party title appeals to quite a few folk in my age demographic precisely because it is ridiculous and absurd and, for us, life has been one big joke for as long as we can remember.
<br> <br>
Now granted, this only represents one small demographic, but remember that college-aged and young people are a very powerful voting demographic. The mere fact that very few of us do turn out to vote shows this. It is refleced every campaign year by politicians trying to get us roused and to the ballot boxes. Hell, just look at P-Diddy's, "Vote or Die," campaign. The powers that be realize that we younger folk have quite a bit of voting power in our hands if we ever decide to use it. As such, they try to swing us in their favor. If the Pirate Party can win us over with a satirical name from the get go, you can be darned certain than incumbents will start listening to the issue stances taken by the Pirate Party.
<br> <br>
I'm not sure it's such a bad title at all really.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think that name might be more effective than people think in the long run .
Believe it or not , the younger generations ( 30- or so ) really respect the kind of in-your-face , disgracefully honest type of naming convention displayed by that title .
Something to keep in mind is that the younger generations are the ones that adopted iPods and MP3 players and file downloading tenaciously from the get go .
These younger generations also tend to be the ones getting sued by the media conglomerates right now .
These younger generations are also the ones that have been raised in an increasingly snake-oil salesman consumer culture .
As such , we have become extraordinarily numb and cynical to anything that is packaged in a polite , easy to digest manner .
We ignore everything that screams glamor and goodness because we have been screwed and bullshitted from a young age .
We are addicted to dramatic , flourishy titles because they appeal to our sense of absurdity that this whole world sells .
As such , I think the Pirate Party title appeals to quite a few folk in my age demographic precisely because it is ridiculous and absurd and , for us , life has been one big joke for as long as we can remember .
Now granted , this only represents one small demographic , but remember that college-aged and young people are a very powerful voting demographic .
The mere fact that very few of us do turn out to vote shows this .
It is refleced every campaign year by politicians trying to get us roused and to the ballot boxes .
Hell , just look at P-Diddy 's , " Vote or Die , " campaign .
The powers that be realize that we younger folk have quite a bit of voting power in our hands if we ever decide to use it .
As such , they try to swing us in their favor .
If the Pirate Party can win us over with a satirical name from the get go , you can be darned certain than incumbents will start listening to the issue stances taken by the Pirate Party .
I 'm not sure it 's such a bad title at all really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think that name might be more effective than people think in the long run.
Believe it or not, the younger generations (30- or so) really respect the kind of in-your-face, disgracefully honest type of naming convention displayed by that title.
Something to keep in mind is that the younger generations are the ones that adopted iPods and MP3 players and file downloading tenaciously from the get go.
These younger generations also tend to be the ones getting sued by the media conglomerates right now.
These younger generations are also the ones that have been raised in an increasingly snake-oil salesman consumer culture.
As such, we have become extraordinarily numb and cynical to anything that is packaged in a polite, easy to digest manner.
We ignore everything that screams glamor and goodness because we have been screwed and bullshitted from a young age.
We are addicted to dramatic, flourishy titles because they appeal to our sense of absurdity that this whole world sells.
As such, I think the Pirate Party title appeals to quite a few folk in my age demographic precisely because it is ridiculous and absurd and, for us, life has been one big joke for as long as we can remember.
Now granted, this only represents one small demographic, but remember that college-aged and young people are a very powerful voting demographic.
The mere fact that very few of us do turn out to vote shows this.
It is refleced every campaign year by politicians trying to get us roused and to the ballot boxes.
Hell, just look at P-Diddy's, "Vote or Die," campaign.
The powers that be realize that we younger folk have quite a bit of voting power in our hands if we ever decide to use it.
As such, they try to swing us in their favor.
If the Pirate Party can win us over with a satirical name from the get go, you can be darned certain than incumbents will start listening to the issue stances taken by the Pirate Party.
I'm not sure it's such a bad title at all really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356430</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1267705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey! I resent that! I won't let that happen too!</p><p>A technically literate over 40.</p></div><p>Hey, I resent that too!
</p><p>A numerically literate 40-year old.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey !
I resent that !
I wo n't let that happen too ! A technically literate over 40.Hey , I resent that too !
A numerically literate 40-year old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey!
I resent that!
I won't let that happen too!A technically literate over 40.Hey, I resent that too!
A numerically literate 40-year old.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356056</id>
	<title>Pirate Party?</title>
	<author>PhantomHarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1267699980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is anyone going to take you seriously with a name like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is anyone going to take you seriously with a name like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is anyone going to take you seriously with a name like that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357370</id>
	<title>Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>Andy\_R</author>
	<datestamp>1267714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, the answer is probably no. We don't have the funding to run more than a handful of Pirate candidates at the upcoming election. There's a &pound;500 fee to get a name on the ballot paper, and running a campaign on an absolute shoestring budget adds another thousand to that.</p><p>You can help though, through donations, membership fees, and if you really care about this and have the cash to spend, by standing under the pirate banner yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the answer is probably no .
We do n't have the funding to run more than a handful of Pirate candidates at the upcoming election .
There 's a   500 fee to get a name on the ballot paper , and running a campaign on an absolute shoestring budget adds another thousand to that.You can help though , through donations , membership fees , and if you really care about this and have the cash to spend , by standing under the pirate banner yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the answer is probably no.
We don't have the funding to run more than a handful of Pirate candidates at the upcoming election.
There's a £500 fee to get a name on the ballot paper, and running a campaign on an absolute shoestring budget adds another thousand to that.You can help though, through donations, membership fees, and if you really care about this and have the cash to spend, by standing under the pirate banner yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31359604</id>
	<title>Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>julianhuppert</author>
	<datestamp>1267726020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please do continue to vote Lib Dem! Our party policy on this is fairly clear, but we can't entirely control what individual parliamentarians do, especially Lords<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... (elected Lords anybody?)

I should say that I'm the Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

I and many colleagues have contacted the party and those peers to push the party line - which is clearly against any sort of DMCA-UK.

You may be interested in official party policy at <a href="http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/it-policy-paper/delivering-the-information-society/regulation-of-internet-content-and-copyright/" title="makeitpolicy.org.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/it-policy-paper/delivering-the-information-society/regulation-of-internet-content-and-copyright/</a> [makeitpolicy.org.uk]

Otherwise, can I suggest you write to your local candidate and ask them what they think? You'll find many of us on the Open Rights side<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....

Julian</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do continue to vote Lib Dem !
Our party policy on this is fairly clear , but we ca n't entirely control what individual parliamentarians do , especially Lords .... ( elected Lords anybody ?
) I should say that I 'm the Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge .. . I and many colleagues have contacted the party and those peers to push the party line - which is clearly against any sort of DMCA-UK .
You may be interested in official party policy at http : //www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/it-policy-paper/delivering-the-information-society/regulation-of-internet-content-and-copyright/ [ makeitpolicy.org.uk ] Otherwise , can I suggest you write to your local candidate and ask them what they think ?
You 'll find many of us on the Open Rights side ... . Julian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please do continue to vote Lib Dem!
Our party policy on this is fairly clear, but we can't entirely control what individual parliamentarians do, especially Lords .... (elected Lords anybody?
)

I should say that I'm the Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge ...

I and many colleagues have contacted the party and those peers to push the party line - which is clearly against any sort of DMCA-UK.
You may be interested in official party policy at http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/it-policy-paper/delivering-the-information-society/regulation-of-internet-content-and-copyright/ [makeitpolicy.org.uk]

Otherwise, can I suggest you write to your local candidate and ask them what they think?
You'll find many of us on the Open Rights side ....

Julian</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357216</id>
	<title>Not at all like the DMCA</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1267713480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner<br>&gt; could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to<br>&gt; infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to<br>&gt; pay the copyright owner's legal fees.</p><p>This describes something which is virtually the opposite of the DMCA safe harbor, which grants immunity to ISPs who otherwise might be found liable and does not grant new powers to copyright owners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner &gt; could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to &gt; infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to &gt; pay the copyright owner 's legal fees.This describes something which is virtually the opposite of the DMCA safe harbor , which grants immunity to ISPs who otherwise might be found liable and does not grant new powers to copyright owners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner&gt; could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to&gt; infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to&gt; pay the copyright owner's legal fees.This describes something which is virtually the opposite of the DMCA safe harbor, which grants immunity to ISPs who otherwise might be found liable and does not grant new powers to copyright owners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356700</id>
	<title>Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then</title>
	<author>arethuza</author>
	<datestamp>1267708680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My MP is this chap: <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/mark\_lazarowicz/edinburgh\_north\_and\_leith" title="theyworkforyou.com">http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/mark\_lazarowicz/edinburgh\_north\_and\_leith</a> [theyworkforyou.com] <p>

Not a big majority and in a seat that I suspect will have a lot of strong feeling on this topic (particularly students). For &pound;500 it might be worth standing as a Pirate myself.....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My MP is this chap : http : //www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/mark \ _lazarowicz/edinburgh \ _north \ _and \ _leith [ theyworkforyou.com ] Not a big majority and in a seat that I suspect will have a lot of strong feeling on this topic ( particularly students ) .
For   500 it might be worth standing as a Pirate myself..... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My MP is this chap: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/mark\_lazarowicz/edinburgh\_north\_and\_leith [theyworkforyou.com] 

Not a big majority and in a seat that I suspect will have a lot of strong feeling on this topic (particularly students).
For £500 it might be worth standing as a Pirate myself..... :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355898</id>
	<title>no no no no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267698180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Along with our stupid libel laws this will destroy our democracy. This is no longer about kids sharing mp3s this is giving corporations and governments the power to silence anyone they want to.</p><p>For instance a lot of the documents leaked on wikileaks are copyrighted. So that's it, we will no longer be able to access anything that they don't want us to see. How about our MP's expenses that got leaked? Well that's copyrighted to the government right?</p><p>I also bet it wont even protect the little guy. If someone republishes my copyrighted work I bet the system won't even work unless I have a team of lawyers and a truck of money.</p><p>Its all just another way of suppressing us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with our stupid libel laws this will destroy our democracy .
This is no longer about kids sharing mp3s this is giving corporations and governments the power to silence anyone they want to.For instance a lot of the documents leaked on wikileaks are copyrighted .
So that 's it , we will no longer be able to access anything that they do n't want us to see .
How about our MP 's expenses that got leaked ?
Well that 's copyrighted to the government right ? I also bet it wont even protect the little guy .
If someone republishes my copyrighted work I bet the system wo n't even work unless I have a team of lawyers and a truck of money.Its all just another way of suppressing us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with our stupid libel laws this will destroy our democracy.
This is no longer about kids sharing mp3s this is giving corporations and governments the power to silence anyone they want to.For instance a lot of the documents leaked on wikileaks are copyrighted.
So that's it, we will no longer be able to access anything that they don't want us to see.
How about our MP's expenses that got leaked?
Well that's copyrighted to the government right?I also bet it wont even protect the little guy.
If someone republishes my copyrighted work I bet the system won't even work unless I have a team of lawyers and a truck of money.Its all just another way of suppressing us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356204</id>
	<title>Re:Pirate Party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267702080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[While I am a member of the Pirate Party UK, I speak only for myself here.]</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>&ldquo;We recognise the iniquity of those seeking to prevent the development of free culture via immoral and questionable means, whilst portraying and labelling those that share information privately, and for no monetary gain, as nothing more than villainous, degenerate &lsquo;pirates&rsquo;. We seek to halt and de-construct the digital feudalism which now pervades the market, the reform of legislation that is currently manipulated to protect obsolete business models and feudalistic copyright controls.</i></p><p><i>&ldquo;In response to this, the party has adopted the very term employed by associations and copyright maximalists, intended to demonise and promote further and more strict criminalisation of file sharing and free culture distribution, and used it to identify ourselves as a means of drawing attention to the fallacious nature of the label. It is true that we sail on the gales of creative destruction, however, we do so in the hope of aiding the creation of an open and democratic information society and founding of a cultural commons.&rdquo;</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>&mdash; Quoted from the Pirate Party Australia, but the reasoning is the same.</p><p>It&rsquo;s well known around here to be absurd that you&rsquo;d equate people who commit copyright infringement with those who pillage and murder on the high seas, or that you&rsquo;d equate piracy with theft when one is copying and the other is moving (completely different primitives)&mdash;the name is deliberately chosen to highlight that absurdity and provoke debate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ While I am a member of the Pirate Party UK , I speak only for myself here .
]    We recognise the iniquity of those seeking to prevent the development of free culture via immoral and questionable means , whilst portraying and labelling those that share information privately , and for no monetary gain , as nothing more than villainous , degenerate    pirates    .
We seek to halt and de-construct the digital feudalism which now pervades the market , the reform of legislation that is currently manipulated to protect obsolete business models and feudalistic copyright controls.    In response to this , the party has adopted the very term employed by associations and copyright maximalists , intended to demonise and promote further and more strict criminalisation of file sharing and free culture distribution , and used it to identify ourselves as a means of drawing attention to the fallacious nature of the label .
It is true that we sail on the gales of creative destruction , however , we do so in the hope of aiding the creation of an open and democratic information society and founding of a cultural commons.       Quoted from the Pirate Party Australia , but the reasoning is the same.It    s well known around here to be absurd that you    d equate people who commit copyright infringement with those who pillage and murder on the high seas , or that you    d equate piracy with theft when one is copying and the other is moving ( completely different primitives )    the name is deliberately chosen to highlight that absurdity and provoke debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[While I am a member of the Pirate Party UK, I speak only for myself here.
] “We recognise the iniquity of those seeking to prevent the development of free culture via immoral and questionable means, whilst portraying and labelling those that share information privately, and for no monetary gain, as nothing more than villainous, degenerate ‘pirates’.
We seek to halt and de-construct the digital feudalism which now pervades the market, the reform of legislation that is currently manipulated to protect obsolete business models and feudalistic copyright controls.“In response to this, the party has adopted the very term employed by associations and copyright maximalists, intended to demonise and promote further and more strict criminalisation of file sharing and free culture distribution, and used it to identify ourselves as a means of drawing attention to the fallacious nature of the label.
It is true that we sail on the gales of creative destruction, however, we do so in the hope of aiding the creation of an open and democratic information society and founding of a cultural commons.” — Quoted from the Pirate Party Australia, but the reasoning is the same.It’s well known around here to be absurd that you’d equate people who commit copyright infringement with those who pillage and murder on the high seas, or that you’d equate piracy with theft when one is copying and the other is moving (completely different primitives)—the name is deliberately chosen to highlight that absurdity and provoke debate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357146</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267713000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing.  I bet you're all over "artificial scarcity" at other times, but now you're conveniently forgetting that digital distribution is basically free and can be done to a million people as easily as to one.  The same is not true for compact cassettes or phonographs.  Where once you might tape an album and give the tape to a friend, spending a few dollars on the tape, and costing the artist a few pence at most, now you can just digitize the album and give it to everyone in the world, spending nothing, and costing the artist his entire livelihood.</p><p>I find it ironic that punditry on this subject conveniently forgets point A (digital data has no scarcity) when moving on to point B (piracy is not new anyway).  How can people "get" point A when it suits their argument and then completely fail to "get" point A when it happens to blow their entire position out of the water?</p><p>It's almost as if most of the people attacking copyright law are hypocrits<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing .
I bet you 're all over " artificial scarcity " at other times , but now you 're conveniently forgetting that digital distribution is basically free and can be done to a million people as easily as to one .
The same is not true for compact cassettes or phonographs .
Where once you might tape an album and give the tape to a friend , spending a few dollars on the tape , and costing the artist a few pence at most , now you can just digitize the album and give it to everyone in the world , spending nothing , and costing the artist his entire livelihood.I find it ironic that punditry on this subject conveniently forgets point A ( digital data has no scarcity ) when moving on to point B ( piracy is not new anyway ) .
How can people " get " point A when it suits their argument and then completely fail to " get " point A when it happens to blow their entire position out of the water ? It 's almost as if most of the people attacking copyright law are hypocrits .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing.
I bet you're all over "artificial scarcity" at other times, but now you're conveniently forgetting that digital distribution is basically free and can be done to a million people as easily as to one.
The same is not true for compact cassettes or phonographs.
Where once you might tape an album and give the tape to a friend, spending a few dollars on the tape, and costing the artist a few pence at most, now you can just digitize the album and give it to everyone in the world, spending nothing, and costing the artist his entire livelihood.I find it ironic that punditry on this subject conveniently forgets point A (digital data has no scarcity) when moving on to point B (piracy is not new anyway).
How can people "get" point A when it suits their argument and then completely fail to "get" point A when it happens to blow their entire position out of the water?It's almost as if most of the people attacking copyright law are hypocrits ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356476</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1267705560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea,New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States in theory you can find the political party and minster linked to this.<br>
Stay on public property and expose them.<br>
Never drive to an event, they will note all car license plates in the area.<br>
Read out the laws they are working on in your name in dark places.<br>
Speak some truths at their next walk about, meet and greet, mall trip or suburban town hall meeting.<br>
Have a few friends around you to film the response of their public security  and party helpers.<br>
If they allow you to protest, keep on showing up.<br>
If they get physical you have some great clips for the local news, youtube and keep on showing up.<br>
File complaints about your mis treatment, turn up in court with video evidence and a real lawyer.<br>
Always ask for the collar numbers/shoulder number/badge number of anyone without it on display.<br>
Make sure your friends record the reaction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Australia , Canada , the European Union , Japan , Korea,New Zealand , Switzerland , and the United States in theory you can find the political party and minster linked to this .
Stay on public property and expose them .
Never drive to an event , they will note all car license plates in the area .
Read out the laws they are working on in your name in dark places .
Speak some truths at their next walk about , meet and greet , mall trip or suburban town hall meeting .
Have a few friends around you to film the response of their public security and party helpers .
If they allow you to protest , keep on showing up .
If they get physical you have some great clips for the local news , youtube and keep on showing up .
File complaints about your mis treatment , turn up in court with video evidence and a real lawyer .
Always ask for the collar numbers/shoulder number/badge number of anyone without it on display .
Make sure your friends record the reaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea,New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States in theory you can find the political party and minster linked to this.
Stay on public property and expose them.
Never drive to an event, they will note all car license plates in the area.
Read out the laws they are working on in your name in dark places.
Speak some truths at their next walk about, meet and greet, mall trip or suburban town hall meeting.
Have a few friends around you to film the response of their public security  and party helpers.
If they allow you to protest, keep on showing up.
If they get physical you have some great clips for the local news, youtube and keep on showing up.
File complaints about your mis treatment, turn up in court with video evidence and a real lawyer.
Always ask for the collar numbers/shoulder number/badge number of anyone without it on display.
Make sure your friends record the reaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356002</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should."</p><p>Ironically the music industry is doing all it can to do twice the damage to itself.</p><p>Have you actually tried buying music online? It's a clusterfuck of arbitrary country restrictions, crappy payment systems, DRM, bad quality and annoying forced marketing.</p><p>Purchase:<br>1. search for online store<br>2. search for 10 other online stores until you find one that actually sells to your country<br>3. search for another store that actually offers a payment system that works for you AND sells to your country<br>4. realise you have to pay 200-300\% of what US customers pay<br>5. realise you'll only get 128 kbps quality with DRM<br>6. register an account with the store<br>7. pay<br>8. contact support and wait for your purchase for a week, because the store software screwed up<br>9. download<br>10. setup spam filter to stop them from sending you inevitable newsetter spam</p><p>Sounds convoluted? That's how about 80\% of my music/video game purchases end. It's a nightmare. No wonder people pirate:<br>1. enter "albumname torrent" in Google<br>2. download</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should .
" Ironically the music industry is doing all it can to do twice the damage to itself.Have you actually tried buying music online ?
It 's a clusterfuck of arbitrary country restrictions , crappy payment systems , DRM , bad quality and annoying forced marketing.Purchase : 1. search for online store2 .
search for 10 other online stores until you find one that actually sells to your country3 .
search for another store that actually offers a payment system that works for you AND sells to your country4 .
realise you have to pay 200-300 \ % of what US customers pay5 .
realise you 'll only get 128 kbps quality with DRM6 .
register an account with the store7 .
pay8. contact support and wait for your purchase for a week , because the store software screwed up9 .
download10. setup spam filter to stop them from sending you inevitable newsetter spamSounds convoluted ?
That 's how about 80 \ % of my music/video game purchases end .
It 's a nightmare .
No wonder people pirate : 1. enter " albumname torrent " in Google2 .
download</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should.
"Ironically the music industry is doing all it can to do twice the damage to itself.Have you actually tried buying music online?
It's a clusterfuck of arbitrary country restrictions, crappy payment systems, DRM, bad quality and annoying forced marketing.Purchase:1. search for online store2.
search for 10 other online stores until you find one that actually sells to your country3.
search for another store that actually offers a payment system that works for you AND sells to your country4.
realise you have to pay 200-300\% of what US customers pay5.
realise you'll only get 128 kbps quality with DRM6.
register an account with the store7.
pay8. contact support and wait for your purchase for a week, because the store software screwed up9.
download10. setup spam filter to stop them from sending you inevitable newsetter spamSounds convoluted?
That's how about 80\% of my music/video game purchases end.
It's a nightmare.
No wonder people pirate:1. enter "albumname torrent" in Google2.
download</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356330</id>
	<title>Re:Not so surprising</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1267703760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a look at the PDF in question, and I think the summary may be somewhat wrong tbh. I'm not convinced this amendment has party support.</p><p>The layout of the PDF is confusing, it's hard to tell which names support the amendment, but if it's the ones before it, then the names listed are simply both the Lib Dem and the Tory ministers for culture and sport- i.e. those who are always most closely lobbied by the music industry.</p><p>If it's the names after, then it's still the Lib Dem culture and sport minister, coupled with Lord Razzall, one of the few Lib Dems who really did take the piss with expenses so someone whose corrupt to the core anyway.</p><p>I wouldn't assume from the summary alone that this is an indication of Lib Dem party support for the position- remember, Lords generally act much more independently and pursue their own paths more commonly than in the commons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a look at the PDF in question , and I think the summary may be somewhat wrong tbh .
I 'm not convinced this amendment has party support.The layout of the PDF is confusing , it 's hard to tell which names support the amendment , but if it 's the ones before it , then the names listed are simply both the Lib Dem and the Tory ministers for culture and sport- i.e .
those who are always most closely lobbied by the music industry.If it 's the names after , then it 's still the Lib Dem culture and sport minister , coupled with Lord Razzall , one of the few Lib Dems who really did take the piss with expenses so someone whose corrupt to the core anyway.I would n't assume from the summary alone that this is an indication of Lib Dem party support for the position- remember , Lords generally act much more independently and pursue their own paths more commonly than in the commons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a look at the PDF in question, and I think the summary may be somewhat wrong tbh.
I'm not convinced this amendment has party support.The layout of the PDF is confusing, it's hard to tell which names support the amendment, but if it's the ones before it, then the names listed are simply both the Lib Dem and the Tory ministers for culture and sport- i.e.
those who are always most closely lobbied by the music industry.If it's the names after, then it's still the Lib Dem culture and sport minister, coupled with Lord Razzall, one of the few Lib Dems who really did take the piss with expenses so someone whose corrupt to the core anyway.I wouldn't assume from the summary alone that this is an indication of Lib Dem party support for the position- remember, Lords generally act much more independently and pursue their own paths more commonly than in the commons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858</id>
	<title>... shall have regard ... to any other matters</title>
	<author>cyclomedia</author>
	<datestamp>1267697700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sigh, it's another kind of super injunction and of course there's a catch all, meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but "any issues of national security" or "any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant". So Mr. Billy Footballer could seek an injunction to block a website because it has a photo of him snorting coke on it, probably.</p><p>From TFL:</p><p>97B    Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement<br>(1)      The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement.<br>(2)      In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters&mdash;<br>(a)      whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,<br>(b)      the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),<br>(c)      whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location,<br>(d)      any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State.<br>(e)      the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content,<br>(f)      the importance of preserving human rights, including freedom of expression, and the right to property, and<br>(g)      any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh , it 's another kind of super injunction and of course there 's a catch all , meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but " any issues of national security " or " any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant " .
So Mr. Billy Footballer could seek an injunction to block a website because it has a photo of him snorting coke on it , probably.From TFL : 97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement ( 1 ) The High Court ( in Scotland , the Court of Session ) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider , requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement .
( 2 ) In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection ( 1 ) , the Court shall have regard to the following matters    ( a ) whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright , ( b ) the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location ( or both ) , ( c ) whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location , ( d ) any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State .
( e ) the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content , ( f ) the importance of preserving human rights , including freedom of expression , and the right to property , and ( g ) any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh, it's another kind of super injunction and of course there's a catch all, meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but "any issues of national security" or "any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant".
So Mr. Billy Footballer could seek an injunction to block a website because it has a photo of him snorting coke on it, probably.From TFL:97B    Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement(1)      The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement.
(2)      In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters—(a)      whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,(b)      the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),(c)      whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location,(d)      any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State.
(e)      the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content,(f)      the importance of preserving human rights, including freedom of expression, and the right to property, and(g)      any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356078</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267700220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Michael Geists <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4530/408/" title="michaelgeist.ca" rel="nofollow">recent 20min presentation</a> [michaelgeist.ca] to American Uni, Washington College of Law was very interesting, he basically says that ACTA is a sly underhanded run-around of existing treaty. If I understood correctly, big media/content producers did not like having to negotiate using open democratic processes built into existing agreements - so they sponsored ACTA to subvert the democratic process. Worth watching to understand where ACTA is coming from.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Geists recent 20min presentation [ michaelgeist.ca ] to American Uni , Washington College of Law was very interesting , he basically says that ACTA is a sly underhanded run-around of existing treaty .
If I understood correctly , big media/content producers did not like having to negotiate using open democratic processes built into existing agreements - so they sponsored ACTA to subvert the democratic process .
Worth watching to understand where ACTA is coming from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Geists recent 20min presentation [michaelgeist.ca] to American Uni, Washington College of Law was very interesting, he basically says that ACTA is a sly underhanded run-around of existing treaty.
If I understood correctly, big media/content producers did not like having to negotiate using open democratic processes built into existing agreements - so they sponsored ACTA to subvert the democratic process.
Worth watching to understand where ACTA is coming from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355980</id>
	<title>"Strongly critisise"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To hell with that.  STOP THE THING.  We cannot allow ignorance, fear, and greed to destroy our freedoms and rights any more.</p><p>Governments are only made up of people.  They can and SHOULD be told that what they are doing is wrong, and blocked.  They cannot be allowed to destroy all of the progress made just because a bunch of people are scared of the internet somehow destroying our way of life just because it gives the power back to the people.</p><p>It's time for the people who know better to stand up and block this garbage from happening.  Stop doing weak garbage like "strongly criticizing" and go tell the old idiots off, and if they refuse, take back the government for the people.  Certainly the UK has some sense of national need for a government that works for the people and not for those in power, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To hell with that .
STOP THE THING .
We can not allow ignorance , fear , and greed to destroy our freedoms and rights any more.Governments are only made up of people .
They can and SHOULD be told that what they are doing is wrong , and blocked .
They can not be allowed to destroy all of the progress made just because a bunch of people are scared of the internet somehow destroying our way of life just because it gives the power back to the people.It 's time for the people who know better to stand up and block this garbage from happening .
Stop doing weak garbage like " strongly criticizing " and go tell the old idiots off , and if they refuse , take back the government for the people .
Certainly the UK has some sense of national need for a government that works for the people and not for those in power , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To hell with that.
STOP THE THING.
We cannot allow ignorance, fear, and greed to destroy our freedoms and rights any more.Governments are only made up of people.
They can and SHOULD be told that what they are doing is wrong, and blocked.
They cannot be allowed to destroy all of the progress made just because a bunch of people are scared of the internet somehow destroying our way of life just because it gives the power back to the people.It's time for the people who know better to stand up and block this garbage from happening.
Stop doing weak garbage like "strongly criticizing" and go tell the old idiots off, and if they refuse, take back the government for the people.
Certainly the UK has some sense of national need for a government that works for the people and not for those in power, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356156</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267701480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>usual bullshit excuses.<br>You people ranted that music couldnt be bought as single tracks. you'd buy it then.</p><p>You didn't.</p><p>Then you ranted that it cost too much, if it was a dollar, you'd buy it.</p><p>You didn't</p><p>Then you ranted that DRM was stopping you buying, you'd buy it if they removed the DRM</p><p>You didn't.</p><p>Now you are dreaming up some new bullshit. What next? You'd buy it only if a dozen cheerleadeers came round and gave you a blowjob with every track?</p><p>At what point do you pathetic kids grow up and reslise you are tight asses who steal because you think you won't get caught. Everything else is bullshit and you know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>usual bullshit excuses.You people ranted that music couldnt be bought as single tracks .
you 'd buy it then.You did n't.Then you ranted that it cost too much , if it was a dollar , you 'd buy it.You didn'tThen you ranted that DRM was stopping you buying , you 'd buy it if they removed the DRMYou did n't.Now you are dreaming up some new bullshit .
What next ?
You 'd buy it only if a dozen cheerleadeers came round and gave you a blowjob with every track ? At what point do you pathetic kids grow up and reslise you are tight asses who steal because you think you wo n't get caught .
Everything else is bullshit and you know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>usual bullshit excuses.You people ranted that music couldnt be bought as single tracks.
you'd buy it then.You didn't.Then you ranted that it cost too much, if it was a dollar, you'd buy it.You didn'tThen you ranted that DRM was stopping you buying, you'd buy it if they removed the DRMYou didn't.Now you are dreaming up some new bullshit.
What next?
You'd buy it only if a dozen cheerleadeers came round and gave you a blowjob with every track?At what point do you pathetic kids grow up and reslise you are tight asses who steal because you think you won't get caught.
Everything else is bullshit and you know it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834</id>
	<title>Actually, most of the world's getting it</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1267697400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
  Worse, it's in the ACTA treaty:
</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA" title="swpat.org" rel="nofollow">ACTA</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf\_as\_text" title="swpat.org" rel="nofollow">ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text</a> [swpat.org] -leaked draft</li></ul><p>
  Their goal is to conclude the ACTA agreement by the end of 2010.  Countries involved are Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States (US) - and others will be pressured to join afterward.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worse , it 's in the ACTA treaty : ACTA [ swpat.org ] ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text [ swpat.org ] -leaked draft Their goal is to conclude the ACTA agreement by the end of 2010 .
Countries involved are Australia , Canada , the European Union , Japan , Jordan , Korea , Mexico , Morocco , New Zealand , Singapore , Switzerland , the United Arab Emirates , and the United States ( US ) - and others will be pressured to join afterward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Worse, it's in the ACTA treaty:

 ACTA [swpat.org]  ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text [swpat.org] -leaked draft
  Their goal is to conclude the ACTA agreement by the end of 2010.
Countries involved are Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States (US) - and others will be pressured to join afterward.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356054</id>
	<title>Not so surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267699860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm disapointed with the Lib Dems (which are the 3rd largest party in the UK) but not overly surprised: they have pretty much adopted the style, dialetics and posture of the two major parties.</p><p>This probably goes a long way to explain why, at a time when people are very disapointed with politicians in the UK (and one would expect that the two main parties, being more visible, would bear the brunt of it), the Lib Dems are not increasing their share of the vote.</p><p>The sleazy salesmen in designer suits have taken over the party and the result is that people, instead of going for them as an alternative, are just not voting at all or voting for more fringe parties, especially younger people.</p><p>Honestly, even though they are a bit of a "one issue" party, the UK Pirate Party are more in tune with what matters for the Internet generation than any of the "traditional" parties. If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm disapointed with the Lib Dems ( which are the 3rd largest party in the UK ) but not overly surprised : they have pretty much adopted the style , dialetics and posture of the two major parties.This probably goes a long way to explain why , at a time when people are very disapointed with politicians in the UK ( and one would expect that the two main parties , being more visible , would bear the brunt of it ) , the Lib Dems are not increasing their share of the vote.The sleazy salesmen in designer suits have taken over the party and the result is that people , instead of going for them as an alternative , are just not voting at all or voting for more fringe parties , especially younger people.Honestly , even though they are a bit of a " one issue " party , the UK Pirate Party are more in tune with what matters for the Internet generation than any of the " traditional " parties .
If I could vote for the UK Parliament ( i 'm not a UK or Commonwealth national , so I ca n't vote in those elections ) they would have my vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm disapointed with the Lib Dems (which are the 3rd largest party in the UK) but not overly surprised: they have pretty much adopted the style, dialetics and posture of the two major parties.This probably goes a long way to explain why, at a time when people are very disapointed with politicians in the UK (and one would expect that the two main parties, being more visible, would bear the brunt of it), the Lib Dems are not increasing their share of the vote.The sleazy salesmen in designer suits have taken over the party and the result is that people, instead of going for them as an alternative, are just not voting at all or voting for more fringe parties, especially younger people.Honestly, even though they are a bit of a "one issue" party, the UK Pirate Party are more in tune with what matters for the Internet generation than any of the "traditional" parties.
If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357200</id>
	<title>Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1267713360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sigh, it's another kind of super injunction and of course there's a catch all, meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but "any issues of national security" or "any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant".</i></p><p>You appear to be misreading it.  These aren't reasons why an injunction should be granted.  They are things that a court must consider before deciding whether or not to grant it.  "Any other matters which appear relevant" is actually a way for the court to *avoid* issuing an injunction where there's a good reason not to, e.g. if having the copyrighted document available to the public is in the public interest (e.g. much of the content on wikileaks).</p><p>In the end, the court is limited by the description of the power in (1).  It can only issue an injunction under the proposals of this bill if it is "for the prevention of online copyright infringement."  So I'm pretty sure the national security clause is not an issue, and I'm beyond certain that the "any other matters" clause is fine.</p><p>UK courts have a history of interpreting legislation from a much more liberal perspective than the legislators who made it.  I don't think there's much to worry about here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh , it 's another kind of super injunction and of course there 's a catch all , meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but " any issues of national security " or " any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant " .You appear to be misreading it .
These are n't reasons why an injunction should be granted .
They are things that a court must consider before deciding whether or not to grant it .
" Any other matters which appear relevant " is actually a way for the court to * avoid * issuing an injunction where there 's a good reason not to , e.g .
if having the copyrighted document available to the public is in the public interest ( e.g .
much of the content on wikileaks ) .In the end , the court is limited by the description of the power in ( 1 ) .
It can only issue an injunction under the proposals of this bill if it is " for the prevention of online copyright infringement .
" So I 'm pretty sure the national security clause is not an issue , and I 'm beyond certain that the " any other matters " clause is fine.UK courts have a history of interpreting legislation from a much more liberal perspective than the legislators who made it .
I do n't think there 's much to worry about here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh, it's another kind of super injunction and of course there's a catch all, meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but "any issues of national security" or "any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant".You appear to be misreading it.
These aren't reasons why an injunction should be granted.
They are things that a court must consider before deciding whether or not to grant it.
"Any other matters which appear relevant" is actually a way for the court to *avoid* issuing an injunction where there's a good reason not to, e.g.
if having the copyrighted document available to the public is in the public interest (e.g.
much of the content on wikileaks).In the end, the court is limited by the description of the power in (1).
It can only issue an injunction under the proposals of this bill if it is "for the prevention of online copyright infringement.
"  So I'm pretty sure the national security clause is not an issue, and I'm beyond certain that the "any other matters" clause is fine.UK courts have a history of interpreting legislation from a much more liberal perspective than the legislators who made it.
I don't think there's much to worry about here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356090</id>
	<title>Re:Change is coming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267700400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's already happening, and unless you are willing to pour tons of cash your vote wont count at all. Power is for those with money, not the average citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already happening , and unless you are willing to pour tons of cash your vote wont count at all .
Power is for those with money , not the average citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already happening, and unless you are willing to pour tons of cash your vote wont count at all.
Power is for those with money, not the average citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356432</id>
	<title>Re:New Zealand has started already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267705140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Internet should be thought of as a road. If I am caught selling copied DVDs on the road I don't loose my driving license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet should be thought of as a road .
If I am caught selling copied DVDs on the road I do n't loose my driving license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet should be thought of as a road.
If I am caught selling copied DVDs on the road I don't loose my driving license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356744</id>
	<title>Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1267709160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement</p></div><p>Which can be roughly translated as... torrent index sites and commercial BT proxies, They can't ban a protocol but they can ban some of the popular index hosts and anonymizers, so that's what they're doing.</p><p>The best part is they can use this legislation to block foreign hosts quite easily, so whether or not TPB is legal in Sweden has little bearing on whether you in the UK, USA, Canada, NZ, Aussie, Japan, Korea, and others can access it. No, you can't find your favorite free-to-air TV programme (or Japanese porn, for that matter) via the internet. Crap, it's worse than just not downloading, now you probably won't even know it exists if "they" don't market it to you.</p><p>It seems that we'll be facing the home-grown Great Firewall Of Western Media. China's got nothing on us now.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringementWhich can be roughly translated as... torrent index sites and commercial BT proxies , They ca n't ban a protocol but they can ban some of the popular index hosts and anonymizers , so that 's what they 're doing.The best part is they can use this legislation to block foreign hosts quite easily , so whether or not TPB is legal in Sweden has little bearing on whether you in the UK , USA , Canada , NZ , Aussie , Japan , Korea , and others can access it .
No , you ca n't find your favorite free-to-air TV programme ( or Japanese porn , for that matter ) via the internet .
Crap , it 's worse than just not downloading , now you probably wo n't even know it exists if " they " do n't market it to you.It seems that we 'll be facing the home-grown Great Firewall Of Western Media .
China 's got nothing on us now .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringementWhich can be roughly translated as... torrent index sites and commercial BT proxies, They can't ban a protocol but they can ban some of the popular index hosts and anonymizers, so that's what they're doing.The best part is they can use this legislation to block foreign hosts quite easily, so whether or not TPB is legal in Sweden has little bearing on whether you in the UK, USA, Canada, NZ, Aussie, Japan, Korea, and others can access it.
No, you can't find your favorite free-to-air TV programme (or Japanese porn, for that matter) via the internet.
Crap, it's worse than just not downloading, now you probably won't even know it exists if "they" don't market it to you.It seems that we'll be facing the home-grown Great Firewall Of Western Media.
China's got nothing on us now.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31358024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31359400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31359604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31380180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31358552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31361750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0323246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31365222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31358024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31359400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356074
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31380180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31361750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31365222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31359604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31356004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31358552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31357028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0323246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0323246.31355898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
