<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_05_140254</id>
	<title>Web Copyright Crackdown On the Way</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267799880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Journalist Alan D. Mutter reports on his blog 'Reflections of a Newsosaur' that a coalition of traditional and digital publishers is launching the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates on the Web. Initially <a href="http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-web-copyright-crackdown-coming.html">targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles</a>, the first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80\% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month. In the first stage of a multi-step process, online publishers identified by Silicon Valley startup Attributor will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites. In the second stage <a href="http://www.attributor.com/">Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites</a>. 'We are not going after past damages' from sites running unauthorized content says Jim Pitkow, the chief executive of Attributor. The emphasis, Pitkow says is 'to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance' by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future. Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown: almost all of them depend on banner ads served by US-based services, and the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator. Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world."</i> One possible weakness in Attributor's business plan, unless they intend to violate the robots.txt convention: they find violators by crawling the Web.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Journalist Alan D. Mutter reports on his blog 'Reflections of a Newsosaur ' that a coalition of traditional and digital publishers is launching the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates on the Web .
Initially targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles , the first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80 \ % or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month .
In the first stage of a multi-step process , online publishers identified by Silicon Valley startup Attributor will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites .
In the second stage Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites .
'We are not going after past damages ' from sites running unauthorized content says Jim Pitkow , the chief executive of Attributor .
The emphasis , Pitkow says is 'to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance ' by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future .
Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown : almost all of them depend on banner ads served by US-based services , and the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator .
Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world .
" One possible weakness in Attributor 's business plan , unless they intend to violate the robots.txt convention : they find violators by crawling the Web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Journalist Alan D. Mutter reports on his blog 'Reflections of a Newsosaur' that a coalition of traditional and digital publishers is launching the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates on the Web.
Initially targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles, the first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80\% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month.
In the first stage of a multi-step process, online publishers identified by Silicon Valley startup Attributor will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites.
In the second stage Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites.
'We are not going after past damages' from sites running unauthorized content says Jim Pitkow, the chief executive of Attributor.
The emphasis, Pitkow says is 'to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance' by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future.
Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown: almost all of them depend on banner ads served by US-based services, and the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator.
Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.
" One possible weakness in Attributor's business plan, unless they intend to violate the robots.txt convention: they find violators by crawling the Web.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372412</id>
	<title>Re:i'm a little clueless here</title>
	<author>impeach</author>
	<datestamp>1267811460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copyright law is being forged by globalists in secret cabals and will be foisted into law without shaping by citizens. Their machinations are held secret in the U.S. by Executive Order 12958, Section 6.1(y), which defines national security as the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, i.e., secret.

We can disrupt their draconian plans for global  tyranny by impeaching their abetters who are currently in high office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright law is being forged by globalists in secret cabals and will be foisted into law without shaping by citizens .
Their machinations are held secret in the U.S. by Executive Order 12958 , Section 6.1 ( y ) , which defines national security as the national defense or foreign relations of the United States , i.e. , secret .
We can disrupt their draconian plans for global tyranny by impeaching their abetters who are currently in high office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright law is being forged by globalists in secret cabals and will be foisted into law without shaping by citizens.
Their machinations are held secret in the U.S. by Executive Order 12958, Section 6.1(y), which defines national security as the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, i.e., secret.
We can disrupt their draconian plans for global  tyranny by impeaching their abetters who are currently in high office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370934</id>
	<title>Lessoned learned from RIAA</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1267804440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like they've learned their lesson from the RIAA. I'm not saying I agree with them and think they are right to do this. But, if you're going to try to enforce your interpretation of the law, this is at least a sane philosophy of doing so. Not going after damages is a smart move.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like they 've learned their lesson from the RIAA .
I 'm not saying I agree with them and think they are right to do this .
But , if you 're going to try to enforce your interpretation of the law , this is at least a sane philosophy of doing so .
Not going after damages is a smart move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like they've learned their lesson from the RIAA.
I'm not saying I agree with them and think they are right to do this.
But, if you're going to try to enforce your interpretation of the law, this is at least a sane philosophy of doing so.
Not going after damages is a smart move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31375282</id>
	<title>Another corporate overlord?</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1267781940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These folks don't seem to have thought their cunning plan all the way through. No matter how they try to dress it up, they're vigilantes in pursuit of their idea of justice and there are some legal issues that they are going to have to deal with.</p><p>
I'll let someone like NYCL describe those issues in detail - and I don't have any of anyone else's material online but it might be fun to do so, collect a DMCA complaint from these clowns - then sue them and watch them try to dance for the judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These folks do n't seem to have thought their cunning plan all the way through .
No matter how they try to dress it up , they 're vigilantes in pursuit of their idea of justice and there are some legal issues that they are going to have to deal with .
I 'll let someone like NYCL describe those issues in detail - and I do n't have any of anyone else 's material online but it might be fun to do so , collect a DMCA complaint from these clowns - then sue them and watch them try to dance for the judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These folks don't seem to have thought their cunning plan all the way through.
No matter how they try to dress it up, they're vigilantes in pursuit of their idea of justice and there are some legal issues that they are going to have to deal with.
I'll let someone like NYCL describe those issues in detail - and I don't have any of anyone else's material online but it might be fun to do so, collect a DMCA complaint from these clowns - then sue them and watch them try to dance for the judge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371066</id>
	<title>Re: Offshore sites WILL be immune</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1267804980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding? ACTA's going to harmonise everything so closely to the US that they'll be able to prosecute anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
ACTA 's going to harmonise everything so closely to the US that they 'll be able to prosecute anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
ACTA's going to harmonise everything so closely to the US that they'll be able to prosecute anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371810</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267808460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm almost befuddled that it isn't actually a legally binding contract of some sort.</p><p>Of course, these days bots are becoming so good at browsing like humans, it wouldn't matter anyway, a Firefox user agent here and nobody would know the difference.<br>Randomness goes a long way with bots.  And generating random values isn't that hard either, there are several ways, from key presses values / delays, mouse movements / delays, temperature sensors, bandwidth of internet / network / hard drive / RAM / etc, process / thread counters and CPU time, i can go on.<br>Worse yet, Bot Detection algorithms on some websites are becoming so obtuse that they are detecting humans as bots!</p><p>I think i have to agree with the captcha, it is indeed "Spooky".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm almost befuddled that it is n't actually a legally binding contract of some sort.Of course , these days bots are becoming so good at browsing like humans , it would n't matter anyway , a Firefox user agent here and nobody would know the difference.Randomness goes a long way with bots .
And generating random values is n't that hard either , there are several ways , from key presses values / delays , mouse movements / delays , temperature sensors , bandwidth of internet / network / hard drive / RAM / etc , process / thread counters and CPU time , i can go on.Worse yet , Bot Detection algorithms on some websites are becoming so obtuse that they are detecting humans as bots ! I think i have to agree with the captcha , it is indeed " Spooky " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm almost befuddled that it isn't actually a legally binding contract of some sort.Of course, these days bots are becoming so good at browsing like humans, it wouldn't matter anyway, a Firefox user agent here and nobody would know the difference.Randomness goes a long way with bots.
And generating random values isn't that hard either, there are several ways, from key presses values / delays, mouse movements / delays, temperature sensors, bandwidth of internet / network / hard drive / RAM / etc, process / thread counters and CPU time, i can go on.Worse yet, Bot Detection algorithms on some websites are becoming so obtuse that they are detecting humans as bots!I think i have to agree with the captcha, it is indeed "Spooky".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371502</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267807140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You guise are making a patented flawed assumption. How do you know they actually even know what the fuck a robots.txt is? Theres nothing here indicating that this place did anything other than take one guy, pay someone to build a website for them, market, and that one guy sits aroudn on the internet looking for violators. That's certainly not a scenario in which the person in question may even know that robots.txt exists, much less the convention around it or how the search engines handle it.</p><p>By the same token, that guy could be Jaysyn (just an empirical example, bear with me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) and be telling us exactly what the plan is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You guise are making a patented flawed assumption .
How do you know they actually even know what the fuck a robots.txt is ?
Theres nothing here indicating that this place did anything other than take one guy , pay someone to build a website for them , market , and that one guy sits aroudn on the internet looking for violators .
That 's certainly not a scenario in which the person in question may even know that robots.txt exists , much less the convention around it or how the search engines handle it.By the same token , that guy could be Jaysyn ( just an empirical example , bear with me : ) and be telling us exactly what the plan is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guise are making a patented flawed assumption.
How do you know they actually even know what the fuck a robots.txt is?
Theres nothing here indicating that this place did anything other than take one guy, pay someone to build a website for them, market, and that one guy sits aroudn on the internet looking for violators.
That's certainly not a scenario in which the person in question may even know that robots.txt exists, much less the convention around it or how the search engines handle it.By the same token, that guy could be Jaysyn (just an empirical example, bear with me :) and be telling us exactly what the plan is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371262</id>
	<title>Re:Will that ultimately include slashdot?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1267806000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And will Slashdot be targeted again and again? (you know... all the dupes)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And will Slashdot be targeted again and again ?
( you know... all the dupes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And will Slashdot be targeted again and again?
(you know... all the dupes)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371780</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1267808340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a robot passes the Turing test, does it have to check robots.txt before it crawls the website?<br>If I manually crawl through all the pages on their site and bookmark all the links, am I a robot?</p><p>Such difficult questions... how on earth would we legislate something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a robot passes the Turing test , does it have to check robots.txt before it crawls the website ? If I manually crawl through all the pages on their site and bookmark all the links , am I a robot ? Such difficult questions... how on earth would we legislate something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a robot passes the Turing test, does it have to check robots.txt before it crawls the website?If I manually crawl through all the pages on their site and bookmark all the links, am I a robot?Such difficult questions... how on earth would we legislate something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371726</id>
	<title>Oligarchies are fun!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267808160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a coalition of traditional and digital publishers is launching the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates...</p><p>Another market niche, adversely affected by technology, solidifies, allows the lawyers to start picking at the dying appendages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a coalition of traditional and digital publishers is launching the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates...Another market niche , adversely affected by technology , solidifies , allows the lawyers to start picking at the dying appendages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a coalition of traditional and digital publishers is launching the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates...Another market niche, adversely affected by technology, solidifies, allows the lawyers to start picking at the dying appendages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370956</id>
	<title>mod do3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">purpOses *BSD is</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>purpOses * BSD is [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>purpOses *BSD is [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372662</id>
	<title>Re:the article, for your convenience</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1267812780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Click the link to read the first 21\%</p><p>The first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80\% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month.</p><p>In the first stage of a multi-step process aimed at encouraging copyright compliance instead of punishing scofflaws, Pitkow said online publishers identified by his company will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites.</p><p>If copyright pirates refuse to pay, Attributor will request the major search engines to remove offending pages from search results and will ask banner services to stop serving ads to pages containing unauthorized content. The search engines and ad services are required to immediately honor such requests by the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).</p><p>If the above efforts fail, Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites. Because hosting services face legal liability under the DCMA if they do not comply, they will act quickly, said Pitkow.</p><p>"We are not going after past damages" from sites running unauthorized content said Pitkow. The emphasis, he said is "to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance" by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future.</p><p>License fees, which are set by each of the individual organizations producing content, may range from token sums for a small publisher to several hundred dollars for yearlong rights to a piece from a major publisher, said Pitkow.</p><p>Attributor identifies copyright violators by scraping the web to find copyrighted content on unauthorized sites. A team of investigators will contact violators in an effort to bring them into compliance or, alternatively, begin taking action under DMCA.</p><p>Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown, said Pitkow, because almost all of them depend on banner ads served by U.S.-based services. Because the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator, Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.</p><p>Attributor already has been engaged by several major book publishers to get unauthorized eBooks off unauthorized sites. "And we have 99\% success rate," he said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Click the link to read the first 21 \ % The first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80 \ % or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month.In the first stage of a multi-step process aimed at encouraging copyright compliance instead of punishing scofflaws , Pitkow said online publishers identified by his company will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites.If copyright pirates refuse to pay , Attributor will request the major search engines to remove offending pages from search results and will ask banner services to stop serving ads to pages containing unauthorized content .
The search engines and ad services are required to immediately honor such requests by the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA ) .If the above efforts fail , Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites .
Because hosting services face legal liability under the DCMA if they do not comply , they will act quickly , said Pitkow .
" We are not going after past damages " from sites running unauthorized content said Pitkow .
The emphasis , he said is " to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance " by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future.License fees , which are set by each of the individual organizations producing content , may range from token sums for a small publisher to several hundred dollars for yearlong rights to a piece from a major publisher , said Pitkow.Attributor identifies copyright violators by scraping the web to find copyrighted content on unauthorized sites .
A team of investigators will contact violators in an effort to bring them into compliance or , alternatively , begin taking action under DMCA.Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown , said Pitkow , because almost all of them depend on banner ads served by U.S.-based services .
Because the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator , Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.Attributor already has been engaged by several major book publishers to get unauthorized eBooks off unauthorized sites .
" And we have 99 \ % success rate , " he said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Click the link to read the first 21\%The first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80\% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month.In the first stage of a multi-step process aimed at encouraging copyright compliance instead of punishing scofflaws, Pitkow said online publishers identified by his company will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites.If copyright pirates refuse to pay, Attributor will request the major search engines to remove offending pages from search results and will ask banner services to stop serving ads to pages containing unauthorized content.
The search engines and ad services are required to immediately honor such requests by the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).If the above efforts fail, Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites.
Because hosting services face legal liability under the DCMA if they do not comply, they will act quickly, said Pitkow.
"We are not going after past damages" from sites running unauthorized content said Pitkow.
The emphasis, he said is "to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance" by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future.License fees, which are set by each of the individual organizations producing content, may range from token sums for a small publisher to several hundred dollars for yearlong rights to a piece from a major publisher, said Pitkow.Attributor identifies copyright violators by scraping the web to find copyrighted content on unauthorized sites.
A team of investigators will contact violators in an effort to bring them into compliance or, alternatively, begin taking action under DMCA.Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown, said Pitkow, because almost all of them depend on banner ads served by U.S.-based services.
Because the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator, Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.Attributor already has been engaged by several major book publishers to get unauthorized eBooks off unauthorized sites.
"And we have 99\% success rate," he said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371088</id>
	<title>the article, for your convenience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267805100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A coalition of traditional and digital publishers this month will launch the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates on the web, initially targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles.</p><p>Details of the crackdown were provided by Jim Pitkow, the chief executive of Attributor, a Silicon Valley start-up that has been selected as the agent for several publishers who want to be compensated by websites that are using their content without paying licensing fees.</p><p>In a telephone interview yesterday, Pitkow declined to identify the individual publishers in his coalition, but said they include &ldquo;about a dozen&rdquo; organizations representing wire services, traditional print publishers and &ldquo;top-tier blog networks.&rdquo;</p><p>The first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80\% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month.</p><p>In the first stage of a multi-step process aimed at encouraging copyright compliance instead of punishing scofflaws, Pitkow said online publishers identified by his company will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites.</p><p>If copyright pirates refuse to pay, Attributor will request the major search engines to remove offending pages from search results and will ask banner services to stop serving ads to pages containing unauthorized content. The search engines and ad services are required to immediately honor such requests by the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).</p><p>If the above efforts fail, Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites. Because hosting services face legal liability under the DCMA if they do not comply, they will act quickly, said Pitkow.</p><p>&ldquo;We are not going after past damages&rdquo; from sites running unauthorized content said Pitkow. The emphasis, he said is &ldquo;to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance&rdquo; by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future.</p><p>License fees, which are set by each of the individual organizations producing content, may range from token sums for a small publisher to several hundred dollars for yearlong rights to a piece from a major publisher, said Pitkow.</p><p>Attributor identifies copyright violators by scraping the web to find copyrighted content on unauthorized sites. A team of investigators will contact violators in an effort to bring them into compliance or, alternatively, begin taking action under DMCA.</p><p>click the link to read the last 21\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A coalition of traditional and digital publishers this month will launch the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates on the web , initially targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles.Details of the crackdown were provided by Jim Pitkow , the chief executive of Attributor , a Silicon Valley start-up that has been selected as the agent for several publishers who want to be compensated by websites that are using their content without paying licensing fees.In a telephone interview yesterday , Pitkow declined to identify the individual publishers in his coalition , but said they include    about a dozen    organizations representing wire services , traditional print publishers and    top-tier blog networks.    The first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80 \ % or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month.In the first stage of a multi-step process aimed at encouraging copyright compliance instead of punishing scofflaws , Pitkow said online publishers identified by his company will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites.If copyright pirates refuse to pay , Attributor will request the major search engines to remove offending pages from search results and will ask banner services to stop serving ads to pages containing unauthorized content .
The search engines and ad services are required to immediately honor such requests by the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA ) .If the above efforts fail , Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites .
Because hosting services face legal liability under the DCMA if they do not comply , they will act quickly , said Pitkow.    We are not going after past damages    from sites running unauthorized content said Pitkow .
The emphasis , he said is    to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance    by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future.License fees , which are set by each of the individual organizations producing content , may range from token sums for a small publisher to several hundred dollars for yearlong rights to a piece from a major publisher , said Pitkow.Attributor identifies copyright violators by scraping the web to find copyrighted content on unauthorized sites .
A team of investigators will contact violators in an effort to bring them into compliance or , alternatively , begin taking action under DMCA.click the link to read the last 21 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A coalition of traditional and digital publishers this month will launch the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates on the web, initially targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles.Details of the crackdown were provided by Jim Pitkow, the chief executive of Attributor, a Silicon Valley start-up that has been selected as the agent for several publishers who want to be compensated by websites that are using their content without paying licensing fees.In a telephone interview yesterday, Pitkow declined to identify the individual publishers in his coalition, but said they include “about a dozen” organizations representing wire services, traditional print publishers and “top-tier blog networks.”The first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80\% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month.In the first stage of a multi-step process aimed at encouraging copyright compliance instead of punishing scofflaws, Pitkow said online publishers identified by his company will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites.If copyright pirates refuse to pay, Attributor will request the major search engines to remove offending pages from search results and will ask banner services to stop serving ads to pages containing unauthorized content.
The search engines and ad services are required to immediately honor such requests by the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).If the above efforts fail, Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites.
Because hosting services face legal liability under the DCMA if they do not comply, they will act quickly, said Pitkow.“We are not going after past damages” from sites running unauthorized content said Pitkow.
The emphasis, he said is “to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance” by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future.License fees, which are set by each of the individual organizations producing content, may range from token sums for a small publisher to several hundred dollars for yearlong rights to a piece from a major publisher, said Pitkow.Attributor identifies copyright violators by scraping the web to find copyrighted content on unauthorized sites.
A team of investigators will contact violators in an effort to bring them into compliance or, alternatively, begin taking action under DMCA.click the link to read the last 21\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31375146</id>
	<title>Re:Please do so</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1267781220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run one of those news aggregator sites.  It is very small, and its purpose is to stockpile news articles on a topic in one place, so they don't disappear and drop off the net.  Yes, I've been copying articles verbatim, though at the very least I link to the host site first and foremost, and quote the article so that it is clear that I did not write the content.</p><p>As for ads, I have one Adsense block on there, and have made $8 in the 3 months the site has been up.</p><p>How do you propose balancing legitimate archival with the needs of the copyright owners?  I think I have an equitable scheme in place, though I realize it may or may not be a legal one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run one of those news aggregator sites .
It is very small , and its purpose is to stockpile news articles on a topic in one place , so they do n't disappear and drop off the net .
Yes , I 've been copying articles verbatim , though at the very least I link to the host site first and foremost , and quote the article so that it is clear that I did not write the content.As for ads , I have one Adsense block on there , and have made $ 8 in the 3 months the site has been up.How do you propose balancing legitimate archival with the needs of the copyright owners ?
I think I have an equitable scheme in place , though I realize it may or may not be a legal one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run one of those news aggregator sites.
It is very small, and its purpose is to stockpile news articles on a topic in one place, so they don't disappear and drop off the net.
Yes, I've been copying articles verbatim, though at the very least I link to the host site first and foremost, and quote the article so that it is clear that I did not write the content.As for ads, I have one Adsense block on there, and have made $8 in the 3 months the site has been up.How do you propose balancing legitimate archival with the needs of the copyright owners?
I think I have an equitable scheme in place, though I realize it may or may not be a legal one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371968</id>
	<title>Re: Offshore sites WILL be immune</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1267809240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are you kidding? ACTA's going to harmonise everything so closely to the US that they'll be able to prosecute anyone.</i></p><p>If you think Vanuatu et al are going to be signing up to ACTA, then I want some of what you're smoking.</p><p>Sure, most of the large economies will probably be signing, but there's no reason not to base an Internet business on a little island somewhere nice with friendly laws (and, as a nice side benefit, zero taxation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
ACTA 's going to harmonise everything so closely to the US that they 'll be able to prosecute anyone.If you think Vanuatu et al are going to be signing up to ACTA , then I want some of what you 're smoking.Sure , most of the large economies will probably be signing , but there 's no reason not to base an Internet business on a little island somewhere nice with friendly laws ( and , as a nice side benefit , zero taxation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
ACTA's going to harmonise everything so closely to the US that they'll be able to prosecute anyone.If you think Vanuatu et al are going to be signing up to ACTA, then I want some of what you're smoking.Sure, most of the large economies will probably be signing, but there's no reason not to base an Internet business on a little island somewhere nice with friendly laws (and, as a nice side benefit, zero taxation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31378786</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1267811220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's sometimes actually amusing to watch the last desperate twitches of this dying technophobic breed who thought they were the last generation with a true identity. Pity the fools 20 years from now when technological acceleration explodes and they finally realize that all their efforts to control the future were futile<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's a bit ironic since they did nothing but protest 'the system' that tried to control their lives<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... i have to quote Shirley Bassey again : all just a little bit of hippies turning into nazis repeating</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sometimes actually amusing to watch the last desperate twitches of this dying technophobic breed who thought they were the last generation with a true identity .
Pity the fools 20 years from now when technological acceleration explodes and they finally realize that all their efforts to control the future were futile ... it 's a bit ironic since they did nothing but protest 'the system ' that tried to control their lives ... i have to quote Shirley Bassey again : all just a little bit of hippies turning into nazis repeating</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sometimes actually amusing to watch the last desperate twitches of this dying technophobic breed who thought they were the last generation with a true identity.
Pity the fools 20 years from now when technological acceleration explodes and they finally realize that all their efforts to control the future were futile ... it's a bit ironic since they did nothing but protest 'the system' that tried to control their lives ... i have to quote Shirley Bassey again : all just a little bit of hippies turning into nazis repeating
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31380232</id>
	<title>What about a court order?</title>
	<author>Puppet Master</author>
	<datestamp>1267885380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hosting providers shouldn't just take down a site based on a letter from Attributor.

There's something called "Fair Use".  also why should the hosting provider take the risk
of taking down a site?  Whose to say that Attibutor is not making a mistake and accusing
the wrong publisher?  Let a court decide, not some stupid start up trying to make a buck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hosting providers should n't just take down a site based on a letter from Attributor .
There 's something called " Fair Use " .
also why should the hosting provider take the risk of taking down a site ?
Whose to say that Attibutor is not making a mistake and accusing the wrong publisher ?
Let a court decide , not some stupid start up trying to make a buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hosting providers shouldn't just take down a site based on a letter from Attributor.
There's something called "Fair Use".
also why should the hosting provider take the risk
of taking down a site?
Whose to say that Attibutor is not making a mistake and accusing
the wrong publisher?
Let a court decide, not some stupid start up trying to make a buck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371680</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267807920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US such a thing is already covered by trespass although probably not in the way you mean (see "trespass to chattels"). Actual significant damage must be done, not merely visiting a public website. Also the fact that the sites are public may be thought of as an implied license regardless of the TOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US such a thing is already covered by trespass although probably not in the way you mean ( see " trespass to chattels " ) .
Actual significant damage must be done , not merely visiting a public website .
Also the fact that the sites are public may be thought of as an implied license regardless of the TOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US such a thing is already covered by trespass although probably not in the way you mean (see "trespass to chattels").
Actual significant damage must be done, not merely visiting a public website.
Also the fact that the sites are public may be thought of as an implied license regardless of the TOS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371292</id>
	<title>Re:Please do so</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1267806120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in the process find all the commercial sites using my copyrighted Flickr photos for their own purposes without my permission or payment. I'm tired of sending invoices and dealing with companies who tell you that your photo wasn't worth the $300 you charge and instead send you $50 thinking that it will clear up the matter.</p><p>I love the hypocrisy of all of this. They are just as much at fault as any of those aggregation blogs. They just have more money to be a pain in the ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in the process find all the commercial sites using my copyrighted Flickr photos for their own purposes without my permission or payment .
I 'm tired of sending invoices and dealing with companies who tell you that your photo was n't worth the $ 300 you charge and instead send you $ 50 thinking that it will clear up the matter.I love the hypocrisy of all of this .
They are just as much at fault as any of those aggregation blogs .
They just have more money to be a pain in the ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in the process find all the commercial sites using my copyrighted Flickr photos for their own purposes without my permission or payment.
I'm tired of sending invoices and dealing with companies who tell you that your photo wasn't worth the $300 you charge and instead send you $50 thinking that it will clear up the matter.I love the hypocrisy of all of this.
They are just as much at fault as any of those aggregation blogs.
They just have more money to be a pain in the ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31373354</id>
	<title>news organizations are pretty arrogant</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1267816020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They expect people to provide them with free information (they call it "interviews" and "fact gathering" and all that) and then turn around and try to sell it.  Oh, but they do add something: overpaid upper-middle-class bias and political favoritism in return for being allowed to hobnob with the imporant people and getting invited to all the right parties.</p><p>We can only hope that the big players in this industry will go bankrupt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They expect people to provide them with free information ( they call it " interviews " and " fact gathering " and all that ) and then turn around and try to sell it .
Oh , but they do add something : overpaid upper-middle-class bias and political favoritism in return for being allowed to hobnob with the imporant people and getting invited to all the right parties.We can only hope that the big players in this industry will go bankrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They expect people to provide them with free information (they call it "interviews" and "fact gathering" and all that) and then turn around and try to sell it.
Oh, but they do add something: overpaid upper-middle-class bias and political favoritism in return for being allowed to hobnob with the imporant people and getting invited to all the right parties.We can only hope that the big players in this industry will go bankrupt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371014</id>
	<title>Not So Good for the Economy</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1267804800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown: almost all of them depend on banner ads served by US-based services, and the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator. "</p><p>Not sure this is such a great idea - when you're broke you don't starve off the little income you're still getting... I'm inclined to think that in the near future, things will more likely go in the opposite direction, grey-legal stuff will be fully legalized to provide some as much extra economic stimulus as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown : almost all of them depend on banner ads served by US-based services , and the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator .
" Not sure this is such a great idea - when you 're broke you do n't starve off the little income you 're still getting... I 'm inclined to think that in the near future , things will more likely go in the opposite direction , grey-legal stuff will be fully legalized to provide some as much extra economic stimulus as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown: almost all of them depend on banner ads served by US-based services, and the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator.
"Not sure this is such a great idea - when you're broke you don't starve off the little income you're still getting... I'm inclined to think that in the near future, things will more likely go in the opposite direction, grey-legal stuff will be fully legalized to provide some as much extra economic stimulus as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371082</id>
	<title>Ad networks geotarget their ads</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1267805100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I understand it, advertisers targeting readers in the United States tend to choose ad networks that operate or at least have some sort of assets in the United States, not ad networks that operate in the European Union. Advertisers who target readers in the European Union probably will not want to pay to reach readers in the United States, especially for a product not available in the United States.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , advertisers targeting readers in the United States tend to choose ad networks that operate or at least have some sort of assets in the United States , not ad networks that operate in the European Union .
Advertisers who target readers in the European Union probably will not want to pay to reach readers in the United States , especially for a product not available in the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, advertisers targeting readers in the United States tend to choose ad networks that operate or at least have some sort of assets in the United States, not ad networks that operate in the European Union.
Advertisers who target readers in the European Union probably will not want to pay to reach readers in the United States, especially for a product not available in the United States.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371512</id>
	<title>Business Plan</title>
	<author>DaveAtFraud</author>
	<datestamp>1267807200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Put up a file sharing site with lots of music and movie files.<br>
2) Craft a robots.txt to keep out the RIAA and MPAA.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
Profit!!!<br> <br>

Robots.txt is a convention that was never intended to restrict checking for illegal content.  The idea behind robots.txt is only to keep site indexers such as Google, Yahoo, etc. out of certain directories.<br> <br>

Cheers,<br>
Dave</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Put up a file sharing site with lots of music and movie files .
2 ) Craft a robots.txt to keep out the RIAA and MPAA .
.. . Profit ! ! !
Robots.txt is a convention that was never intended to restrict checking for illegal content .
The idea behind robots.txt is only to keep site indexers such as Google , Yahoo , etc .
out of certain directories .
Cheers , Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Put up a file sharing site with lots of music and movie files.
2) Craft a robots.txt to keep out the RIAA and MPAA.
...
Profit!!!
Robots.txt is a convention that was never intended to restrict checking for illegal content.
The idea behind robots.txt is only to keep site indexers such as Google, Yahoo, etc.
out of certain directories.
Cheers,
Dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31381738</id>
	<title>goose that lays the golden eggs</title>
	<author>vuffi\_raa</author>
	<datestamp>1267901160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is it just me or have none of these business execs ever read "goose that lays the golden eggs" as a kid- the fact of the matter is that restricting information actually discourages people from wanting to read it- it doesn't in any way encourage them to pay for it, people will in all likelihood just watch the news or look for stories that are free somewhere else which means both more disinformation and bias being treated as news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is it just me or have none of these business execs ever read " goose that lays the golden eggs " as a kid- the fact of the matter is that restricting information actually discourages people from wanting to read it- it does n't in any way encourage them to pay for it , people will in all likelihood just watch the news or look for stories that are free somewhere else which means both more disinformation and bias being treated as news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it just me or have none of these business execs ever read "goose that lays the golden eggs" as a kid- the fact of the matter is that restricting information actually discourages people from wanting to read it- it doesn't in any way encourage them to pay for it, people will in all likelihood just watch the news or look for stories that are free somewhere else which means both more disinformation and bias being treated as news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371116</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>MtHuurne</author>
	<datestamp>1267805280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the infringing sites have a robots.txt that tells all crawlers to skip them, they will not show up in search engines. If they single out Attributor's crawler's user agent string, they would look very suspicious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the infringing sites have a robots.txt that tells all crawlers to skip them , they will not show up in search engines .
If they single out Attributor 's crawler 's user agent string , they would look very suspicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the infringing sites have a robots.txt that tells all crawlers to skip them, they will not show up in search engines.
If they single out Attributor's crawler's user agent string, they would look very suspicious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374732</id>
	<title>FAQs</title>
	<author>BigSes</author>
	<datestamp>1267822380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wonder if they will apply this to sites that feature FAQ-type writeups. I remember reading a small strategy guide for MW2 Multiplayer mode on a website that I Googled.  It was nearly verbatim to the original one on a competitor's site, just without the pictures and the same formatting.  Hell, they even tried to use slightly different sentence structure in some places, but still used the same adjectives and adverbs in many places (much like how someone plagarizing a term paper would "re-write" it in their own words).  All with zero attribution to the original source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder if they will apply this to sites that feature FAQ-type writeups .
I remember reading a small strategy guide for MW2 Multiplayer mode on a website that I Googled .
It was nearly verbatim to the original one on a competitor 's site , just without the pictures and the same formatting .
Hell , they even tried to use slightly different sentence structure in some places , but still used the same adjectives and adverbs in many places ( much like how someone plagarizing a term paper would " re-write " it in their own words ) .
All with zero attribution to the original source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder if they will apply this to sites that feature FAQ-type writeups.
I remember reading a small strategy guide for MW2 Multiplayer mode on a website that I Googled.
It was nearly verbatim to the original one on a competitor's site, just without the pictures and the same formatting.
Hell, they even tried to use slightly different sentence structure in some places, but still used the same adjectives and adverbs in many places (much like how someone plagarizing a term paper would "re-write" it in their own words).
All with zero attribution to the original source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31373970</id>
	<title>Re:Please do so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267818840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thought exactly - odds are that almost every site that's just grabbing articles whole is a straight-up linkfarm. Good riddance to the spammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thought exactly - odds are that almost every site that 's just grabbing articles whole is a straight-up linkfarm .
Good riddance to the spammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thought exactly - odds are that almost every site that's just grabbing articles whole is a straight-up linkfarm.
Good riddance to the spammers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371232</id>
	<title>Re:i'm a little clueless here</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1267805820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since, as you say, robots.txt will likely do nothing against them, the bigger question becomes "how do they plan to do their crawling?". Crawling from a well defined IP block, using software with user agent Attributor\_copy\_cop, will be laughably simple to block or present false noninfringing content to.<br> <br>

Spoofing the UA strings and(if necessary) some of the behavior of common web browsers is a simple software problem, so I assume that they'll do that(unless they are terminally incompetent). Out of curiosity, though, does anybody know how easy and cheap it would be (using <i>legitimate methods</i> not botnet style stuff) for such a commercial entity to obtain a reasonably large number of, ideally "residential looking", IPs that change fairly often? Do you just call verizon and say "I want 500 residential DSL lines brought out to so-and-so location"? Would you obtain the services of one of the sleazy datacenter operators who caters to spammers and the like and knows how to switch IP blocks frequently? Do you pay to have second lines installed at your employee's houses, with company scanner boxes attached?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since , as you say , robots.txt will likely do nothing against them , the bigger question becomes " how do they plan to do their crawling ? " .
Crawling from a well defined IP block , using software with user agent Attributor \ _copy \ _cop , will be laughably simple to block or present false noninfringing content to .
Spoofing the UA strings and ( if necessary ) some of the behavior of common web browsers is a simple software problem , so I assume that they 'll do that ( unless they are terminally incompetent ) .
Out of curiosity , though , does anybody know how easy and cheap it would be ( using legitimate methods not botnet style stuff ) for such a commercial entity to obtain a reasonably large number of , ideally " residential looking " , IPs that change fairly often ?
Do you just call verizon and say " I want 500 residential DSL lines brought out to so-and-so location " ?
Would you obtain the services of one of the sleazy datacenter operators who caters to spammers and the like and knows how to switch IP blocks frequently ?
Do you pay to have second lines installed at your employee 's houses , with company scanner boxes attached ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since, as you say, robots.txt will likely do nothing against them, the bigger question becomes "how do they plan to do their crawling?".
Crawling from a well defined IP block, using software with user agent Attributor\_copy\_cop, will be laughably simple to block or present false noninfringing content to.
Spoofing the UA strings and(if necessary) some of the behavior of common web browsers is a simple software problem, so I assume that they'll do that(unless they are terminally incompetent).
Out of curiosity, though, does anybody know how easy and cheap it would be (using legitimate methods not botnet style stuff) for such a commercial entity to obtain a reasonably large number of, ideally "residential looking", IPs that change fairly often?
Do you just call verizon and say "I want 500 residential DSL lines brought out to so-and-so location"?
Would you obtain the services of one of the sleazy datacenter operators who caters to spammers and the like and knows how to switch IP blocks frequently?
Do you pay to have second lines installed at your employee's houses, with company scanner boxes attached?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372014</id>
	<title>Web Crackdown Full Stop</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1267809480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just copyright. The slow but steady alignment of copyright holders, oppressive governments, legal changes, media pressure and surveillance technology has wound itself around the internet worldwide, and now the real pressure is being applied. This is a secular change, largely unobservable over smaller intervals, but the end result is that the web in 10 and 20 years time will be a noticeably less free place than it is today. Everything you do online will be monitored, everything will be logged, everything will be legally defined and controlled, and every infringement will be subject to criminal penalties.</p><p>The parties responsible have the support of the politicians, the censors, the press, the money men and most of the public. We used to have the support of the geeks and their creativity in bypassing censorship. But let's face it; geeks have not created a truly disruptive technology since BitTorrent almost ten years ago. While Geekdom slept, the likes of Cisco and the major Telcos have constructed a frightening array of technologies for surveillance and control of the internet, and the fruit of their efforts can be seen in China, Iran and now even countries like Australia. Soon it will be seen all over the world.</p><p>The Web has changed. Governments are no longer going to tolerate the freedom and anarchy that it grants to the population at large. They now have the means, method and opportunity to put this genie back in the bottle. This crackdown is the first offensive on what is going to be a wide front. Expect the free net to lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just copyright .
The slow but steady alignment of copyright holders , oppressive governments , legal changes , media pressure and surveillance technology has wound itself around the internet worldwide , and now the real pressure is being applied .
This is a secular change , largely unobservable over smaller intervals , but the end result is that the web in 10 and 20 years time will be a noticeably less free place than it is today .
Everything you do online will be monitored , everything will be logged , everything will be legally defined and controlled , and every infringement will be subject to criminal penalties.The parties responsible have the support of the politicians , the censors , the press , the money men and most of the public .
We used to have the support of the geeks and their creativity in bypassing censorship .
But let 's face it ; geeks have not created a truly disruptive technology since BitTorrent almost ten years ago .
While Geekdom slept , the likes of Cisco and the major Telcos have constructed a frightening array of technologies for surveillance and control of the internet , and the fruit of their efforts can be seen in China , Iran and now even countries like Australia .
Soon it will be seen all over the world.The Web has changed .
Governments are no longer going to tolerate the freedom and anarchy that it grants to the population at large .
They now have the means , method and opportunity to put this genie back in the bottle .
This crackdown is the first offensive on what is going to be a wide front .
Expect the free net to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just copyright.
The slow but steady alignment of copyright holders, oppressive governments, legal changes, media pressure and surveillance technology has wound itself around the internet worldwide, and now the real pressure is being applied.
This is a secular change, largely unobservable over smaller intervals, but the end result is that the web in 10 and 20 years time will be a noticeably less free place than it is today.
Everything you do online will be monitored, everything will be logged, everything will be legally defined and controlled, and every infringement will be subject to criminal penalties.The parties responsible have the support of the politicians, the censors, the press, the money men and most of the public.
We used to have the support of the geeks and their creativity in bypassing censorship.
But let's face it; geeks have not created a truly disruptive technology since BitTorrent almost ten years ago.
While Geekdom slept, the likes of Cisco and the major Telcos have constructed a frightening array of technologies for surveillance and control of the internet, and the fruit of their efforts can be seen in China, Iran and now even countries like Australia.
Soon it will be seen all over the world.The Web has changed.
Governments are no longer going to tolerate the freedom and anarchy that it grants to the population at large.
They now have the means, method and opportunity to put this genie back in the bottle.
This crackdown is the first offensive on what is going to be a wide front.
Expect the free net to lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371904</id>
	<title>Re:DMCA..</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1267808940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What on earth is the DMCA supposed to achieve, in the context of Ad-providers?</i></p><p><i>Sounds pretty scary to me.</i></p><p>Agreed.  I've never heard of this, and a quick scan of the legislation doesn't turn up anything that appears to relate to this; the categories of service it regulates appear to be (a) telecoms providers transmitting data at user request, (b) those hosting temporary copies of content (e.g. caches), (c) those hosting content at the request of third parties, and (d) search engines, directories and other link collections.  I see no suggestion in the text of the legislation that it applies to people providing additional content that is aggregated on the same page, or in any other way I can think of that would catch out ad networks.</p><p>Also, there are plenty of <a href="http://www.adxpansion.com/index/contact" title="adxpansion.com">non-US</a> [adxpansion.com] <a href="http://www.admoda.com/" title="admoda.com">ad networks</a> [admoda.com] and <a href="http://www.affiliates.easydate.biz/?aff\_cp=0000000776" title="easydate.biz">affiliate sites</a> [easydate.biz], many of whom probably don't give a fuck about DMCA notifications even if they do apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What on earth is the DMCA supposed to achieve , in the context of Ad-providers ? Sounds pretty scary to me.Agreed .
I 've never heard of this , and a quick scan of the legislation does n't turn up anything that appears to relate to this ; the categories of service it regulates appear to be ( a ) telecoms providers transmitting data at user request , ( b ) those hosting temporary copies of content ( e.g .
caches ) , ( c ) those hosting content at the request of third parties , and ( d ) search engines , directories and other link collections .
I see no suggestion in the text of the legislation that it applies to people providing additional content that is aggregated on the same page , or in any other way I can think of that would catch out ad networks.Also , there are plenty of non-US [ adxpansion.com ] ad networks [ admoda.com ] and affiliate sites [ easydate.biz ] , many of whom probably do n't give a fuck about DMCA notifications even if they do apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What on earth is the DMCA supposed to achieve, in the context of Ad-providers?Sounds pretty scary to me.Agreed.
I've never heard of this, and a quick scan of the legislation doesn't turn up anything that appears to relate to this; the categories of service it regulates appear to be (a) telecoms providers transmitting data at user request, (b) those hosting temporary copies of content (e.g.
caches), (c) those hosting content at the request of third parties, and (d) search engines, directories and other link collections.
I see no suggestion in the text of the legislation that it applies to people providing additional content that is aggregated on the same page, or in any other way I can think of that would catch out ad networks.Also, there are plenty of non-US [adxpansion.com] ad networks [admoda.com] and affiliate sites [easydate.biz], many of whom probably don't give a fuck about DMCA notifications even if they do apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370804</id>
	<title>i'm a little clueless here</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1267803840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"One possible weakness in Attributor's business plan, unless they intend to violate the robots.txt convention: they find violators by crawling the Web."</p><p>what convention is Attributor the violating?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One possible weakness in Attributor 's business plan , unless they intend to violate the robots.txt convention : they find violators by crawling the Web .
" what convention is Attributor the violating ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One possible weakness in Attributor's business plan, unless they intend to violate the robots.txt convention: they find violators by crawling the Web.
"what convention is Attributor the violating?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372112</id>
	<title>Here is how I solved this problem myself...</title>
	<author>MarcoF</author>
	<datestamp>1267809900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just a few days ago, when I found a real magazine had copied without permission, integrally and without attribution, an article of mine. I wrote this: <a href="http://stop.zona-m.net/node/112" title="zona-m.net" rel="nofollow">http://stop.zona-m.net/node/112</a> [zona-m.net] then asked them to please cancel their copy and they immediately did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just a few days ago , when I found a real magazine had copied without permission , integrally and without attribution , an article of mine .
I wrote this : http : //stop.zona-m.net/node/112 [ zona-m.net ] then asked them to please cancel their copy and they immediately did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just a few days ago, when I found a real magazine had copied without permission, integrally and without attribution, an article of mine.
I wrote this: http://stop.zona-m.net/node/112 [zona-m.net] then asked them to please cancel their copy and they immediately did it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31373844</id>
	<title>Re:Web Crackdown Full Stop</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1267818180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Expect the free net to lose.</p></div></blockquote><p>

And expect the anonymous overlay networks (a la <a href="http://freenetproject.org/" title="freenetproject.org">freenet</a> [freenetproject.org] et al.) to replace it. However, we're in a sad state in general when only anonymous speech remains truly free speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Expect the free net to lose .
And expect the anonymous overlay networks ( a la freenet [ freenetproject.org ] et al .
) to replace it .
However , we 're in a sad state in general when only anonymous speech remains truly free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expect the free net to lose.
And expect the anonymous overlay networks (a la freenet [freenetproject.org] et al.
) to replace it.
However, we're in a sad state in general when only anonymous speech remains truly free speech.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370830</id>
	<title>farting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267803960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fart in your general direction</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fart in your general direction</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fart in your general direction</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372682</id>
	<title>Re:Please do so</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1267812900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your pictures, your copyright. And we've already seen that they are responsible for massive damages for each infringement. And unlike P2P it's very easy to tell just how many times your copyrighted item has been distributed to others.</p><p>Just imagine how much fun it'll be to send a second letter to them, pointing out that the 300 dollars you originally charged as a settlement has now been changed to a much more reasonable 1,000 dollars per infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your pictures , your copyright .
And we 've already seen that they are responsible for massive damages for each infringement .
And unlike P2P it 's very easy to tell just how many times your copyrighted item has been distributed to others.Just imagine how much fun it 'll be to send a second letter to them , pointing out that the 300 dollars you originally charged as a settlement has now been changed to a much more reasonable 1,000 dollars per infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your pictures, your copyright.
And we've already seen that they are responsible for massive damages for each infringement.
And unlike P2P it's very easy to tell just how many times your copyrighted item has been distributed to others.Just imagine how much fun it'll be to send a second letter to them, pointing out that the 300 dollars you originally charged as a settlement has now been changed to a much more reasonable 1,000 dollars per infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371698</id>
	<title>Re:Will that ultimately include slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267808040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot summaries do not include much of the article (uaually) and the errors and mispellings will probably throw them off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot summaries do not include much of the article ( uaually ) and the errors and mispellings will probably throw them off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot summaries do not include much of the article (uaually) and the errors and mispellings will probably throw them off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374314</id>
	<title>Sooooo.....RIAA?</title>
	<author>kyuubiunl</author>
	<datestamp>1267820220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean the RIAA and MPAA are going to pay off the millions of dollars they owe artists in compilations and re-releases that they never authorized?  Because you're every bit as liable as the bloggers, champs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean the RIAA and MPAA are going to pay off the millions of dollars they owe artists in compilations and re-releases that they never authorized ?
Because you 're every bit as liable as the bloggers , champs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean the RIAA and MPAA are going to pay off the millions of dollars they owe artists in compilations and re-releases that they never authorized?
Because you're every bit as liable as the bloggers, champs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31379242</id>
	<title>Re: Offshore sites WILL be immune</title>
	<author>Compaqt</author>
	<datestamp>1267818540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this is that when the US wanted to ban offshore gambling sites, they did so not directly but through the backdoor by prohibiting credit card transactions to such offshore sites.</p><p>Whether it gets to that point or not is anybody's guess, but don't underestimate the US Government's penchant for trying to control anything and everything inside or outside its borders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is that when the US wanted to ban offshore gambling sites , they did so not directly but through the backdoor by prohibiting credit card transactions to such offshore sites.Whether it gets to that point or not is anybody 's guess , but do n't underestimate the US Government 's penchant for trying to control anything and everything inside or outside its borders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is that when the US wanted to ban offshore gambling sites, they did so not directly but through the backdoor by prohibiting credit card transactions to such offshore sites.Whether it gets to that point or not is anybody's guess, but don't underestimate the US Government's penchant for trying to control anything and everything inside or outside its borders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371218</id>
	<title>Re:i'm a little clueless here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267805760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Put another way, by convention, my neighbors don't use binoculars to peer into my house windows to see what I'm doing although there's currently not really anything stopping them from doing so.</p></div><p>Curtains?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put another way , by convention , my neighbors do n't use binoculars to peer into my house windows to see what I 'm doing although there 's currently not really anything stopping them from doing so.Curtains ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put another way, by convention, my neighbors don't use binoculars to peer into my house windows to see what I'm doing although there's currently not really anything stopping them from doing so.Curtains?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372346</id>
	<title>Re:Will that ultimately include slashdot?</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1267811040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Unless an article is very short, quoting 80\% of it is not fair use.</i></p><p>Well, that depends on the circumstances. The amount of the work used, and the substantiality of the portion of the work used is a factor in determing if the use is fair, but there isn't a hard number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless an article is very short , quoting 80 \ % of it is not fair use.Well , that depends on the circumstances .
The amount of the work used , and the substantiality of the portion of the work used is a factor in determing if the use is fair , but there is n't a hard number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless an article is very short, quoting 80\% of it is not fair use.Well, that depends on the circumstances.
The amount of the work used, and the substantiality of the portion of the work used is a factor in determing if the use is fair, but there isn't a hard number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994</id>
	<title>Please do so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And in the process take down all those inane blogs whose sole purpose is to scrape and repost articles so they get an advertising hit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And in the process take down all those inane blogs whose sole purpose is to scrape and repost articles so they get an advertising hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in the process take down all those inane blogs whose sole purpose is to scrape and repost articles so they get an advertising hit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372158</id>
	<title>I hope their algorithm can keep up</title>
	<author>aarenz</author>
	<datestamp>1267810080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that many sites that are using this type of content will find ways of hiding that fact by using non-display characters, breaking the article into multiple pages and the like to cover the fact that they are using the content.  Would love to see their system in action on some test sites to figure out how much you need to do to cover the content and make it not match the original.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that many sites that are using this type of content will find ways of hiding that fact by using non-display characters , breaking the article into multiple pages and the like to cover the fact that they are using the content .
Would love to see their system in action on some test sites to figure out how much you need to do to cover the content and make it not match the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that many sites that are using this type of content will find ways of hiding that fact by using non-display characters, breaking the article into multiple pages and the like to cover the fact that they are using the content.
Would love to see their system in action on some test sites to figure out how much you need to do to cover the content and make it not match the original.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372538</id>
	<title>Would...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267812060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and iframe qualify as copyright violation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and iframe qualify as copyright violation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and iframe qualify as copyright violation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370916</id>
	<title>FAILZORS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">hear yOu. AlsUo, if</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>hear yOu .
AlsUo , if [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hear yOu.
AlsUo, if [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371894</id>
	<title>Impeach while we still can.</title>
	<author>impeach</author>
	<datestamp>1267808880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copyright treaty and "Cybersecurity" ruses are massive police state measures which will fundamentally alter life as we know it.

We need as many minds as we can muster working out Articles of Impeachment just as fast as we can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright treaty and " Cybersecurity " ruses are massive police state measures which will fundamentally alter life as we know it .
We need as many minds as we can muster working out Articles of Impeachment just as fast as we can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright treaty and "Cybersecurity" ruses are massive police state measures which will fundamentally alter life as we know it.
We need as many minds as we can muster working out Articles of Impeachment just as fast as we can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371392</id>
	<title>Re:Will that ultimately include slashdot?</title>
	<author>MtHuurne</author>
	<datestamp>1267806600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless an article is very short, quoting 80\% of it is not fair use. So for now, I think they have every right to take steps against sites making money from their content without compensation.</p><p>Yes, I am cynical enough to expect the reasonable 80\% limit to be lowered over time until it reaches unreasonable levels. But let's hold the flames until they have actually crossed that line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless an article is very short , quoting 80 \ % of it is not fair use .
So for now , I think they have every right to take steps against sites making money from their content without compensation.Yes , I am cynical enough to expect the reasonable 80 \ % limit to be lowered over time until it reaches unreasonable levels .
But let 's hold the flames until they have actually crossed that line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless an article is very short, quoting 80\% of it is not fair use.
So for now, I think they have every right to take steps against sites making money from their content without compensation.Yes, I am cynical enough to expect the reasonable 80\% limit to be lowered over time until it reaches unreasonable levels.
But let's hold the flames until they have actually crossed that line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372668</id>
	<title>pirate my @ss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267812840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when did not toeing a corporate line with regard to intangibles turn otherwise upstanding citizens into criminals?</p><p>This BS began with the EULA, gained traction with the DMCA, and will be solidified with ACTA.</p><p>Stop the madness!  Vote the bums out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when did not toeing a corporate line with regard to intangibles turn otherwise upstanding citizens into criminals ? This BS began with the EULA , gained traction with the DMCA , and will be solidified with ACTA.Stop the madness !
Vote the bums out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when did not toeing a corporate line with regard to intangibles turn otherwise upstanding citizens into criminals?This BS began with the EULA, gained traction with the DMCA, and will be solidified with ACTA.Stop the madness!
Vote the bums out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950</id>
	<title>Offshore sites WILL be immune</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1267804560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all this harrassment is going to do will be to push the global small internet publishers to services in other countries. Datacenters, Ad services in u.s. will lose customers. There are already strong companies servicing in those areas in Eu. Eu will be happy to receive that amount of business.</p><p>the stupor of american corporatism is overwhelming. they can even go to the extent of shooting themselves in the foot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all this harrassment is going to do will be to push the global small internet publishers to services in other countries .
Datacenters , Ad services in u.s. will lose customers .
There are already strong companies servicing in those areas in Eu .
Eu will be happy to receive that amount of business.the stupor of american corporatism is overwhelming .
they can even go to the extent of shooting themselves in the foot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all this harrassment is going to do will be to push the global small internet publishers to services in other countries.
Datacenters, Ad services in u.s. will lose customers.
There are already strong companies servicing in those areas in Eu.
Eu will be happy to receive that amount of business.the stupor of american corporatism is overwhelming.
they can even go to the extent of shooting themselves in the foot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370882</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>Joe U</author>
	<datestamp>1267804200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are going to extend the DMCA to other countries, then let's extend computer trespassing laws to cover robots.txt violations.</p><p>I'm being somewhat serious (but not super-serious). If courts want to hold that a website TOS is binding, then isn't the robots.txt binding as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are going to extend the DMCA to other countries , then let 's extend computer trespassing laws to cover robots.txt violations.I 'm being somewhat serious ( but not super-serious ) .
If courts want to hold that a website TOS is binding , then is n't the robots.txt binding as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are going to extend the DMCA to other countries, then let's extend computer trespassing laws to cover robots.txt violations.I'm being somewhat serious (but not super-serious).
If courts want to hold that a website TOS is binding, then isn't the robots.txt binding as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740</id>
	<title>Robots.txt</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1267803540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure these guys have no compunction against ignoring robots.txt if it makes them money by doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure these guys have no compunction against ignoring robots.txt if it makes them money by doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure these guys have no compunction against ignoring robots.txt if it makes them money by doing so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371312</id>
	<title>Binoculars</title>
	<author>Mateo\_LeFou</author>
	<datestamp>1267806180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at  652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.</p><p><a href="http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm" title="rbs2.com">http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm</a> [rbs2.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prosser , in both his article and in the Restatement ( Second ) of Torts at 652A-652I , classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights :       1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another , for example , physical invasion of a person 's home ( e.g. , unwanted entry , looking into windows with binoculars or camera , tapping telephone ) , searching wallet or purse , repeated and persistent telephone calls , obtaining financial data ( e.g. , bank balance ) without person 's consent , etc.http : //www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm [ rbs2.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at  652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:
      1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm [rbs2.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371972</id>
	<title>Speaking as a publisher....</title>
	<author>Ponyegg</author>
	<datestamp>1267809240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me this is a natural culmination of larger traditional media outlets who are still on the whole managed and run by people who simply don't understand what the internet is, or how it works, nor how people engage with and use theis ifnormation. I'm increasingly surrounded by people who have little or no background in media or internet publishing (they call themselves professional managers) who are telling us how things will work in the future without so much as a weeks worth of shop-floor experience (I've worked for a large UK media owner for 11+ years).</p><p>Look at Murdoch's utter inability to understand what the web represents and his reactionary walled garden approach to media delivery and consumption. What you've got are senior managers all desperately trying to create mechanisms to restrict access to their content because they believe that scarcity will somehow shore-up revenues. What they've failed to understand is that the fundamental rules of engagement have changed. It's time they stood aside/down and let those people with the understanding and foresight to get on with building their company's future.</p><p>if publisher's want to build a future for themselves then listen up. Open up your content to developers, engage with your audience &amp; readership, partner with well selected commercial entities to extend your markets, limit the amount of advertising you provide but make that advertising relevant and engaging for you and your audience (because otherwise everyone will start using Adblock), offer unique content, know where your content is being consumed and what revenues you're generating on the back of it and crucially understand that as a publisher you are no-longer able to call the shots as you once did on how people access your content. Technological innovation is something they should be embracing in all it's scary, unfettered raw glory, not something to hide away from and build walls to defend against.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me this is a natural culmination of larger traditional media outlets who are still on the whole managed and run by people who simply do n't understand what the internet is , or how it works , nor how people engage with and use theis ifnormation .
I 'm increasingly surrounded by people who have little or no background in media or internet publishing ( they call themselves professional managers ) who are telling us how things will work in the future without so much as a weeks worth of shop-floor experience ( I 've worked for a large UK media owner for 11 + years ) .Look at Murdoch 's utter inability to understand what the web represents and his reactionary walled garden approach to media delivery and consumption .
What you 've got are senior managers all desperately trying to create mechanisms to restrict access to their content because they believe that scarcity will somehow shore-up revenues .
What they 've failed to understand is that the fundamental rules of engagement have changed .
It 's time they stood aside/down and let those people with the understanding and foresight to get on with building their company 's future.if publisher 's want to build a future for themselves then listen up .
Open up your content to developers , engage with your audience &amp; readership , partner with well selected commercial entities to extend your markets , limit the amount of advertising you provide but make that advertising relevant and engaging for you and your audience ( because otherwise everyone will start using Adblock ) , offer unique content , know where your content is being consumed and what revenues you 're generating on the back of it and crucially understand that as a publisher you are no-longer able to call the shots as you once did on how people access your content .
Technological innovation is something they should be embracing in all it 's scary , unfettered raw glory , not something to hide away from and build walls to defend against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me this is a natural culmination of larger traditional media outlets who are still on the whole managed and run by people who simply don't understand what the internet is, or how it works, nor how people engage with and use theis ifnormation.
I'm increasingly surrounded by people who have little or no background in media or internet publishing (they call themselves professional managers) who are telling us how things will work in the future without so much as a weeks worth of shop-floor experience (I've worked for a large UK media owner for 11+ years).Look at Murdoch's utter inability to understand what the web represents and his reactionary walled garden approach to media delivery and consumption.
What you've got are senior managers all desperately trying to create mechanisms to restrict access to their content because they believe that scarcity will somehow shore-up revenues.
What they've failed to understand is that the fundamental rules of engagement have changed.
It's time they stood aside/down and let those people with the understanding and foresight to get on with building their company's future.if publisher's want to build a future for themselves then listen up.
Open up your content to developers, engage with your audience &amp; readership, partner with well selected commercial entities to extend your markets, limit the amount of advertising you provide but make that advertising relevant and engaging for you and your audience (because otherwise everyone will start using Adblock), offer unique content, know where your content is being consumed and what revenues you're generating on the back of it and crucially understand that as a publisher you are no-longer able to call the shots as you once did on how people access your content.
Technological innovation is something they should be embracing in all it's scary, unfettered raw glory, not something to hide away from and build walls to defend against.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374774</id>
	<title>Re: Offshore sites WILL be immune</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1267822500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are you kidding? ACTA's going to harmonise everything so closely to the US that they'll be able to prosecute anyone.</i></p><p>Only among countries that both sign and implement it.</p><p>If there's big bucks to be made by providing a safe haven, some small and possibly impoverished country will likely do so - either explicitly or by giving lip service while doing little to enforce.</p><p>(Example:  Nigeria and the 419 con men.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
ACTA 's going to harmonise everything so closely to the US that they 'll be able to prosecute anyone.Only among countries that both sign and implement it.If there 's big bucks to be made by providing a safe haven , some small and possibly impoverished country will likely do so - either explicitly or by giving lip service while doing little to enforce .
( Example : Nigeria and the 419 con men .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
ACTA's going to harmonise everything so closely to the US that they'll be able to prosecute anyone.Only among countries that both sign and implement it.If there's big bucks to be made by providing a safe haven, some small and possibly impoverished country will likely do so - either explicitly or by giving lip service while doing little to enforce.
(Example:  Nigeria and the 419 con men.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372992</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>paazin</author>
	<datestamp>1267814340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>is there some written law that holds people to following robots.txt? if not, how is it even possible to call it a weakness?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Nope:</p><blockquote><div><p>There is no law stating that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/robots.txt must be obeyed, nor does it constitute a binding contract between site owner and user, but having a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/robots.txt <em>can</em> be relevant in legal cases. (from <a href="http://www.robotstxt.org/faq/legal.html" title="robotstxt.org">here</a> [robotstxt.org]</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is there some written law that holds people to following robots.txt ?
if not , how is it even possible to call it a weakness ?
Nope : There is no law stating that /robots.txt must be obeyed , nor does it constitute a binding contract between site owner and user , but having a /robots.txt can be relevant in legal cases .
( from here [ robotstxt.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is there some written law that holds people to following robots.txt?
if not, how is it even possible to call it a weakness?
Nope:There is no law stating that /robots.txt must be obeyed, nor does it constitute a binding contract between site owner and user, but having a /robots.txt can be relevant in legal cases.
(from here [robotstxt.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371022</id>
	<title>Expected revenue windfall...</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1267804800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are effective I have a feeling that the end results are not going to be what they were hoping for.  The more likely result is going to be less traffic to the originators websites.  Most news sites I know will cut and paste most of an article with links leading to the original source...but given the choice between linking back and paying most will just opt for ignoring it altogether.  Is this going to go the other way as well?  The big media companies regularly "steal" content from smaller sites, from user created video on youtube and viral videos to actual news, are those people going to get paid now?  News especially more localized information regularly shows up from smaller sites before they aggrigate to the major news sources where they are reworded and not credited at all.</p><p>Sometimes I really wish we could just go back to the early 90's when big media thought the internet was a joke, we didnt need them then and frankly I usually think we would be better off without them now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are effective I have a feeling that the end results are not going to be what they were hoping for .
The more likely result is going to be less traffic to the originators websites .
Most news sites I know will cut and paste most of an article with links leading to the original source...but given the choice between linking back and paying most will just opt for ignoring it altogether .
Is this going to go the other way as well ?
The big media companies regularly " steal " content from smaller sites , from user created video on youtube and viral videos to actual news , are those people going to get paid now ?
News especially more localized information regularly shows up from smaller sites before they aggrigate to the major news sources where they are reworded and not credited at all.Sometimes I really wish we could just go back to the early 90 's when big media thought the internet was a joke , we didnt need them then and frankly I usually think we would be better off without them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are effective I have a feeling that the end results are not going to be what they were hoping for.
The more likely result is going to be less traffic to the originators websites.
Most news sites I know will cut and paste most of an article with links leading to the original source...but given the choice between linking back and paying most will just opt for ignoring it altogether.
Is this going to go the other way as well?
The big media companies regularly "steal" content from smaller sites, from user created video on youtube and viral videos to actual news, are those people going to get paid now?
News especially more localized information regularly shows up from smaller sites before they aggrigate to the major news sources where they are reworded and not credited at all.Sometimes I really wish we could just go back to the early 90's when big media thought the internet was a joke, we didnt need them then and frankly I usually think we would be better off without them now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>notgm</author>
	<datestamp>1267803780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is there some written law that holds people to following robots.txt?  if not, how is it even possible to call it a weakness?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is there some written law that holds people to following robots.txt ?
if not , how is it even possible to call it a weakness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is there some written law that holds people to following robots.txt?
if not, how is it even possible to call it a weakness?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371388</id>
	<title>Re:i'm a little clueless here</title>
	<author>yourlord</author>
	<datestamp>1267806540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I welcome them to crawl my sites and ignore my robots.txt files. They won't get very far though. When my server detects that behavior it passes the IP to my firewall which adds it to the "drop these packets into a black hole" list.</p><p>I have quite a large table of IP addresses of idiots that violated robots.txt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I welcome them to crawl my sites and ignore my robots.txt files .
They wo n't get very far though .
When my server detects that behavior it passes the IP to my firewall which adds it to the " drop these packets into a black hole " list.I have quite a large table of IP addresses of idiots that violated robots.txt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I welcome them to crawl my sites and ignore my robots.txt files.
They won't get very far though.
When my server detects that behavior it passes the IP to my firewall which adds it to the "drop these packets into a black hole" list.I have quite a large table of IP addresses of idiots that violated robots.txt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372600</id>
	<title>Final 21\%</title>
	<author>thefear</author>
	<datestamp>1267812420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown, said Pitkow, because almost all of them depend on banner ads served by U.S.-based services. Because the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator, Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.</p><p>Attributor already has been engaged by several major book publishers to get unauthorized eBooks off unauthorized sites. "And we have 99\% success rate," he said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown , said Pitkow , because almost all of them depend on banner ads served by U.S.-based services .
Because the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator , Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.Attributor already has been engaged by several major book publishers to get unauthorized eBooks off unauthorized sites .
" And we have 99 \ % success rate , " he said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown, said Pitkow, because almost all of them depend on banner ads served by U.S.-based services.
Because the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator, Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.Attributor already has been engaged by several major book publishers to get unauthorized eBooks off unauthorized sites.
"And we have 99\% success rate," he said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370774</id>
	<title>DMCA..</title>
	<author>ltning</author>
	<datestamp>1267803720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What on earth is the DMCA supposed to achieve, in the context of Ad-providers?</p><p>Sounds pretty scary to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What on earth is the DMCA supposed to achieve , in the context of Ad-providers ? Sounds pretty scary to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What on earth is the DMCA supposed to achieve, in the context of Ad-providers?Sounds pretty scary to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371206</id>
	<title>Re:Will that ultimately include slashdot?</title>
	<author>c-reus</author>
	<datestamp>1267805700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <strong>Initially</strong> targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles</p></div></blockquote><p>(emphasis mine)</p><p>No, they will not stop there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Initially targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles ( emphasis mine ) No , they will not stop there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Initially targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles(emphasis mine)No, they will not stop there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374836</id>
	<title>Re:Please do so</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1267779600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm tired of sending invoices and dealing with companies who tell you that your photo wasn't worth the $300 you charge and instead send you $50 thinking that it will clear up the matter.</i></p><p>What fools.</p><p>By paying the $50 they've admitted they know they owe you SOMETHING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of sending invoices and dealing with companies who tell you that your photo was n't worth the $ 300 you charge and instead send you $ 50 thinking that it will clear up the matter.What fools.By paying the $ 50 they 've admitted they know they owe you SOMETHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of sending invoices and dealing with companies who tell you that your photo wasn't worth the $300 you charge and instead send you $50 thinking that it will clear up the matter.What fools.By paying the $50 they've admitted they know they owe you SOMETHING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372586</id>
	<title>Re: Offshore sites WILL be immune</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267812360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to ask.. what kind of small internet publisher do you think would be hurt, and why?</p><p>If the article is yours, then you can post 100\% of it and claim it as your own.  No one disputes this.  This coalition is not going after work they don't own, and if they do you have valid grounds to sue them 'till it hurts.</p><p>If the article belongs to someone else, and you as a publisher are routinely taking more than 80\% of someone else's articles and using them to generate your own revenue, you really need to reconsider your business model.</p><p>Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding what this new coalition is about to do, I see it as a reasoned and even somewhat generous response to a real problem.  We're not talking about Slashdot citations or RSS summaries, because those rarely contain the entire article.  We're talking about wholesale copying of entire articles off the sites that paid to have them written.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to ask.. what kind of small internet publisher do you think would be hurt , and why ? If the article is yours , then you can post 100 \ % of it and claim it as your own .
No one disputes this .
This coalition is not going after work they do n't own , and if they do you have valid grounds to sue them 'till it hurts.If the article belongs to someone else , and you as a publisher are routinely taking more than 80 \ % of someone else 's articles and using them to generate your own revenue , you really need to reconsider your business model.Unless I 'm fundamentally misunderstanding what this new coalition is about to do , I see it as a reasoned and even somewhat generous response to a real problem .
We 're not talking about Slashdot citations or RSS summaries , because those rarely contain the entire article .
We 're talking about wholesale copying of entire articles off the sites that paid to have them written .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to ask.. what kind of small internet publisher do you think would be hurt, and why?If the article is yours, then you can post 100\% of it and claim it as your own.
No one disputes this.
This coalition is not going after work they don't own, and if they do you have valid grounds to sue them 'till it hurts.If the article belongs to someone else, and you as a publisher are routinely taking more than 80\% of someone else's articles and using them to generate your own revenue, you really need to reconsider your business model.Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding what this new coalition is about to do, I see it as a reasoned and even somewhat generous response to a real problem.
We're not talking about Slashdot citations or RSS summaries, because those rarely contain the entire article.
We're talking about wholesale copying of entire articles off the sites that paid to have them written.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936</id>
	<title>Will that ultimately include slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of aggregator sites like this one base a lot of their topical content on articles printed elsewhere. While most (incl.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.) don't print whole articles intact, a lot of them do quote heavily (what used to be called "fair use," back when that phrase actually meant anything). So their first step is to go after the sites that reprint the articles whole-cloth. But will they stop there?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of aggregator sites like this one base a lot of their topical content on articles printed elsewhere .
While most ( incl .
/. ) do n't print whole articles intact , a lot of them do quote heavily ( what used to be called " fair use , " back when that phrase actually meant anything ) .
So their first step is to go after the sites that reprint the articles whole-cloth .
But will they stop there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of aggregator sites like this one base a lot of their topical content on articles printed elsewhere.
While most (incl.
/.) don't print whole articles intact, a lot of them do quote heavily (what used to be called "fair use," back when that phrase actually meant anything).
So their first step is to go after the sites that reprint the articles whole-cloth.
But will they stop there?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371508</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1267807140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's only if their web crawler even looks at robots.txt.  It's not required, only a courtesy.  I'm sure they'll <i>not</i> be so courteous and claim that they <i>need</i> to do this because the violators they're looking for would block them anyway.

</p><p>The sure fire way to keep them out would be to find out what is IP address Attributor is using and block that at your firewall. The trouble with that is they could easily change their IP address or even employ something akin to a botnet to do their web crawling so that their probes appear to be coming from a large number of different addresses on different networks. Try keeping up with <i>that</i> moving target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only if their web crawler even looks at robots.txt .
It 's not required , only a courtesy .
I 'm sure they 'll not be so courteous and claim that they need to do this because the violators they 're looking for would block them anyway .
The sure fire way to keep them out would be to find out what is IP address Attributor is using and block that at your firewall .
The trouble with that is they could easily change their IP address or even employ something akin to a botnet to do their web crawling so that their probes appear to be coming from a large number of different addresses on different networks .
Try keeping up with that moving target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's only if their web crawler even looks at robots.txt.
It's not required, only a courtesy.
I'm sure they'll not be so courteous and claim that they need to do this because the violators they're looking for would block them anyway.
The sure fire way to keep them out would be to find out what is IP address Attributor is using and block that at your firewall.
The trouble with that is they could easily change their IP address or even employ something akin to a botnet to do their web crawling so that their probes appear to be coming from a large number of different addresses on different networks.
Try keeping up with that moving target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030</id>
	<title>Re:i'm a little clueless here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots\_exclusion\_standard" title="wikipedia.org">Robots exclusion standard</a> [wikipedia.org].  Not that it will stop them; as others have pointed out, if they think they're "doing the right thing," I'm sure they will not be concerned about such a standard.</p><p>The worry here really isn't so much for the people who are hosting sites with infringing content.  I'm sure a moral argument could be made that Attributor is well within the right to disregard the wishes of those who are breaking copyright law.  However, I run several sites that have no infringing content whatsoever, sites with things that have content that, while not private, I don't particularly want spiders crawling.  I'm not so naive to think that they don't do it anyway; I have server logs proving that they do.  However, in this case, we have a company that is claiming to be legitimate completely ignoring my--someone who is not infringing--wishes and doing it.</p><p>Put another way, by convention, my neighbors don't use binoculars to peer into my house windows to see what I'm doing although there's currently not really anything stopping them from doing so.  Even though I don't particularly have anything to hide, if I find that they are violating our polite social contract, then I'll put up shades just because it's none of their damn business.</p><p>I don't think that the robots.txt convention will be the thing that stops Attributor.  I think that it will be that it won't take long for web site authors to figure out what user agents, IP address, etc. that Attributor is using and will block access from Attributor to their sites.  Like I said, I have no infringing content on my sites, but if Attributor is going to ignore me politely asking their robots not to scan my sites, then I'm fully in the right to take further steps to forcibly prevent them from doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Robots exclusion standard [ wikipedia.org ] .
Not that it will stop them ; as others have pointed out , if they think they 're " doing the right thing , " I 'm sure they will not be concerned about such a standard.The worry here really is n't so much for the people who are hosting sites with infringing content .
I 'm sure a moral argument could be made that Attributor is well within the right to disregard the wishes of those who are breaking copyright law .
However , I run several sites that have no infringing content whatsoever , sites with things that have content that , while not private , I do n't particularly want spiders crawling .
I 'm not so naive to think that they do n't do it anyway ; I have server logs proving that they do .
However , in this case , we have a company that is claiming to be legitimate completely ignoring my--someone who is not infringing--wishes and doing it.Put another way , by convention , my neighbors do n't use binoculars to peer into my house windows to see what I 'm doing although there 's currently not really anything stopping them from doing so .
Even though I do n't particularly have anything to hide , if I find that they are violating our polite social contract , then I 'll put up shades just because it 's none of their damn business.I do n't think that the robots.txt convention will be the thing that stops Attributor .
I think that it will be that it wo n't take long for web site authors to figure out what user agents , IP address , etc .
that Attributor is using and will block access from Attributor to their sites .
Like I said , I have no infringing content on my sites , but if Attributor is going to ignore me politely asking their robots not to scan my sites , then I 'm fully in the right to take further steps to forcibly prevent them from doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Robots exclusion standard [wikipedia.org].
Not that it will stop them; as others have pointed out, if they think they're "doing the right thing," I'm sure they will not be concerned about such a standard.The worry here really isn't so much for the people who are hosting sites with infringing content.
I'm sure a moral argument could be made that Attributor is well within the right to disregard the wishes of those who are breaking copyright law.
However, I run several sites that have no infringing content whatsoever, sites with things that have content that, while not private, I don't particularly want spiders crawling.
I'm not so naive to think that they don't do it anyway; I have server logs proving that they do.
However, in this case, we have a company that is claiming to be legitimate completely ignoring my--someone who is not infringing--wishes and doing it.Put another way, by convention, my neighbors don't use binoculars to peer into my house windows to see what I'm doing although there's currently not really anything stopping them from doing so.
Even though I don't particularly have anything to hide, if I find that they are violating our polite social contract, then I'll put up shades just because it's none of their damn business.I don't think that the robots.txt convention will be the thing that stops Attributor.
I think that it will be that it won't take long for web site authors to figure out what user agents, IP address, etc.
that Attributor is using and will block access from Attributor to their sites.
Like I said, I have no infringing content on my sites, but if Attributor is going to ignore me politely asking their robots not to scan my sites, then I'm fully in the right to take further steps to forcibly prevent them from doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372978</id>
	<title>GoodLuckWithThat</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267814280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will they be writing angry letters to Google too? You know... those that index all their content, so it can be found in the first place?</p><p>Let them kill themselves with their delusional business model. The space and jobs will quickly be filled with something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will they be writing angry letters to Google too ?
You know... those that index all their content , so it can be found in the first place ? Let them kill themselves with their delusional business model .
The space and jobs will quickly be filled with something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will they be writing angry letters to Google too?
You know... those that index all their content, so it can be found in the first place?Let them kill themselves with their delusional business model.
The space and jobs will quickly be filled with something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371438</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1267806840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>don't worry. They're going to break a lot of laws, break a lot of legs, and basically commit suicide. At least when it's through we'll have less dinosaur industries to deal with.</p><p>They're literally planning to go to domain providers and threaten DMCA to get content taken down. Instead of, you know, DMCA'ing the website appropriately this is an end run around the legal process. Expect a quick smackdown. Why they would host such a company in California of all places to do this, where cali is the most clear about how 3rd parties are not liable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't worry .
They 're going to break a lot of laws , break a lot of legs , and basically commit suicide .
At least when it 's through we 'll have less dinosaur industries to deal with.They 're literally planning to go to domain providers and threaten DMCA to get content taken down .
Instead of , you know , DMCA'ing the website appropriately this is an end run around the legal process .
Expect a quick smackdown .
Why they would host such a company in California of all places to do this , where cali is the most clear about how 3rd parties are not liable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't worry.
They're going to break a lot of laws, break a lot of legs, and basically commit suicide.
At least when it's through we'll have less dinosaur industries to deal with.They're literally planning to go to domain providers and threaten DMCA to get content taken down.
Instead of, you know, DMCA'ing the website appropriately this is an end run around the legal process.
Expect a quick smackdown.
Why they would host such a company in California of all places to do this, where cali is the most clear about how 3rd parties are not liable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371110</id>
	<title>so instead- google or other cache</title>
	<author>way2trivial</author>
	<datestamp>1267805220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>easy enough to search google cache and bypass the robots.txt problem....<br>heck..  they SHOULD proclaim the spider name--  drum up a lot of informaiton</p><p>and focus on sites that mention it in robots.txt to check from other sources</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>easy enough to search google cache and bypass the robots.txt problem....heck.. they SHOULD proclaim the spider name-- drum up a lot of informaitonand focus on sites that mention it in robots.txt to check from other sources</tokentext>
<sentencetext>easy enough to search google cache and bypass the robots.txt problem....heck..  they SHOULD proclaim the spider name--  drum up a lot of informaitonand focus on sites that mention it in robots.txt to check from other sources</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372790</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1267813320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most likely the sites in question aren't blocking via robots.txt anyhow, since they are relying on search engines for inbound traffic.  Also, copying an entire article without proper linking and attribution is a far cry from fair use.  It's not the same as having a few large quotes from another source, with citation and links back to said source article.  I suspect for now the first targets will be the whole copy sites... I hate when I find tech articles from people's blogs re-posted on other sites, usually without even a cursory link back to the author's site.  Many people won't realize they aren't on the author's site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most likely the sites in question are n't blocking via robots.txt anyhow , since they are relying on search engines for inbound traffic .
Also , copying an entire article without proper linking and attribution is a far cry from fair use .
It 's not the same as having a few large quotes from another source , with citation and links back to said source article .
I suspect for now the first targets will be the whole copy sites... I hate when I find tech articles from people 's blogs re-posted on other sites , usually without even a cursory link back to the author 's site .
Many people wo n't realize they are n't on the author 's site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most likely the sites in question aren't blocking via robots.txt anyhow, since they are relying on search engines for inbound traffic.
Also, copying an entire article without proper linking and attribution is a far cry from fair use.
It's not the same as having a few large quotes from another source, with citation and links back to said source article.
I suspect for now the first targets will be the whole copy sites... I hate when I find tech articles from people's blogs re-posted on other sites, usually without even a cursory link back to the author's site.
Many people won't realize they aren't on the author's site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371684</id>
	<title>well</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1267807920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i dont think that france, germany, spain, scandinavian countries and rest of the eu will just sit and accept u.s. as dominator of the world information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i dont think that france , germany , spain , scandinavian countries and rest of the eu will just sit and accept u.s. as dominator of the world information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i dont think that france, germany, spain, scandinavian countries and rest of the eu will just sit and accept u.s. as dominator of the world information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31376498</id>
	<title>Re:i'm a little clueless here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267788960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>does anybody know how easy and cheap it would be (using <i>legitimate methods</i> not botnet style stuff) for such a commercial entity to obtain a reasonably large number of, ideally "residential looking", IPs that change fairly often? Do you just call verizon and say "I want 500 residential DSL lines brought out to so-and-so location"?</p> </div><p>It's pretty easy, and cheaper than renting them one at a time.  If you have the right relationship with the right provider, you can even get RDNS handles distributed across their service coverage area, even though they're all really going to one location.  Of course, most ISPs will only do this for a very reputable company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>does anybody know how easy and cheap it would be ( using legitimate methods not botnet style stuff ) for such a commercial entity to obtain a reasonably large number of , ideally " residential looking " , IPs that change fairly often ?
Do you just call verizon and say " I want 500 residential DSL lines brought out to so-and-so location " ?
It 's pretty easy , and cheaper than renting them one at a time .
If you have the right relationship with the right provider , you can even get RDNS handles distributed across their service coverage area , even though they 're all really going to one location .
Of course , most ISPs will only do this for a very reputable company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does anybody know how easy and cheap it would be (using legitimate methods not botnet style stuff) for such a commercial entity to obtain a reasonably large number of, ideally "residential looking", IPs that change fairly often?
Do you just call verizon and say "I want 500 residential DSL lines brought out to so-and-so location"?
It's pretty easy, and cheaper than renting them one at a time.
If you have the right relationship with the right provider, you can even get RDNS handles distributed across their service coverage area, even though they're all really going to one location.
Of course, most ISPs will only do this for a very reputable company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371782</id>
	<title>Re:Please do not do so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267808340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please do not do so.</p><p>Some of those blogs are very nice to use. They provide the copied content in a nice single html page layout.</p><p>Unfortunately most of the official sites insist on using flash or javascript crap to force the content in a dozen separate pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do not do so.Some of those blogs are very nice to use .
They provide the copied content in a nice single html page layout.Unfortunately most of the official sites insist on using flash or javascript crap to force the content in a dozen separate pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please do not do so.Some of those blogs are very nice to use.
They provide the copied content in a nice single html page layout.Unfortunately most of the official sites insist on using flash or javascript crap to force the content in a dozen separate pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374286</id>
	<title>Re:i'm a little clueless here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267820100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they need is a botnet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they need is a botnet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they need is a botnet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371562</id>
	<title>Re:Will that ultimately include slashdot?</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1267807380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when did Slashdot ever use 80\% of an article verbatim?</p><p>Sorry, no, any website doing *that* should be shut down.  I hate those assholes.  They're the reason why a search for a given term in Google pops up thousands of sites with the *exact same content*, just ripped from one another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when did Slashdot ever use 80 \ % of an article verbatim ? Sorry , no , any website doing * that * should be shut down .
I hate those assholes .
They 're the reason why a search for a given term in Google pops up thousands of sites with the * exact same content * , just ripped from one another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when did Slashdot ever use 80\% of an article verbatim?Sorry, no, any website doing *that* should be shut down.
I hate those assholes.
They're the reason why a search for a given term in Google pops up thousands of sites with the *exact same content*, just ripped from one another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371376</id>
	<title>Re:Robots.txt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267806480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if they use a robot, you can just identify it and feed it shit.</p><p>It wont be long before people know the details of their crawlers and can just serve them something random.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if they use a robot , you can just identify it and feed it shit.It wont be long before people know the details of their crawlers and can just serve them something random .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if they use a robot, you can just identify it and feed it shit.It wont be long before people know the details of their crawlers and can just serve them something random.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31375146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31376498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31378786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31373844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31379242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31373970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_140254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371232
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31376498
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31378786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371780
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371680
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31373844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31379242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31375146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31374836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31373970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31370936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31372346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_140254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_140254.31371014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
