<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_18_2059236</id>
	<title>Google Slams Viacom For Secret YouTube Uploads</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268903460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Reuters: <i>"Google, Inc. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62H4AC20100318?type=technologyNews">accused Viacom, Inc. of secretly uploading its videos to YouTube</a> even as the media conglomerate publicly denounced the online video site for copyright infringement, according to court documents made public on Thursday."</i>
As "statements from the corporate counsel's office" go, this post on the YouTube blog is <a href="http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html">pretty hot reading</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Reuters : " Google , Inc. accused Viacom , Inc. of secretly uploading its videos to YouTube even as the media conglomerate publicly denounced the online video site for copyright infringement , according to court documents made public on Thursday .
" As " statements from the corporate counsel 's office " go , this post on the YouTube blog is pretty hot reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Reuters: "Google, Inc. accused Viacom, Inc. of secretly uploading its videos to YouTube even as the media conglomerate publicly denounced the online video site for copyright infringement, according to court documents made public on Thursday.
"
As "statements from the corporate counsel's office" go, this post on the YouTube blog is pretty hot reading.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531332</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>KillShill</author>
	<datestamp>1268919540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already have a name for it...</p><p>It's called a False Flag. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_flag" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_flag</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already have a name for it...It 's called a False Flag .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False \ _flag [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already have a name for it...It's called a False Flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_flag [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530260</id>
	<title>Re:Three cheers for good writing</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1268912820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Off Topic, but whatever.  If a mod wants to waste his points on this post, go right ahead.  I maxed out on karma a decade ago.</p><p>English 101 doesn't teach you how to write.</p><p>I have never ever had an English class where I was taught how to write.  It was always by the seat of my pants.  All writing in high school was geared at writing the "term paper" resulting in my complete inability to write anything but the most boring, stultifying, coma-inducing <i>drek</i> on the planet.  Indeed, we were taught something called the "term paper method."  The only thing this taught me is that I could never have an original opinion unless I could cite someone else saying it, parrot it, and leave a listing in the bibliography.</p><p>This left me literate but crippled.</p><p>None of it was geared to how I could express myself.  I had to be out of school for 5 years for that to happen; writing every day in the Marquis De Sade school of writing known as BBS networks (Fight-O-Net) hanging out in the debate oriented message bases. I can also credit the local BBSes that had things like "The Never Ending Story."</p><p>When I did eventually go back to school, I took College Writing and found all I had to do was defenstrate some bad habits to get an A on a paper.  Thanks Fidonet!</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Off Topic , but whatever .
If a mod wants to waste his points on this post , go right ahead .
I maxed out on karma a decade ago.English 101 does n't teach you how to write.I have never ever had an English class where I was taught how to write .
It was always by the seat of my pants .
All writing in high school was geared at writing the " term paper " resulting in my complete inability to write anything but the most boring , stultifying , coma-inducing drek on the planet .
Indeed , we were taught something called the " term paper method .
" The only thing this taught me is that I could never have an original opinion unless I could cite someone else saying it , parrot it , and leave a listing in the bibliography.This left me literate but crippled.None of it was geared to how I could express myself .
I had to be out of school for 5 years for that to happen ; writing every day in the Marquis De Sade school of writing known as BBS networks ( Fight-O-Net ) hanging out in the debate oriented message bases .
I can also credit the local BBSes that had things like " The Never Ending Story .
" When I did eventually go back to school , I took College Writing and found all I had to do was defenstrate some bad habits to get an A on a paper .
Thanks Fidonet ! --BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off Topic, but whatever.
If a mod wants to waste his points on this post, go right ahead.
I maxed out on karma a decade ago.English 101 doesn't teach you how to write.I have never ever had an English class where I was taught how to write.
It was always by the seat of my pants.
All writing in high school was geared at writing the "term paper" resulting in my complete inability to write anything but the most boring, stultifying, coma-inducing drek on the planet.
Indeed, we were taught something called the "term paper method.
"  The only thing this taught me is that I could never have an original opinion unless I could cite someone else saying it, parrot it, and leave a listing in the bibliography.This left me literate but crippled.None of it was geared to how I could express myself.
I had to be out of school for 5 years for that to happen; writing every day in the Marquis De Sade school of writing known as BBS networks (Fight-O-Net) hanging out in the debate oriented message bases.
I can also credit the local BBSes that had things like "The Never Ending Story.
"When I did eventually go back to school, I took College Writing and found all I had to do was defenstrate some bad habits to get an A on a paper.
Thanks Fidonet!--BMO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530060</id>
	<title>Re:Can they have it both ways?</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1268911740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see any contradiction.  They've had years to research Viacom's complaints.  As they investigate individual incidents, and find funny business related to some of those individual incidents, they compile them and form the basis for this filing.  That's a far cry from being able to produce similar details comprehensively about every upload in real time.</p><p>We don't know how long it took to document any given incident.  We don't know what expense was involved.  We don't know what lucky breaks they needed; it could well be that for every incident they have documented, another - or 10 more, or 100 more, etc. - might exist where they couldn't get any evidence of what really happeend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any contradiction .
They 've had years to research Viacom 's complaints .
As they investigate individual incidents , and find funny business related to some of those individual incidents , they compile them and form the basis for this filing .
That 's a far cry from being able to produce similar details comprehensively about every upload in real time.We do n't know how long it took to document any given incident .
We do n't know what expense was involved .
We do n't know what lucky breaks they needed ; it could well be that for every incident they have documented , another - or 10 more , or 100 more , etc .
- might exist where they could n't get any evidence of what really happeend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any contradiction.
They've had years to research Viacom's complaints.
As they investigate individual incidents, and find funny business related to some of those individual incidents, they compile them and form the basis for this filing.
That's a far cry from being able to produce similar details comprehensively about every upload in real time.We don't know how long it took to document any given incident.
We don't know what expense was involved.
We don't know what lucky breaks they needed; it could well be that for every incident they have documented, another - or 10 more, or 100 more, etc.
- might exist where they couldn't get any evidence of what really happeend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530538</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>multisync</author>
	<datestamp>1268914500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I propose from now on that such an action should be known as Viacomming</p></div></blockquote><p>I wonder what Rick <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum\_(sexual\_neologism)" title="wikipedia.org">Santorum</a> [wikipedia.org] would think of that idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I propose from now on that such an action should be known as ViacommingI wonder what Rick Santorum [ wikipedia.org ] would think of that idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I propose from now on that such an action should be known as ViacommingI wonder what Rick Santorum [wikipedia.org] would think of that idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531122</id>
	<title>The very definition of unclean hands</title>
	<author>imp</author>
	<datestamp>1268918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If these allegations are true, it is the very definition of unclean hands...</p><p>And people wonder why we need net neutrality.  This should shine a bright light into why it is so needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If these allegations are true , it is the very definition of unclean hands...And people wonder why we need net neutrality .
This should shine a bright light into why it is so needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these allegations are true, it is the very definition of unclean hands...And people wonder why we need net neutrality.
This should shine a bright light into why it is so needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531402</id>
	<title>Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1268920140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> As for The Daily Show and Colbert Report, I'm not sure why people would go to YouTube to watch them anyway, since you can already watch them for free on the shows' web sites</p></div><p>For given values of 'you' where 'you' is a person with a US IP address.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for The Daily Show and Colbert Report , I 'm not sure why people would go to YouTube to watch them anyway , since you can already watch them for free on the shows ' web sitesFor given values of 'you ' where 'you ' is a person with a US IP address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As for The Daily Show and Colbert Report, I'm not sure why people would go to YouTube to watch them anyway, since you can already watch them for free on the shows' web sitesFor given values of 'you' where 'you' is a person with a US IP address.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532688</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1268931060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Knowladge is power</p></div><p>Weird. I thought that Knowladge was Powar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowladge is powerWeird .
I thought that Knowladge was Powar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowladge is powerWeird.
I thought that Knowladge was Powar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530092</id>
	<title>Re:Oooh I've got an idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268911860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You jest, but it's a credible theory that Viacom was in fact trying to frame YouTube for the hosting of actual pirated materials, with the eventual goal of shutting them down entirely, thereby (in Viacom's mind) removing a threat to their business model. (YouTube's post doesn't go beyond suggesting that Viacom was merely astroturfing for the free advertisement.)</p><p>As long as it's possible that Viacom was acting with malice towards YouTube, rather than with dishonest greed for publicity, this will obliterate their credibility in any future infringement lawsuits. Viacom has a motive to fabricate a copyright beef and they have now demonstrated the means and inclination; any claim they make about a future infringement on YouTube is automatically suspicious. IANAL, but it would be nice if, any time Viacom makes a legal claim against a YouTube video, the burden were on them to prove that they did not post it themselves before they can claim to have standing to sue. Is this too much fairness to hope from copyright law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You jest , but it 's a credible theory that Viacom was in fact trying to frame YouTube for the hosting of actual pirated materials , with the eventual goal of shutting them down entirely , thereby ( in Viacom 's mind ) removing a threat to their business model .
( YouTube 's post does n't go beyond suggesting that Viacom was merely astroturfing for the free advertisement .
) As long as it 's possible that Viacom was acting with malice towards YouTube , rather than with dishonest greed for publicity , this will obliterate their credibility in any future infringement lawsuits .
Viacom has a motive to fabricate a copyright beef and they have now demonstrated the means and inclination ; any claim they make about a future infringement on YouTube is automatically suspicious .
IANAL , but it would be nice if , any time Viacom makes a legal claim against a YouTube video , the burden were on them to prove that they did not post it themselves before they can claim to have standing to sue .
Is this too much fairness to hope from copyright law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You jest, but it's a credible theory that Viacom was in fact trying to frame YouTube for the hosting of actual pirated materials, with the eventual goal of shutting them down entirely, thereby (in Viacom's mind) removing a threat to their business model.
(YouTube's post doesn't go beyond suggesting that Viacom was merely astroturfing for the free advertisement.
)As long as it's possible that Viacom was acting with malice towards YouTube, rather than with dishonest greed for publicity, this will obliterate their credibility in any future infringement lawsuits.
Viacom has a motive to fabricate a copyright beef and they have now demonstrated the means and inclination; any claim they make about a future infringement on YouTube is automatically suspicious.
IANAL, but it would be nice if, any time Viacom makes a legal claim against a YouTube video, the burden were on them to prove that they did not post it themselves before they can claim to have standing to sue.
Is this too much fairness to hope from copyright law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530542</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1268914560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Viacomming, drawn from a new verb. To Viacom.</i></p><p>Perhaps 'to Google' will be redefined to mean 'get your ass handed to you by a company who has mountains of money, logs everything, never throws away data, and has a team of Ph.D's to counter your illegal prosecution'.  If not for permanent corporate charters, somebody at Viacomm would be going to jail.</p><p>On the other hand, I was told last week to 'google for the restaurant on your Tom-Tom'.  I had a full 10 seconds of 'WTF?' before I realized it now means 'to search for something on an electronic gizmo' to some.  I had just begun to understand the 'use any Internet search engine' colloquialism and now this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Viacomming , drawn from a new verb .
To Viacom.Perhaps 'to Google ' will be redefined to mean 'get your ass handed to you by a company who has mountains of money , logs everything , never throws away data , and has a team of Ph.D 's to counter your illegal prosecution' .
If not for permanent corporate charters , somebody at Viacomm would be going to jail.On the other hand , I was told last week to 'google for the restaurant on your Tom-Tom' .
I had a full 10 seconds of 'WTF ?
' before I realized it now means 'to search for something on an electronic gizmo ' to some .
I had just begun to understand the 'use any Internet search engine ' colloquialism and now this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viacomming, drawn from a new verb.
To Viacom.Perhaps 'to Google' will be redefined to mean 'get your ass handed to you by a company who has mountains of money, logs everything, never throws away data, and has a team of Ph.D's to counter your illegal prosecution'.
If not for permanent corporate charters, somebody at Viacomm would be going to jail.On the other hand, I was told last week to 'google for the restaurant on your Tom-Tom'.
I had a full 10 seconds of 'WTF?
' before I realized it now means 'to search for something on an electronic gizmo' to some.
I had just begun to understand the 'use any Internet search engine' colloquialism and now this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531318</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268919480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more like spilling water on the floor at Wal-Mart and then purposely slipping on it and faking an injury. Those people get prosecuted, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more like spilling water on the floor at Wal-Mart and then purposely slipping on it and faking an injury .
Those people get prosecuted , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more like spilling water on the floor at Wal-Mart and then purposely slipping on it and faking an injury.
Those people get prosecuted, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529234</id>
	<title>prove it with documentation, and DMCA can be gutte</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>which is a big step forward towards doing what the megacopyright holders want... getting after the thugs who are stealing their content.</p><p>not the figurative street signs, phone booths, and waste cans that are getting in the way and getting whaled on by the megacopyright holders.  for the YouTubes of the world are the equivalent of the graffito-ed walls, and the content theives are the real lawbreakers here.</p><p>suing the walls (server holders) is not an answer.  it's a public tantrum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which is a big step forward towards doing what the megacopyright holders want... getting after the thugs who are stealing their content.not the figurative street signs , phone booths , and waste cans that are getting in the way and getting whaled on by the megacopyright holders .
for the YouTubes of the world are the equivalent of the graffito-ed walls , and the content theives are the real lawbreakers here.suing the walls ( server holders ) is not an answer .
it 's a public tantrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which is a big step forward towards doing what the megacopyright holders want... getting after the thugs who are stealing their content.not the figurative street signs, phone booths, and waste cans that are getting in the way and getting whaled on by the megacopyright holders.
for the YouTubes of the world are the equivalent of the graffito-ed walls, and the content theives are the real lawbreakers here.suing the walls (server holders) is not an answer.
it's a public tantrum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529014</id>
	<title>Busted</title>
	<author>longacre</author>
	<datestamp>1268907300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always suspected lonelygirl15 was actually Andy Rooney. This seems to confirm it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always suspected lonelygirl15 was actually Andy Rooney .
This seems to confirm it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always suspected lonelygirl15 was actually Andy Rooney.
This seems to confirm it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534528</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269001320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr Murdock is with Universal, not Viacom...</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_A-Team</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Murdock is with Universal , not Viacom...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _A-Team</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Murdock is with Universal, not Viacom...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_A-Team</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529284</id>
	<title>Two words for Viacom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Unclean Hands"</p><p>Actually those are the words Google's going to be using in front of a judge.  Shit, they could have a pretty strong counterclaim.  If what Google's saying is true, Viacom absolutely screwed the pooch on this.</p><p>Captcha: "owners".  More like pwners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unclean Hands " Actually those are the words Google 's going to be using in front of a judge .
Shit , they could have a pretty strong counterclaim .
If what Google 's saying is true , Viacom absolutely screwed the pooch on this.Captcha : " owners " .
More like pwners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unclean Hands"Actually those are the words Google's going to be using in front of a judge.
Shit, they could have a pretty strong counterclaim.
If what Google's saying is true, Viacom absolutely screwed the pooch on this.Captcha: "owners".
More like pwners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529640</id>
	<title>Re:call me naive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.</i> </p><p>You know what your industry needs? A good PR person to spin your image for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession .
You know what your industry needs ?
A good PR person to spin your image for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.
You know what your industry needs?
A good PR person to spin your image for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529454</id>
	<title>Re:Can they have it both ways?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am going to bet they found the evidence in emails/records during discovery or they have an inside source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to bet they found the evidence in emails/records during discovery or they have an inside source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to bet they found the evidence in emails/records during discovery or they have an inside source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529758</id>
	<title>Re:call me naive</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1268910360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but it is difficult to believe a corporate legal counsel would post something like that if he could not prove it six ways to Sunday. Indeed, while I am not a lawyer, I would think that Google has grounds to counter sue.

As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.</p></div><p>Don't worry.  In all likelihood, Viacom's PR staff will find a way to spin this and make them look like the good guys, whether they deserve that image or not, whether extremely one-sided presentation of facts, selective omission of facts, and heavy usage of weasel words is required or not.  Then you can once again be proud of your profession.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but it is difficult to believe a corporate legal counsel would post something like that if he could not prove it six ways to Sunday .
Indeed , while I am not a lawyer , I would think that Google has grounds to counter sue .
As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.Do n't worry .
In all likelihood , Viacom 's PR staff will find a way to spin this and make them look like the good guys , whether they deserve that image or not , whether extremely one-sided presentation of facts , selective omission of facts , and heavy usage of weasel words is required or not .
Then you can once again be proud of your profession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it is difficult to believe a corporate legal counsel would post something like that if he could not prove it six ways to Sunday.
Indeed, while I am not a lawyer, I would think that Google has grounds to counter sue.
As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.Don't worry.
In all likelihood, Viacom's PR staff will find a way to spin this and make them look like the good guys, whether they deserve that image or not, whether extremely one-sided presentation of facts, selective omission of facts, and heavy usage of weasel words is required or not.
Then you can once again be proud of your profession.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530922</id>
	<title>Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268916840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that most of the people at Comedy Central understand this whole Internet thing better than most of the executives in the other divisions of Viacom. As for The Daily Show and Colbert Report, I'm not sure why people would go to YouTube to watch them anyway, since you can already watch them for free on the shows' web sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that most of the people at Comedy Central understand this whole Internet thing better than most of the executives in the other divisions of Viacom .
As for The Daily Show and Colbert Report , I 'm not sure why people would go to YouTube to watch them anyway , since you can already watch them for free on the shows ' web sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that most of the people at Comedy Central understand this whole Internet thing better than most of the executives in the other divisions of Viacom.
As for The Daily Show and Colbert Report, I'm not sure why people would go to YouTube to watch them anyway, since you can already watch them for free on the shows' web sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530726</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1268915580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't that would be Murdoching?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't that would be Murdoching ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't that would be Murdoching?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529110</id>
	<title>Oblig quote</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1268907600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
<br>Croupier: "Your winnings, sir.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Captain Renault : " I 'm shocked , shocked to find that gambling is going on in here !
" Croupier : " Your winnings , sir .
. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
"
Croupier: "Your winnings, sir.
."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533000</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1268934480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ever heard about News Corp or Mr. Murdock?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Wasn't Murdock MacGyver's arch nemesis. Unless you mean Murdoch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard about News Corp or Mr. Murdock ? Was n't Murdock MacGyver 's arch nemesis .
Unless you mean Murdoch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard about News Corp or Mr. Murdock?

Wasn't Murdock MacGyver's arch nemesis.
Unless you mean Murdoch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529304</id>
	<title>Re:Smells like bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the very least they'll have copies of the requests from Viacom to restore the videos that Viacom demanded be taken down, and most likely Google required that those requests state exactly why Viacom has the authority to make that video available. They also probably traced the IP addresses, odds on more than a few times somebody slipped up and uploaded videos from an IP traceable to a machine belonging to Viacom or one of it's marketing companies. The marketers have no dog in this fight, if Google's gone to them with apparent proof that they've been uploading Viacom's videos the marketers won't have any qualms about pulling out their authorization from Viacom to cover themselves.</p><p>Google hires some pretty good lawyers. I doubt they'd be making such a strong statement in a legal action if they didn't already have what they needed to back it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the very least they 'll have copies of the requests from Viacom to restore the videos that Viacom demanded be taken down , and most likely Google required that those requests state exactly why Viacom has the authority to make that video available .
They also probably traced the IP addresses , odds on more than a few times somebody slipped up and uploaded videos from an IP traceable to a machine belonging to Viacom or one of it 's marketing companies .
The marketers have no dog in this fight , if Google 's gone to them with apparent proof that they 've been uploading Viacom 's videos the marketers wo n't have any qualms about pulling out their authorization from Viacom to cover themselves.Google hires some pretty good lawyers .
I doubt they 'd be making such a strong statement in a legal action if they did n't already have what they needed to back it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the very least they'll have copies of the requests from Viacom to restore the videos that Viacom demanded be taken down, and most likely Google required that those requests state exactly why Viacom has the authority to make that video available.
They also probably traced the IP addresses, odds on more than a few times somebody slipped up and uploaded videos from an IP traceable to a machine belonging to Viacom or one of it's marketing companies.
The marketers have no dog in this fight, if Google's gone to them with apparent proof that they've been uploading Viacom's videos the marketers won't have any qualms about pulling out their authorization from Viacom to cover themselves.Google hires some pretty good lawyers.
I doubt they'd be making such a strong statement in a legal action if they didn't already have what they needed to back it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530156</id>
	<title>Re:Three cheers for good writing</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1268912220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The primary factor in the clarity of this story is most likely that it's all true.</p><p>Things get weird when people are trying to bend light around the facts to hide them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary factor in the clarity of this story is most likely that it 's all true.Things get weird when people are trying to bend light around the facts to hide them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary factor in the clarity of this story is most likely that it's all true.Things get weird when people are trying to bend light around the facts to hide them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531342</id>
	<title>Re:call me naive</title>
	<author>KillShill</author>
	<datestamp>1268919660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a little too late for that.</p><p>PR people are the lawyers of the 21st century (20th if you're keeping count).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a little too late for that.PR people are the lawyers of the 21st century ( 20th if you 're keeping count ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a little too late for that.PR people are the lawyers of the 21st century (20th if you're keeping count).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528998</id>
	<title>I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268907300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>isnt one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>isnt one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isnt one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529498</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1268909160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, but Sony's been doing it for years!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , but Sony 's been doing it for years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, but Sony's been doing it for years!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529598</id>
	<title>Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1268909520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.</p></div><p>Words...they fails me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For years , Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube , even while publicly complaining about its presence there .
It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site .
It deliberately " roughed up " the videos to make them look stolen or leaked .
It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses .
It even sent employees to Kinko 's to upload clips from computers that could n't be traced to Viacom .
And in an effort to promote its own shows , as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users .
Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt " very strongly " that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.Words...they fails me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there.
It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site.
It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked.
It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses.
It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom.
And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users.
Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.Words...they fails me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534138</id>
	<title>Re:If Viacom wins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268996040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd never not sell you a double negative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd never not sell you a double negative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd never not sell you a double negative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534278</id>
	<title>*Hilarious*</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1268998320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man.. stuff like this that can be paid by money.</p><p>I am citing the youtube blog here:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to<br>YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It<br>hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its<br>content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make<br>them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony<br>email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips<br>from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to<br>promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely<br>left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary<br>users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and<br>the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows<br>like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.</p><p>Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so<br>well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it<br>was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless<br>occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to<br>YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their<br>reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us<br>over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.</p><p>Given Viacom's own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have<br>known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the<br>site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out.<br>The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube -- and every<br>Web platform -- to investigate and police all content users upload,<br>and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get it<br>wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man.. stuff like this that can be paid by money.I am citing the youtube blog here : &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; For years , Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content toYouTube , even while publicly complaining about its presence there .
Ithired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload itscontent to the site .
It deliberately " roughed up " the videos to makethem look stolen or leaked .
It opened YouTube accounts using phonyemail addresses .
It even sent employees to Kinko 's to upload clipsfrom computers that could n't be traced to Viacom .
And in an effort topromote its own shows , as a matter of company policy Viacom routinelyleft up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinaryusers .
Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central andthe head of MTV Networks felt " very strongly " that clips from showslike The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.Viacom 's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked sowell that even its own employees could not keep track of everything itwas posting or leaving up on the site .
As a result , on countlessoccasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded toYouTube , only to return later to sheepishly ask for theirreinstatement .
In fact , some of the very clips that Viacom is suing usover were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.Given Viacom 's own actions , there is no way YouTube could ever haveknown which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on thesite .
But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out.The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube -- and everyWeb platform -- to investigate and police all content users upload,and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get itwrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man.. stuff like this that can be paid by money.I am citing the youtube blog here:&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content toYouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there.
Ithired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload itscontent to the site.
It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to makethem look stolen or leaked.
It opened YouTube accounts using phonyemail addresses.
It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clipsfrom computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom.
And in an effort topromote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinelyleft up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinaryusers.
Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central andthe head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from showslike The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked sowell that even its own employees could not keep track of everything itwas posting or leaving up on the site.
As a result, on countlessoccasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded toYouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for theirreinstatement.
In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing usover were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.Given Viacom's own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever haveknown which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on thesite.
But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out.The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube -- and everyWeb platform -- to investigate and police all content users upload,and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get itwrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529822</id>
	<title>ebbil jenius</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268910600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>kudos, sir! I'd like to paypal you a beer</htmltext>
<tokenext>kudos , sir !
I 'd like to paypal you a beer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kudos, sir!
I'd like to paypal you a beer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532024</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1268925480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, actually most of what Google and their Counsel listed would not be hard to prove. A) Account is created originating from IP's owned by Viacom. These accounts also occasionally log in from Kinko's. B) Viacom owned material is uploaded from IP's owned by Viacom. C) Accounts accused of uploading Viacom owned material log in occasionally from Viacom owned IP's. Said accounts were created at Kinko's. D) There'd be a paper trail for all DMCA requests to have materials deleted. E) Requests from accounts created/used on viacom IP's requesting material to be restored. If such accounts had ever logged in from a Viacom owned IP or was created on a Viacom owned IP, it would show some potential for what Google is saying. This is especially true if all of the accounts ONLY uploaded Viacom related materials.<div><p>
Now of course there is a possibility that Bob from accounting created an account and uploaded baby videos. But such videos wouldn't raise the ire of viacom, nor would they fall under a DMCA request. So that means Bob would have to be uploading Viacom property. As far as I know an employee stealing their employer's property isn't anyone's problem except the employer and the employee. You can't sue someone else for it - well you can, but you'll lose. So everything Google says makes sense, and I can guarantee that a company that makes its living off of tracking users has the logs. You're right, there's not a speck of evidence; there's a goddamned ocean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , actually most of what Google and their Counsel listed would not be hard to prove .
A ) Account is created originating from IP 's owned by Viacom .
These accounts also occasionally log in from Kinko 's .
B ) Viacom owned material is uploaded from IP 's owned by Viacom .
C ) Accounts accused of uploading Viacom owned material log in occasionally from Viacom owned IP 's .
Said accounts were created at Kinko 's .
D ) There 'd be a paper trail for all DMCA requests to have materials deleted .
E ) Requests from accounts created/used on viacom IP 's requesting material to be restored .
If such accounts had ever logged in from a Viacom owned IP or was created on a Viacom owned IP , it would show some potential for what Google is saying .
This is especially true if all of the accounts ONLY uploaded Viacom related materials .
Now of course there is a possibility that Bob from accounting created an account and uploaded baby videos .
But such videos would n't raise the ire of viacom , nor would they fall under a DMCA request .
So that means Bob would have to be uploading Viacom property .
As far as I know an employee stealing their employer 's property is n't anyone 's problem except the employer and the employee .
You ca n't sue someone else for it - well you can , but you 'll lose .
So everything Google says makes sense , and I can guarantee that a company that makes its living off of tracking users has the logs .
You 're right , there 's not a speck of evidence ; there 's a goddamned ocean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, actually most of what Google and their Counsel listed would not be hard to prove.
A) Account is created originating from IP's owned by Viacom.
These accounts also occasionally log in from Kinko's.
B) Viacom owned material is uploaded from IP's owned by Viacom.
C) Accounts accused of uploading Viacom owned material log in occasionally from Viacom owned IP's.
Said accounts were created at Kinko's.
D) There'd be a paper trail for all DMCA requests to have materials deleted.
E) Requests from accounts created/used on viacom IP's requesting material to be restored.
If such accounts had ever logged in from a Viacom owned IP or was created on a Viacom owned IP, it would show some potential for what Google is saying.
This is especially true if all of the accounts ONLY uploaded Viacom related materials.
Now of course there is a possibility that Bob from accounting created an account and uploaded baby videos.
But such videos wouldn't raise the ire of viacom, nor would they fall under a DMCA request.
So that means Bob would have to be uploading Viacom property.
As far as I know an employee stealing their employer's property isn't anyone's problem except the employer and the employee.
You can't sue someone else for it - well you can, but you'll lose.
So everything Google says makes sense, and I can guarantee that a company that makes its living off of tracking users has the logs.
You're right, there's not a speck of evidence; there's a goddamned ocean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529910</id>
	<title>Re:Smells like bullshit</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1268911020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>actually, if you are a lawyer working for Google this has to be really fun.  Google is providing information to not just win, but to stomp viacom mercilessly for weeks.  Lawyers enjoy about nothing else more than that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>actually , if you are a lawyer working for Google this has to be really fun .
Google is providing information to not just win , but to stomp viacom mercilessly for weeks .
Lawyers enjoy about nothing else more than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually, if you are a lawyer working for Google this has to be really fun.
Google is providing information to not just win, but to stomp viacom mercilessly for weeks.
Lawyers enjoy about nothing else more than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530252</id>
	<title>Re:Oooh I've got an idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268912760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.</p></div><p>Face it towards the street. You'll have better chance of him getting sued for publicly broadcasting copyrighted material.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tonight I 'm gon na sneak my TV onto my neighbor 's yard , and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.Face it towards the street .
You 'll have better chance of him getting sued for publicly broadcasting copyrighted material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.Face it towards the street.
You'll have better chance of him getting sued for publicly broadcasting copyrighted material.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534464</id>
	<title>Charlie Bit My Finger</title>
	<author>Permutation Citizen</author>
	<datestamp>1269000480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this blog post, Youtube cites the famous "Charlie Bit My Finger" video.</p><p>This video is exactly like what Viacom is doing, using bad faith as its extreme. How childish...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this blog post , Youtube cites the famous " Charlie Bit My Finger " video.This video is exactly like what Viacom is doing , using bad faith as its extreme .
How childish.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this blog post, Youtube cites the famous "Charlie Bit My Finger" video.This video is exactly like what Viacom is doing, using bad faith as its extreme.
How childish...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529254</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>brennz</author>
	<datestamp>1268908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you happen to know of a bathroom nearby, I think I need to take a SCO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you happen to know of a bathroom nearby , I think I need to take a SCO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you happen to know of a bathroom nearby, I think I need to take a SCO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>like this approach - Google has the power to change people's perceptions of companies (and countries)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>All without so much as a speck of substantiating evidence. I'd especially like to hear how they plan to prove Viacom was sending employees to Kinko's to upload videos.</p><p>This turns my stomach on all counts. Google is attempting to force the courts hand by making this public, relying on the court of public opinion to win the case for them. Moreover, if these charges are indeed true, it is a testament to:</p><p>a) Just how much information and the ability to process it Google has and more importantly<br>b) how willing Google is to use this information to its own advantage when neccessary.</p><p>Knowladge is power, and power corrupts. Viacom's fate is but a taste of what awaits anyone who dares to cross Google in future. If Google decides to win a case against you in the court of public opinion, just think of how much rope you've already given them to hang you with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>like this approach - Google has the power to change people 's perceptions of companies ( and countries ) ...All without so much as a speck of substantiating evidence .
I 'd especially like to hear how they plan to prove Viacom was sending employees to Kinko 's to upload videos.This turns my stomach on all counts .
Google is attempting to force the courts hand by making this public , relying on the court of public opinion to win the case for them .
Moreover , if these charges are indeed true , it is a testament to : a ) Just how much information and the ability to process it Google has and more importantlyb ) how willing Google is to use this information to its own advantage when neccessary.Knowladge is power , and power corrupts .
Viacom 's fate is but a taste of what awaits anyone who dares to cross Google in future .
If Google decides to win a case against you in the court of public opinion , just think of how much rope you 've already given them to hang you with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like this approach - Google has the power to change people's perceptions of companies (and countries) ...All without so much as a speck of substantiating evidence.
I'd especially like to hear how they plan to prove Viacom was sending employees to Kinko's to upload videos.This turns my stomach on all counts.
Google is attempting to force the courts hand by making this public, relying on the court of public opinion to win the case for them.
Moreover, if these charges are indeed true, it is a testament to:a) Just how much information and the ability to process it Google has and more importantlyb) how willing Google is to use this information to its own advantage when neccessary.Knowladge is power, and power corrupts.
Viacom's fate is but a taste of what awaits anyone who dares to cross Google in future.
If Google decides to win a case against you in the court of public opinion, just think of how much rope you've already given them to hang you with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529268</id>
	<title>Re:Smells like bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't be any worse than the proof Viacom has that YouTube maliciously left them up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't be any worse than the proof Viacom has that YouTube maliciously left them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't be any worse than the proof Viacom has that YouTube maliciously left them up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531768</id>
	<title>Re:Smells like bullshit</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268922960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The account logs are surely how Google is able to connect the dots. It's more likely an account used to upload from a Kinko's was also used for viewing videos from an IP traced to Viacom. That's the problem with malfeasance. You make one simple mistake and you're bound to get caught. Better luck next time Viacom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The account logs are surely how Google is able to connect the dots .
It 's more likely an account used to upload from a Kinko 's was also used for viewing videos from an IP traced to Viacom .
That 's the problem with malfeasance .
You make one simple mistake and you 're bound to get caught .
Better luck next time Viacom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The account logs are surely how Google is able to connect the dots.
It's more likely an account used to upload from a Kinko's was also used for viewing videos from an IP traced to Viacom.
That's the problem with malfeasance.
You make one simple mistake and you're bound to get caught.
Better luck next time Viacom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531150</id>
	<title>Re:Oooh I've got an idea!</title>
	<author>imp</author>
	<datestamp>1268918400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To get the flavor of this right, you need to get all your neighbor's to sneak their TV into this neighbors yard.  Then have them all call the cops and issue a press release that this neighbor is clearly the head of a TV theft gang.  He has stolen so many he can't keep them all inside and has to litter his front yard with them.  For bonus points get him arrested for littering and creating a pubic nuisance.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To get the flavor of this right , you need to get all your neighbor 's to sneak their TV into this neighbors yard .
Then have them all call the cops and issue a press release that this neighbor is clearly the head of a TV theft gang .
He has stolen so many he ca n't keep them all inside and has to litter his front yard with them .
For bonus points get him arrested for littering and creating a pubic nuisance .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get the flavor of this right, you need to get all your neighbor's to sneak their TV into this neighbors yard.
Then have them all call the cops and issue a press release that this neighbor is clearly the head of a TV theft gang.
He has stolen so many he can't keep them all inside and has to litter his front yard with them.
For bonus points get him arrested for littering and creating a pubic nuisance.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530692</id>
	<title>Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1268915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Words...they fails me.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Of course - YouTube is videos.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Words...they fails me .
Of course - YouTube is videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Words...they fails me.
Of course - YouTube is videos.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534042</id>
	<title>Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this</title>
	<author>Scrab</author>
	<datestamp>1268994840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or access to google, and the ability to edit browser settings...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or access to google , and the ability to edit browser settings.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or access to google, and the ability to edit browser settings...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533916</id>
	<title>Re:If Viacom wins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268992800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although it is the usage of a double negative, the sentence places emphasis on bought. It adds strength to his statement and is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">literary device</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although it is the usage of a double negative , the sentence places emphasis on bought .
It adds strength to his statement and is a literary device [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although it is the usage of a double negative, the sentence places emphasis on bought.
It adds strength to his statement and is a literary device [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198</id>
	<title>Smells like bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268907960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What proof does YouTube have that any videos were actually uploaded by Viacom?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What proof does YouTube have that any videos were actually uploaded by Viacom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What proof does YouTube have that any videos were actually uploaded by Viacom?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996</id>
	<title>If Viacom wins</title>
	<author>Blackneto</author>
	<datestamp>1268907240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Viacom wins there is n't anything that can not be bought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534122</id>
	<title>Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268995860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thedailyshow.com and colbertnation.com work fine from Germany, with moderate advertisements (30 seconds before the full show, mostly for other comedy central shows). Where can't you access those sites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thedailyshow.com and colbertnation.com work fine from Germany , with moderate advertisements ( 30 seconds before the full show , mostly for other comedy central shows ) .
Where ca n't you access those sites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thedailyshow.com and colbertnation.com work fine from Germany, with moderate advertisements (30 seconds before the full show, mostly for other comedy central shows).
Where can't you access those sites?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534514</id>
	<title>Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this</title>
	<author>chenjeru</author>
	<datestamp>1269001200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can watch Colbert Report, Daily Show and South Park just fine in the Netherlands, direct from Comedy Central's official sites. No trickery required (unlike Hulu).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can watch Colbert Report , Daily Show and South Park just fine in the Netherlands , direct from Comedy Central 's official sites .
No trickery required ( unlike Hulu ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can watch Colbert Report, Daily Show and South Park just fine in the Netherlands, direct from Comedy Central's official sites.
No trickery required (unlike Hulu).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533288</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are very outspoken, now they just need to grow a pair and act. Do what Apple did when NBC came to them with their lame bluff: aggressively do exactly what Viacom says they want. Let's see how they like it when Google really blocks all viacom media. Then when they come crawling back, as eventually they must, Google will have scored a real win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are very outspoken , now they just need to grow a pair and act .
Do what Apple did when NBC came to them with their lame bluff : aggressively do exactly what Viacom says they want .
Let 's see how they like it when Google really blocks all viacom media .
Then when they come crawling back , as eventually they must , Google will have scored a real win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are very outspoken, now they just need to grow a pair and act.
Do what Apple did when NBC came to them with their lame bluff: aggressively do exactly what Viacom says they want.
Let's see how they like it when Google really blocks all viacom media.
Then when they come crawling back, as eventually they must, Google will have scored a real win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529596</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's worse than that:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom.</p></div><p>It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube.  "See how much of our stuff is uploaded!  They can't filter it out!  They have to be shut down!"</p><p>It's almost like dumping a much of random nails in the street and then suing the government for not cleaning the streets properly.</p><p>This article is definitely worth reading.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's worse than that : For years , Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube , even while publicly complaining about its presence there .
It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site .
It deliberately " roughed up " the videos to make them look stolen or leaked .
It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses .
It even sent employees to Kinko 's to upload clips from computers that could n't be traced to Viacom.It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube .
" See how much of our stuff is uploaded !
They ca n't filter it out !
They have to be shut down !
" It 's almost like dumping a much of random nails in the street and then suing the government for not cleaning the streets properly.This article is definitely worth reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's worse than that:For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there.
It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site.
It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked.
It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses.
It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom.It seems that Viacom purposefully uploaded these files to invalidate the whole concept of YouTube.
"See how much of our stuff is uploaded!
They can't filter it out!
They have to be shut down!
"It's almost like dumping a much of random nails in the street and then suing the government for not cleaning the streets properly.This article is definitely worth reading.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529536</id>
	<title>Throw a physical LoC at 'em</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no lawyer, but if Google can substantiate this claim with evidence, at the very least it'll really hurt their ability to convince the judge:</p><blockquote><div><p>For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.</p></div></blockquote><p>At the very least, if Google can prove this, they have a battery of arguments that say Viacom acted in bad faith. It might not be proof of blunder on the order of SCO's vacuous litigation, but it will certainly piss the judge off against Viacom.</p><p>If I were the judge... well, see the comment title (LoC = Library of Congress).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no lawyer , but if Google can substantiate this claim with evidence , at the very least it 'll really hurt their ability to convince the judge : For years , Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube , even while publicly complaining about its presence there .
It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site .
It deliberately " roughed up " the videos to make them look stolen or leaked .
It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses .
It even sent employees to Kinko 's to upload clips from computers that could n't be traced to Viacom .
And in an effort to promote its own shows , as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users .
Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt " very strongly " that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.At the very least , if Google can prove this , they have a battery of arguments that say Viacom acted in bad faith .
It might not be proof of blunder on the order of SCO 's vacuous litigation , but it will certainly piss the judge off against Viacom.If I were the judge... well , see the comment title ( LoC = Library of Congress ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no lawyer, but if Google can substantiate this claim with evidence, at the very least it'll really hurt their ability to convince the judge:For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there.
It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site.
It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked.
It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses.
It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom.
And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users.
Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.At the very least, if Google can prove this, they have a battery of arguments that say Viacom acted in bad faith.
It might not be proof of blunder on the order of SCO's vacuous litigation, but it will certainly piss the judge off against Viacom.If I were the judge... well, see the comment title (LoC = Library of Congress).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529472</id>
	<title>Re:Smells like bullshit</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1268909040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their IPs? I'm assuming they weren't stupid enough to have Viacom for their u/n...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their IPs ?
I 'm assuming they were n't stupid enough to have Viacom for their u/n.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their IPs?
I'm assuming they weren't stupid enough to have Viacom for their u/n...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530274</id>
	<title>Re:Three cheers for good writing</title>
	<author>SpeedyDX</author>
	<datestamp>1268912880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Off-topic:<br>While education certainly plays a big part in helping people learn how to write, I think that true progress has to be intrinsically motivated. Some people can write perfectly coherent basic essays, but once they're required to break out of the standard tripartite format, they are no longer able to write anything in a comprehensible way. Over and above education, I think we need to encourage children to read and write more (if done when they're young, we may succeed in creating intrinsic motivations within them to read/write). Reading is where you're exposed to different writing styles, and writing is where you develop your own. That's why I think that blogs are A Good Thing despite most of them being inane drivel. It encourages writing, which hopefully will have significant long term benefits in improving the quality of written communications.</p><p>On-topic:<br>A lot of legal writing that I've been exposed to (I've been exposed to a reasonable amount, being a criminology/ethics/law student) have been pretty well written, mostly as clear as this blog post. The difference is that this particular topic includes language that is pretty familiar to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and is relatively new to law. The reason why "legalese" is hard to read is because many legal definitions stretch back decades, and even more of them stretch back centuries. Legal writing tends to continue using old terms that have been established in the past, because a change in the word may be interpreted as a change in what's referenced.</p><p>At any event, Mr. Levine did a good job in expressing YT's side of the story. If true, I hope Viacom really gets what's coming from the presiding judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Off-topic : While education certainly plays a big part in helping people learn how to write , I think that true progress has to be intrinsically motivated .
Some people can write perfectly coherent basic essays , but once they 're required to break out of the standard tripartite format , they are no longer able to write anything in a comprehensible way .
Over and above education , I think we need to encourage children to read and write more ( if done when they 're young , we may succeed in creating intrinsic motivations within them to read/write ) .
Reading is where you 're exposed to different writing styles , and writing is where you develop your own .
That 's why I think that blogs are A Good Thing despite most of them being inane drivel .
It encourages writing , which hopefully will have significant long term benefits in improving the quality of written communications.On-topic : A lot of legal writing that I 've been exposed to ( I 've been exposed to a reasonable amount , being a criminology/ethics/law student ) have been pretty well written , mostly as clear as this blog post .
The difference is that this particular topic includes language that is pretty familiar to / .
and is relatively new to law .
The reason why " legalese " is hard to read is because many legal definitions stretch back decades , and even more of them stretch back centuries .
Legal writing tends to continue using old terms that have been established in the past , because a change in the word may be interpreted as a change in what 's referenced.At any event , Mr. Levine did a good job in expressing YT 's side of the story .
If true , I hope Viacom really gets what 's coming from the presiding judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off-topic:While education certainly plays a big part in helping people learn how to write, I think that true progress has to be intrinsically motivated.
Some people can write perfectly coherent basic essays, but once they're required to break out of the standard tripartite format, they are no longer able to write anything in a comprehensible way.
Over and above education, I think we need to encourage children to read and write more (if done when they're young, we may succeed in creating intrinsic motivations within them to read/write).
Reading is where you're exposed to different writing styles, and writing is where you develop your own.
That's why I think that blogs are A Good Thing despite most of them being inane drivel.
It encourages writing, which hopefully will have significant long term benefits in improving the quality of written communications.On-topic:A lot of legal writing that I've been exposed to (I've been exposed to a reasonable amount, being a criminology/ethics/law student) have been pretty well written, mostly as clear as this blog post.
The difference is that this particular topic includes language that is pretty familiar to /.
and is relatively new to law.
The reason why "legalese" is hard to read is because many legal definitions stretch back decades, and even more of them stretch back centuries.
Legal writing tends to continue using old terms that have been established in the past, because a change in the word may be interpreted as a change in what's referenced.At any event, Mr. Levine did a good job in expressing YT's side of the story.
If true, I hope Viacom really gets what's coming from the presiding judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529486</id>
	<title>Re:If Viacom wins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.</p></div><p>Including a night with yo mama.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Viacom wins there is n't anything that can not be bought.Including a night with yo mama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.Including a night with yo mama.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529062</id>
	<title>kinda like that xkcd strip:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268907420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://goatkcd.com/713/" title="goatkcd.com" rel="nofollow">"GeoIP"</a> [goatkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" GeoIP " [ goatkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"GeoIP" [goatkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529154</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268907780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad they cannot just file that blog post (with a bunch of attached items to confirm their statements) as their legal response to the suit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad they can not just file that blog post ( with a bunch of attached items to confirm their statements ) as their legal response to the suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad they cannot just file that blog post (with a bunch of attached items to confirm their statements) as their legal response to the suit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532902</id>
	<title>Re:Oooh I've got an idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268933580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>A perusal of the typical behavior of the average cop and the average PD would quickly reveal that this strategy would work perfectly; even if the facts came out, the cops would vigorously defend their actions and the DA would vigorously pursue charges. Given the evidence and the implausible excuse ("but he stole the TV from himself and blamed me, your honor!") we'd have a swift conviction to boot.</p><p>In fact, you could easily make an argument that Viacom expects YouTube to act exactly like a cop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... Tonight I 'm gon na sneak my TV onto my neighbor 's yard , and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning .
... " A perusal of the typical behavior of the average cop and the average PD would quickly reveal that this strategy would work perfectly ; even if the facts came out , the cops would vigorously defend their actions and the DA would vigorously pursue charges .
Given the evidence and the implausible excuse ( " but he stole the TV from himself and blamed me , your honor !
" ) we 'd have a swift conviction to boot.In fact , you could easily make an argument that Viacom expects YouTube to act exactly like a cop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.
..."A perusal of the typical behavior of the average cop and the average PD would quickly reveal that this strategy would work perfectly; even if the facts came out, the cops would vigorously defend their actions and the DA would vigorously pursue charges.
Given the evidence and the implausible excuse ("but he stole the TV from himself and blamed me, your honor!
") we'd have a swift conviction to boot.In fact, you could easily make an argument that Viacom expects YouTube to act exactly like a cop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529216</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Viacomming - failing to adapt to new technology and current trends of a growing demographic.
<br>
Synonyms: RIAA, NBC</htmltext>
<tokenext>Viacomming - failing to adapt to new technology and current trends of a growing demographic .
Synonyms : RIAA , NBC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viacomming - failing to adapt to new technology and current trends of a growing demographic.
Synonyms: RIAA, NBC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534266</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig quote</title>
	<author>Adambomb</author>
	<datestamp>1268998080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Viacom: Frankly my dear, i don't give a damn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Viacom : Frankly my dear , i do n't give a damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viacom: Frankly my dear, i don't give a damn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530896</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268916720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's "Murdoch"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's " Murdoch "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's "Murdoch"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31540432</id>
	<title>Re:If Viacom wins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269022260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the event that Viacom wins, I think the quote you're looking for is:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private\_Eye#Litigation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"If this is justice, I'm a banana."</a> [wikipedia.org]</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the event that Viacom wins , I think the quote you 're looking for is : " If this is justice , I 'm a banana .
" [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the event that Viacom wins, I think the quote you're looking for is: "If this is justice, I'm a banana.
" [wikipedia.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529324</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1268908380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I shall only agree to this when I get proof of the Second Viacomming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I shall only agree to this when I get proof of the Second Viacomming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I shall only agree to this when I get proof of the Second Viacomming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533446</id>
	<title>Re:If Viacom wins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268940180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to buy a triple negative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to buy a triple negative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to buy a triple negative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529338</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Viacom must be run by the biggest bunch of idiots around. They're trying to pull a fast on on a company that has, essentially, become the central corridor for information in North America. I'd be surprised if Google <i>didn't</i> know about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Viacom must be run by the biggest bunch of idiots around .
They 're trying to pull a fast on on a company that has , essentially , become the central corridor for information in North America .
I 'd be surprised if Google did n't know about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viacom must be run by the biggest bunch of idiots around.
They're trying to pull a fast on on a company that has, essentially, become the central corridor for information in North America.
I'd be surprised if Google didn't know about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530448</id>
	<title>Re:Can they have it both ways?</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1268913900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because when you get sued for a bajillion dollars by someone who wants to own you, it pays to go back throught you servers' IP logs and see if you can find exactly where all their copyrighted content actually came from.  Gee, will you look at this; a lot of it comes from these 18 marketing firms.  Hmm.  They all list Viacom as a client.  That's odd.  And Kinko's?  Hmmm.  (Subpoenaing user CC information for workstation <i>abc</i> at Kinko's <i>xyz</i> on day/month/yr/time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... comparing to Viacom org chart<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... *exact match*!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because when you get sued for a bajillion dollars by someone who wants to own you , it pays to go back throught you servers ' IP logs and see if you can find exactly where all their copyrighted content actually came from .
Gee , will you look at this ; a lot of it comes from these 18 marketing firms .
Hmm. They all list Viacom as a client .
That 's odd .
And Kinko 's ?
Hmmm. ( Subpoenaing user CC information for workstation abc at Kinko 's xyz on day/month/yr/time ... comparing to Viacom org chart ... * exact match * !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because when you get sued for a bajillion dollars by someone who wants to own you, it pays to go back throught you servers' IP logs and see if you can find exactly where all their copyrighted content actually came from.
Gee, will you look at this; a lot of it comes from these 18 marketing firms.
Hmm.  They all list Viacom as a client.
That's odd.
And Kinko's?
Hmmm.  (Subpoenaing user CC information for workstation abc at Kinko's xyz on day/month/yr/time ... comparing to Viacom org chart ... *exact match*!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31536880</id>
	<title>Viacom is just upset because Blockbuster is...</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1269012240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Viacom is the parent company of Blockbuster Video and they are just upset because Blockbuster is having to file Chapter 11. <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124781747&amp;ft=1&amp;f=1001" title="npr.org">source.</a> [npr.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Viacom is the parent company of Blockbuster Video and they are just upset because Blockbuster is having to file Chapter 11. source. [ npr.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viacom is the parent company of Blockbuster Video and they are just upset because Blockbuster is having to file Chapter 11. source. [npr.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530292</id>
	<title>Re:Three cheers for good writing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268912940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Law schools have been teaching people to write this way for years.  Poorly written boilerplate contracts have given legal writing a bad name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Law schools have been teaching people to write this way for years .
Poorly written boilerplate contracts have given legal writing a bad name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Law schools have been teaching people to write this way for years.
Poorly written boilerplate contracts have given legal writing a bad name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529656</id>
	<title>viatube?</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1268909880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>viatube.com still is for sale.</p><p>something like only 1 Billion dollar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>viatube.com still is for sale.something like only 1 Billion dollar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>viatube.com still is for sale.something like only 1 Billion dollar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533842</id>
	<title>What YouTube should do...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is remove any Viacom artists and redirect any searches on them to other similar artists. Pretty soon old media will wake up to the loss of revenue, or their artists will leave them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is remove any Viacom artists and redirect any searches on them to other similar artists .
Pretty soon old media will wake up to the loss of revenue , or their artists will leave them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is remove any Viacom artists and redirect any searches on them to other similar artists.
Pretty soon old media will wake up to the loss of revenue, or their artists will leave them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682</id>
	<title>Three cheers for good writing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268910000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.  Facts aside, this is the clearest, most straightforward legal/PR writing I've read in years.  Makes the point with no dodging and evasion, no complicated jargon, it's short, clear, and on point.</p><p>Kids, if you ever wonder why English 101 is mandatory at your college, this is why: so maybe someday you'll be able to write like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Facts aside , this is the clearest , most straightforward legal/PR writing I 've read in years .
Makes the point with no dodging and evasion , no complicated jargon , it 's short , clear , and on point.Kids , if you ever wonder why English 101 is mandatory at your college , this is why : so maybe someday you 'll be able to write like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Facts aside, this is the clearest, most straightforward legal/PR writing I've read in years.
Makes the point with no dodging and evasion, no complicated jargon, it's short, clear, and on point.Kids, if you ever wonder why English 101 is mandatory at your college, this is why: so maybe someday you'll be able to write like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531090</id>
	<title>Re:If Viacom wins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268918040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not as cut and dry as you might think. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/smoking-guns-dark-secrets-spilled-in-youtube-viacom-filings.ars" title="arstechnica.com">YouTube has done its share of dirty deeds in this whole fiasco</a> [arstechnica.com].</p><p>Some choice excerpts include the YouTube cofounders discussing how 80\% of the site traffic depended on pirated videos. So, they pretty much did whatever they had to get a massive user base so that they'd get bought out. From the article -</p><blockquote><div><p>The basic argument here is a simple one. YouTube's founders hoped to build a massive user base as quickly as possible and then sell the site. "Our dirty little secret... is that we actually just want to sell out quickly," said Karim at one point.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Now, arguably, YouTube at that time does not equal Google, and one could argue that things have changed. However, don't be so quick to decide without hearing both sides of the story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as cut and dry as you might think .
YouTube has done its share of dirty deeds in this whole fiasco [ arstechnica.com ] .Some choice excerpts include the YouTube cofounders discussing how 80 \ % of the site traffic depended on pirated videos .
So , they pretty much did whatever they had to get a massive user base so that they 'd get bought out .
From the article -The basic argument here is a simple one .
YouTube 's founders hoped to build a massive user base as quickly as possible and then sell the site .
" Our dirty little secret... is that we actually just want to sell out quickly , " said Karim at one point .
Now , arguably , YouTube at that time does not equal Google , and one could argue that things have changed .
However , do n't be so quick to decide without hearing both sides of the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not as cut and dry as you might think.
YouTube has done its share of dirty deeds in this whole fiasco [arstechnica.com].Some choice excerpts include the YouTube cofounders discussing how 80\% of the site traffic depended on pirated videos.
So, they pretty much did whatever they had to get a massive user base so that they'd get bought out.
From the article -The basic argument here is a simple one.
YouTube's founders hoped to build a massive user base as quickly as possible and then sell the site.
"Our dirty little secret... is that we actually just want to sell out quickly," said Karim at one point.
Now, arguably, YouTube at that time does not equal Google, and one could argue that things have changed.
However, don't be so quick to decide without hearing both sides of the story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533098</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268935440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NBC has Hulu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NBC has Hulu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NBC has Hulu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530348</id>
	<title>Re:Three cheers for good writing</title>
	<author>hobb0001</author>
	<datestamp>1268913240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish English 101 actually taught you to write this clearly.</p><p>"Advanced" writing classes in J-school will teach you to start off with an anecdote of someone affected by the story, which will get the reader to sympathize. You then bury the lead 5 paragraphs in and only get to the real point after the reader has continued on to page 5C. Pad with further anecdotes from people with similar and opposite views.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish English 101 actually taught you to write this clearly .
" Advanced " writing classes in J-school will teach you to start off with an anecdote of someone affected by the story , which will get the reader to sympathize .
You then bury the lead 5 paragraphs in and only get to the real point after the reader has continued on to page 5C .
Pad with further anecdotes from people with similar and opposite views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish English 101 actually taught you to write this clearly.
"Advanced" writing classes in J-school will teach you to start off with an anecdote of someone affected by the story, which will get the reader to sympathize.
You then bury the lead 5 paragraphs in and only get to the real point after the reader has continued on to page 5C.
Pad with further anecdotes from people with similar and opposite views.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534018</id>
	<title>From The Terms of Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268994480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>10. Rights you licence</p><p>10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.</p><p>10.2 The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate when you remove or delete your User Videos from the Website. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable, but are otherwise without prejudice to your ownerships rights, which are retained by you as set out in paragraph 8.2 above.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>10 .
Rights you licence10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube , you grant :       1. to YouTube , a worldwide , non-exclusive , royalty-free , transferable licence ( with right to sub-licence ) to use , reproduce , distribute , prepare derivative works of , display , and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube 's business , including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website ( and derivative works thereof ) in any media formats and through any media channels ;       2. to each user of the Website , a worldwide , non-exclusive , royalty-free , licence to access your User Submissions through the Website , and to use , reproduce , distribute , prepare derivative works of , display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.10.2 The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate when you remove or delete your User Videos from the Website .
The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable , but are otherwise without prejudice to your ownerships rights , which are retained by you as set out in paragraph 8.2 above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10.
Rights you licence10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:
      1. to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;
      2. to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.10.2 The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate when you remove or delete your User Videos from the Website.
The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable, but are otherwise without prejudice to your ownerships rights, which are retained by you as set out in paragraph 8.2 above.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529228</id>
	<title>Can they have it both ways?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268908080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So YouTube is saying we don't know who put this stuff here, but we know *you* put that stuff over here. I'm not defending Viacom, but it seems at odds to say "We can't be held responsible because we are confused about who did what or who is authorized to do what, but we know every little detail about how Viacom uploaded content, even when they did it from Kinkos." Doesn't make sense to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So YouTube is saying we do n't know who put this stuff here , but we know * you * put that stuff over here .
I 'm not defending Viacom , but it seems at odds to say " We ca n't be held responsible because we are confused about who did what or who is authorized to do what , but we know every little detail about how Viacom uploaded content , even when they did it from Kinkos .
" Does n't make sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So YouTube is saying we don't know who put this stuff here, but we know *you* put that stuff over here.
I'm not defending Viacom, but it seems at odds to say "We can't be held responsible because we are confused about who did what or who is authorized to do what, but we know every little detail about how Viacom uploaded content, even when they did it from Kinkos.
" Doesn't make sense to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530338</id>
	<title>Re:If Viacom wins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268913240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.</p></div><p>Even double negatives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Viacom wins there is n't anything that can not be bought.Even double negatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.Even double negatives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530884</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268916600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This article is definitely worth reading.</p></div></blockquote><p>Whoa, whoa, whoa! We'll forgive you since you're new, but saying stuff like that quickly gets you modded perma-troll. This is your first warning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is definitely worth reading.Whoa , whoa , whoa !
We 'll forgive you since you 're new , but saying stuff like that quickly gets you modded perma-troll .
This is your first warning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is definitely worth reading.Whoa, whoa, whoa!
We'll forgive you since you're new, but saying stuff like that quickly gets you modded perma-troll.
This is your first warning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532908</id>
	<title>You *are* clueless.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268933640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"All without so much as a speck of substantiating evidence"</p><p>And you know this because you're part of Google's legal team?  Their statement was detailed that even the dimest of the dim could figure out it was all logged, that they have statements from employees, it's all there.</p><p>If you think they're talking out of their ass just to make PR points, I'd suggest that you really can't be that dumb to think that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" All without so much as a speck of substantiating evidence " And you know this because you 're part of Google 's legal team ?
Their statement was detailed that even the dimest of the dim could figure out it was all logged , that they have statements from employees , it 's all there.If you think they 're talking out of their ass just to make PR points , I 'd suggest that you really ca n't be that dumb to think that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All without so much as a speck of substantiating evidence"And you know this because you're part of Google's legal team?
Their statement was detailed that even the dimest of the dim could figure out it was all logged, that they have statements from employees, it's all there.If you think they're talking out of their ass just to make PR points, I'd suggest that you really can't be that dumb to think that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532068</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1268925840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filing phony DMCA requests among other things should give Youtube grounds to recover damages just for the expense of putting up with their legal bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filing phony DMCA requests among other things should give Youtube grounds to recover damages just for the expense of putting up with their legal bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filing phony DMCA requests among other things should give Youtube grounds to recover damages just for the expense of putting up with their legal bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532062</id>
	<title>Re:Can they have it both ways?</title>
	<author>iphinome</author>
	<datestamp>1268925780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe Viacom kept it in their gmail accounts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Viacom kept it in their gmail accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Viacom kept it in their gmail accounts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312</id>
	<title>call me naive</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1268908380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>but it is difficult to believe a corporate legal counsel would post something like that if he could not prove it six ways to Sunday. Indeed, while I am not a lawyer, I would think that Google has grounds to counter sue.

As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but it is difficult to believe a corporate legal counsel would post something like that if he could not prove it six ways to Sunday .
Indeed , while I am not a lawyer , I would think that Google has grounds to counter sue .
As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it is difficult to believe a corporate legal counsel would post something like that if he could not prove it six ways to Sunday.
Indeed, while I am not a lawyer, I would think that Google has grounds to counter sue.
As a PR person I am embarrassed for my profession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530118</id>
	<title>Re:Smells like bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268911980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is that it's nearly impossible to determine if the person who uploaded the files was authorized.  Youtube (apparently) has evidence that they <i>purposefully</i> tried to obscure the source of the upload, making the files look like they were pirated.</p><p>Youtube is simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in all this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that it 's nearly impossible to determine if the person who uploaded the files was authorized .
Youtube ( apparently ) has evidence that they purposefully tried to obscure the source of the upload , making the files look like they were pirated.Youtube is simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in all this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that it's nearly impossible to determine if the person who uploaded the files was authorized.
Youtube (apparently) has evidence that they purposefully tried to obscure the source of the upload, making the files look like they were pirated.Youtube is simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in all this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530888</id>
	<title>Re:Smells like bullshit</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1268916660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Youtube is simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in all this.</p></div><p>So they are using the Phoenix Wright Methods then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube is simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in all this.So they are using the Phoenix Wright Methods then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube is simply pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy in all this.So they are using the Phoenix Wright Methods then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31539538</id>
	<title>Re:Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1269019260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's good to have friends at the NSA so Google can make allegations like that with certainty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good to have friends at the NSA so Google can make allegations like that with certainty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's good to have friends at the NSA so Google can make allegations like that with certainty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31535632</id>
	<title>Re:Three cheers for good writing</title>
	<author>multipart/mixed</author>
	<datestamp>1269008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; writing every day in the Marquis De Sade school of writing known as BBS networks<br>&gt; (Fight-O-Net) hanging out in the debate oriented message bases. I can also credit<br>&gt; the local BBSes that had things like "The Never Ending Story."</p><p>HA!  I have been crediting BBSes for my writing skills for years, as well. I never took a single post-secondary writing course, but when I have to do yucky paperwork (proposals, documentation, etc.) I express myself at a level significantly above my peers. And when it's time to write a pissed-off "business e-mail", I can dial the flame-thrower to *just the right temperature*.</p><p>So, thanks, Tom Jennings, wherever you are!</p><p>1:249/128</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; writing every day in the Marquis De Sade school of writing known as BBS networks &gt; ( Fight-O-Net ) hanging out in the debate oriented message bases .
I can also credit &gt; the local BBSes that had things like " The Never Ending Story. " HA !
I have been crediting BBSes for my writing skills for years , as well .
I never took a single post-secondary writing course , but when I have to do yucky paperwork ( proposals , documentation , etc .
) I express myself at a level significantly above my peers .
And when it 's time to write a pissed-off " business e-mail " , I can dial the flame-thrower to * just the right temperature * .So , thanks , Tom Jennings , wherever you are ! 1 : 249/128</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; writing every day in the Marquis De Sade school of writing known as BBS networks&gt; (Fight-O-Net) hanging out in the debate oriented message bases.
I can also credit&gt; the local BBSes that had things like "The Never Ending Story."HA!
I have been crediting BBSes for my writing skills for years, as well.
I never took a single post-secondary writing course, but when I have to do yucky paperwork (proposals, documentation, etc.
) I express myself at a level significantly above my peers.
And when it's time to write a pissed-off "business e-mail", I can dial the flame-thrower to *just the right temperature*.So, thanks, Tom Jennings, wherever you are!1:249/128</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370</id>
	<title>Oooh I've got an idea!</title>
	<author>Ossifer</author>
	<datestamp>1268908620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.
<br> <br>
Dirty thief!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tonight I 'm gon na sneak my TV onto my neighbor 's yard , and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning .
Dirty thief !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tonight I'm gonna sneak my TV onto my neighbor's yard, and then call the cops on him tomorrow morning.
Dirty thief!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529654</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard about News Corp or Mr. Murdock?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard about News Corp or Mr. Murdock ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard about News Corp or Mr. Murdock?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31547286</id>
	<title>Re:Wow.</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1269019200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Google is growing balls.  They've been policing YouTube for a long time.... we all know media companies are hiring contractors to "poison the well" in many cases, then the parent swoops in and sues. Google's not stupid. You can't surf anywhere and not have them keep tabs.... Google has ways of knowing who's connected and probably has enough evidence at this point to start taking these companies with threats to the mats now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google is growing balls .
They 've been policing YouTube for a long time.... we all know media companies are hiring contractors to " poison the well " in many cases , then the parent swoops in and sues .
Google 's not stupid .
You ca n't surf anywhere and not have them keep tabs.... Google has ways of knowing who 's connected and probably has enough evidence at this point to start taking these companies with threats to the mats now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Google is growing balls.
They've been policing YouTube for a long time.... we all know media companies are hiring contractors to "poison the well" in many cases, then the parent swoops in and sues.
Google's not stupid.
You can't surf anywhere and not have them keep tabs.... Google has ways of knowing who's connected and probably has enough evidence at this point to start taking these companies with threats to the mats now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268907240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has become quite outspoken. I guess they are big enough that they do not have to scratch anyone's back anymore. I like this approach - Google has the power to change people's perceptions of companies (and countries) seeing as how they do control a large chunk of the flow of information on the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has become quite outspoken .
I guess they are big enough that they do not have to scratch anyone 's back anymore .
I like this approach - Google has the power to change people 's perceptions of companies ( and countries ) seeing as how they do control a large chunk of the flow of information on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has become quite outspoken.
I guess they are big enough that they do not have to scratch anyone's back anymore.
I like this approach - Google has the power to change people's perceptions of companies (and countries) seeing as how they do control a large chunk of the flow of information on the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082</id>
	<title>Viacom - the verb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268907480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This story illustrates a whole new sort of corporate stupidity. I propose from now on that such an action should be known as Viacomming, drawn from a new verb. To Viacom. Definition - to stab yourself in both feet by litigating against your own principal shopfront.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story illustrates a whole new sort of corporate stupidity .
I propose from now on that such an action should be known as Viacomming , drawn from a new verb .
To Viacom .
Definition - to stab yourself in both feet by litigating against your own principal shopfront .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story illustrates a whole new sort of corporate stupidity.
I propose from now on that such an action should be known as Viacomming, drawn from a new verb.
To Viacom.
Definition - to stab yourself in both feet by litigating against your own principal shopfront.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530816</id>
	<title>Re:If Viacom wins</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1268916180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, poor little Google doesn't have the money to defend itself against the big, bad, Viacom.</p><p>For Viacom to win, Google will have to do something horribly, horribly wrong in the court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Viacom wins there is n't anything that can not be bought.Yes , poor little Google does n't have the money to defend itself against the big , bad , Viacom.For Viacom to win , Google will have to do something horribly , horribly wrong in the court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Viacom wins there isn't anything that cannot be bought.Yes, poor little Google doesn't have the money to defend itself against the big, bad, Viacom.For Viacom to win, Google will have to do something horribly, horribly wrong in the court.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531366</id>
	<title>Re:call me naive</title>
	<author>Ocker3</author>
	<datestamp>1268919900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? You're surprised that legal counsel would screw up such a Huge, Complicated, Highly Technical case, or that they perhaps weren't given all the information by their client? Or that perhaps the people tasked with working with the lawyers weren't given all the necessary information, because it was embarrasing? IANAL, but I watch them on TV, and I reckon I can see this kind of thing happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
You 're surprised that legal counsel would screw up such a Huge , Complicated , Highly Technical case , or that they perhaps were n't given all the information by their client ?
Or that perhaps the people tasked with working with the lawyers were n't given all the necessary information , because it was embarrasing ?
IANAL , but I watch them on TV , and I reckon I can see this kind of thing happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
You're surprised that legal counsel would screw up such a Huge, Complicated, Highly Technical case, or that they perhaps weren't given all the information by their client?
Or that perhaps the people tasked with working with the lawyers weren't given all the necessary information, because it was embarrasing?
IANAL, but I watch them on TV, and I reckon I can see this kind of thing happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31545700</id>
	<title>Re:I dont know what is an 'oops' situation if this</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1269002820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UK is blocked off.  Anywhere the shows have local licensing deals, I imagine, or at least if your IP is recorded as being from such a place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK is blocked off .
Anywhere the shows have local licensing deals , I imagine , or at least if your IP is recorded as being from such a place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK is blocked off.
Anywhere the shows have local licensing deals, I imagine, or at least if your IP is recorded as being from such a place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534122</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31539538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31535632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31540432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31545700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31547286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2059236_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31535632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530118
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534528
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533000
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31540432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531402
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534042
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534514
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31534122
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31545700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31528982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31532688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31547286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31539538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31531332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31533098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31530726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2059236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2059236.31529536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
