<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_18_2237230</id>
	<title>1st Trial Under California Spam Law Slams Spammer</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268908920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>www.sorehands.com writes <i>"In the first case brought by a spam recipient to actually go to trial in California, the Superior Court of California held that people who receive false and deceptive spam emails are <a href="http://danhatesspam.com/california.html">entitled to liquidated damages of $1,000 per email</a> under California Business &amp; Professions Code  Section 17529.5.  In the <a href="http://danhatesspam.com/cases/Trancos\_Judgment.pdf">California Superior Court ruling</a> (PDF), Judge Marie S. Weiner made many references to the fact that Defendants used anonymous domain name registration and used unregistered business names in her ruling. This is different from the Gordon case, where one only had to perform a simple whois lookup to identify the sender; here, Defendants used 'from' lines of 'Paid Survey' and 'Your Promotion' with anonymously registered domain names. Judge Weiner's decision makes it clear that the California law is not preempted by the I CAN-SPAM Act. This has been determined in a few prior cases, including my own. (See <a href="http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam">http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam</a> for some of those cases.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.sorehands.com writes " In the first case brought by a spam recipient to actually go to trial in California , the Superior Court of California held that people who receive false and deceptive spam emails are entitled to liquidated damages of $ 1,000 per email under California Business &amp; Professions Code Section 17529.5 .
In the California Superior Court ruling ( PDF ) , Judge Marie S. Weiner made many references to the fact that Defendants used anonymous domain name registration and used unregistered business names in her ruling .
This is different from the Gordon case , where one only had to perform a simple whois lookup to identify the sender ; here , Defendants used 'from ' lines of 'Paid Survey ' and 'Your Promotion ' with anonymously registered domain names .
Judge Weiner 's decision makes it clear that the California law is not preempted by the I CAN-SPAM Act .
This has been determined in a few prior cases , including my own .
( See http : //www.barbieslapp.com/spam for some of those cases .
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.sorehands.com writes "In the first case brought by a spam recipient to actually go to trial in California, the Superior Court of California held that people who receive false and deceptive spam emails are entitled to liquidated damages of $1,000 per email under California Business &amp; Professions Code  Section 17529.5.
In the California Superior Court ruling (PDF), Judge Marie S. Weiner made many references to the fact that Defendants used anonymous domain name registration and used unregistered business names in her ruling.
This is different from the Gordon case, where one only had to perform a simple whois lookup to identify the sender; here, Defendants used 'from' lines of 'Paid Survey' and 'Your Promotion' with anonymously registered domain names.
Judge Weiner's decision makes it clear that the California law is not preempted by the I CAN-SPAM Act.
This has been determined in a few prior cases, including my own.
(See http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam for some of those cases.
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530820</id>
	<title>new plugin for gmail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268916240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I get a "sue" button on my gmail spam folder? I'd love to get $1000 for each of the of spam emails I get everyday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I get a " sue " button on my gmail spam folder ?
I 'd love to get $ 1000 for each of the of spam emails I get everyday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I get a "sue" button on my gmail spam folder?
I'd love to get $1000 for each of the of spam emails I get everyday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531492</id>
	<title>Di3Tk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268920740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>= 36440 FreeBSD</htmltext>
<tokenext>= 36440 FreeBSD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>= 36440 FreeBSD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533714</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>lordlod</author>
	<datestamp>1269031740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...</p><p>So yeah, SPAM costs our company alone a minimum of $200 a year just in subscription fees and maintenance.  In practice, it's cost a lot more, and has taken us offline.</p><p>...</p></div><p>
Your story is interesting and it's clearly costing your business money but it still doesn't add up to anywhere near $1000 per email.
</p><p>
Let's say that you have ten people (you stated less than fifteen) and they all recieve 20 spam a day (what you quoted for the CEO).  That's roughly 73,000 emails a year.
</p><p>
You listed a one off loss of a $50,000 sale, a one off purchase of a $500 filter and $200 per year maintenance.  I'll add in $500 per year per staff member to filter email and general pain.  Taking the one offs and assuming they occur every three years we get $55,700 in cost per year.
</p><p>
The magic figure out of all this very rubbery estimation is 76 cents per email.  Lets call it a dollar, it's a nice number and nobody will rationally argue that it costs more than $1 (USD) to handle a single piece of spam.
</p><p>
Now let's look at what the legistlation puts him on the hook for and compare it to everyone's favorite boogy man, the copyright infringement minimums.
<br>
Cost: Spam = $1, Copyright = $1<br>
Minimum damages: Spam = $1000, Copyright = $750</p><p>So there are a few options for people on this site:</p><ul>
<li>Support Spam and Copyright minimum damages</li><li>Claim that both are two high and the spammer has been unjustly treated</li><li>Openly accept that they hold a hypocritical position</li><li>Try to differentiate them somehow, the spammer was attempting to make money even though he wasn't a big business.  What about a part time  DJ?</li></ul><p>
Personally I think both are too high.  The very concept of a minimum punishment is insane and ties the hands of the Judge.  It doesn't work for criminal cases (three strikes etc.) and it doesn't work in these cases.  The punishment should be applicable to the details of the particular case, including the damage, financial gain, intent and position and history of the perpatrator.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...So yeah , SPAM costs our company alone a minimum of $ 200 a year just in subscription fees and maintenance .
In practice , it 's cost a lot more , and has taken us offline... . Your story is interesting and it 's clearly costing your business money but it still does n't add up to anywhere near $ 1000 per email .
Let 's say that you have ten people ( you stated less than fifteen ) and they all recieve 20 spam a day ( what you quoted for the CEO ) .
That 's roughly 73,000 emails a year .
You listed a one off loss of a $ 50,000 sale , a one off purchase of a $ 500 filter and $ 200 per year maintenance .
I 'll add in $ 500 per year per staff member to filter email and general pain .
Taking the one offs and assuming they occur every three years we get $ 55,700 in cost per year .
The magic figure out of all this very rubbery estimation is 76 cents per email .
Lets call it a dollar , it 's a nice number and nobody will rationally argue that it costs more than $ 1 ( USD ) to handle a single piece of spam .
Now let 's look at what the legistlation puts him on the hook for and compare it to everyone 's favorite boogy man , the copyright infringement minimums .
Cost : Spam = $ 1 , Copyright = $ 1 Minimum damages : Spam = $ 1000 , Copyright = $ 750So there are a few options for people on this site : Support Spam and Copyright minimum damagesClaim that both are two high and the spammer has been unjustly treatedOpenly accept that they hold a hypocritical positionTry to differentiate them somehow , the spammer was attempting to make money even though he was n't a big business .
What about a part time DJ ?
Personally I think both are too high .
The very concept of a minimum punishment is insane and ties the hands of the Judge .
It does n't work for criminal cases ( three strikes etc .
) and it does n't work in these cases .
The punishment should be applicable to the details of the particular case , including the damage , financial gain , intent and position and history of the perpatrator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...So yeah, SPAM costs our company alone a minimum of $200 a year just in subscription fees and maintenance.
In practice, it's cost a lot more, and has taken us offline....
Your story is interesting and it's clearly costing your business money but it still doesn't add up to anywhere near $1000 per email.
Let's say that you have ten people (you stated less than fifteen) and they all recieve 20 spam a day (what you quoted for the CEO).
That's roughly 73,000 emails a year.
You listed a one off loss of a $50,000 sale, a one off purchase of a $500 filter and $200 per year maintenance.
I'll add in $500 per year per staff member to filter email and general pain.
Taking the one offs and assuming they occur every three years we get $55,700 in cost per year.
The magic figure out of all this very rubbery estimation is 76 cents per email.
Lets call it a dollar, it's a nice number and nobody will rationally argue that it costs more than $1 (USD) to handle a single piece of spam.
Now let's look at what the legistlation puts him on the hook for and compare it to everyone's favorite boogy man, the copyright infringement minimums.
Cost: Spam = $1, Copyright = $1
Minimum damages: Spam = $1000, Copyright = $750So there are a few options for people on this site:
Support Spam and Copyright minimum damagesClaim that both are two high and the spammer has been unjustly treatedOpenly accept that they hold a hypocritical positionTry to differentiate them somehow, the spammer was attempting to make money even though he wasn't a big business.
What about a part time  DJ?
Personally I think both are too high.
The very concept of a minimum punishment is insane and ties the hands of the Judge.
It doesn't work for criminal cases (three strikes etc.
) and it doesn't work in these cases.
The punishment should be applicable to the details of the particular case, including the damage, financial gain, intent and position and history of the perpatrator.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531432</id>
	<title>Tenacity</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1268920260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to admire Daniel Balsam for his tenacity.  It sure sent a message to would-be spammers that it is neither lucrative nor desireable to engage in such practices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to admire Daniel Balsam for his tenacity .
It sure sent a message to would-be spammers that it is neither lucrative nor desireable to engage in such practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to admire Daniel Balsam for his tenacity.
It sure sent a message to would-be spammers that it is neither lucrative nor desireable to engage in such practices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531164</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268918460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run the network of a small business.  Less than 15 people.  Program too.  Let me tell you *what* spam costs.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Three years ago, it became a problem that wasn't getting handled by the clients.  The CEO was annoyed at having to delete 20 messages a day.  He got to deleting things so fast he accidentally deleted a very important message in his hurry.  More than once.  Cost to the business:  ~$50,000 in potential sales.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; We bought a spam filtering firewall to handle it.  Yes, there's lots of open source solutions--but we had no spare hardware for virtualization, our mailserver was an undocumented mess--and I needed an "on the wire just work" solution.  Cost: three hours of research, $500 purchase, $200 a year for a 24x7 warranty.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; In 2008 we had our first joe-job--we were running a business class DSL line in the office, 2 Megs, async.  The backscatter *took us offline* for over two days.  I had BATV installed within four hours, but almost nobody uses it.  Oddly enough, postmaster didn't get any complaints that I found.  We had to move our mailserver into a co-lo and purchase the bandwidth, as our ISP couldn't filter that out on the fly.  And don't start on the poor little firewall appliance nearly bursting into flames as its load went up to 5-6 on a single CPU trying to scan the content.</p><p>Because of SPAM, I can't run an open relay, and my users have to connect either via VPN to a trusted open LAN submission service, or I have to install passwords in the outbound SMTP system.  Both of these take configuration changes.  Because of SPAM, users on aircards can't follow their ISPs email instructions--I've got domainkeys--they need to send mail from *my* mailsystems.</p><p>So yeah, SPAM costs our company alone a minimum of $200 a year just in subscription fees and maintenance.  In practice, it's cost a lot more, and has taken us offline.  What do you think it costs a company the size of IBM, or the state of California?</p><p>I'm just grateful I'm not in an industry where I'm required by law to archive all these things.  And you are aware storage is *expensive* right?  Yeah, I can get a cheap ass drive at home for $100 for 1 TB.  But at work--high availability systems, high availability storage, tape archiving, backups, redundancy.  Now--not everything needs this, but even the cheap cable attached SAS drives aren't coming in for less than $200, and those don't have much capacity and are like 7200 RPM.  To actually benefit from those, I need at least direct attached storage, or a NAS device-- $4000 - $20,000+.  Of course, I *could* build it myself and end up with no warranty or support contract...</p><p>Now, to capitalize on this and back it up, I'll need either a tape backup system, shipping, or a high speed fiber link to somewhere.</p><p>Lest you say all of this isn't caused by one spam--it's well established in the US that the "weak skull defense" is *not* valid.  If it's the last spam that caused my firewall to crash, or forced me to invest in the firewall--they are liable for it.</p><p>Anybody who runs a megacorp network want to tell mr speedy exactly what spam actually costs their company?  Don't forget the extra AV licenses you probably had to purchase for the distributed scanners...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run the network of a small business .
Less than 15 people .
Program too .
Let me tell you * what * spam costs .
    Three years ago , it became a problem that was n't getting handled by the clients .
The CEO was annoyed at having to delete 20 messages a day .
He got to deleting things so fast he accidentally deleted a very important message in his hurry .
More than once .
Cost to the business : ~ $ 50,000 in potential sales .
    We bought a spam filtering firewall to handle it .
Yes , there 's lots of open source solutions--but we had no spare hardware for virtualization , our mailserver was an undocumented mess--and I needed an " on the wire just work " solution .
Cost : three hours of research , $ 500 purchase , $ 200 a year for a 24x7 warranty .
    In 2008 we had our first joe-job--we were running a business class DSL line in the office , 2 Megs , async .
The backscatter * took us offline * for over two days .
I had BATV installed within four hours , but almost nobody uses it .
Oddly enough , postmaster did n't get any complaints that I found .
We had to move our mailserver into a co-lo and purchase the bandwidth , as our ISP could n't filter that out on the fly .
And do n't start on the poor little firewall appliance nearly bursting into flames as its load went up to 5-6 on a single CPU trying to scan the content.Because of SPAM , I ca n't run an open relay , and my users have to connect either via VPN to a trusted open LAN submission service , or I have to install passwords in the outbound SMTP system .
Both of these take configuration changes .
Because of SPAM , users on aircards ca n't follow their ISPs email instructions--I 've got domainkeys--they need to send mail from * my * mailsystems.So yeah , SPAM costs our company alone a minimum of $ 200 a year just in subscription fees and maintenance .
In practice , it 's cost a lot more , and has taken us offline .
What do you think it costs a company the size of IBM , or the state of California ? I 'm just grateful I 'm not in an industry where I 'm required by law to archive all these things .
And you are aware storage is * expensive * right ?
Yeah , I can get a cheap ass drive at home for $ 100 for 1 TB .
But at work--high availability systems , high availability storage , tape archiving , backups , redundancy .
Now--not everything needs this , but even the cheap cable attached SAS drives are n't coming in for less than $ 200 , and those do n't have much capacity and are like 7200 RPM .
To actually benefit from those , I need at least direct attached storage , or a NAS device-- $ 4000 - $ 20,000 + .
Of course , I * could * build it myself and end up with no warranty or support contract...Now , to capitalize on this and back it up , I 'll need either a tape backup system , shipping , or a high speed fiber link to somewhere.Lest you say all of this is n't caused by one spam--it 's well established in the US that the " weak skull defense " is * not * valid .
If it 's the last spam that caused my firewall to crash , or forced me to invest in the firewall--they are liable for it.Anybody who runs a megacorp network want to tell mr speedy exactly what spam actually costs their company ?
Do n't forget the extra AV licenses you probably had to purchase for the distributed scanners.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run the network of a small business.
Less than 15 people.
Program too.
Let me tell you *what* spam costs.
    Three years ago, it became a problem that wasn't getting handled by the clients.
The CEO was annoyed at having to delete 20 messages a day.
He got to deleting things so fast he accidentally deleted a very important message in his hurry.
More than once.
Cost to the business:  ~$50,000 in potential sales.
    We bought a spam filtering firewall to handle it.
Yes, there's lots of open source solutions--but we had no spare hardware for virtualization, our mailserver was an undocumented mess--and I needed an "on the wire just work" solution.
Cost: three hours of research, $500 purchase, $200 a year for a 24x7 warranty.
    In 2008 we had our first joe-job--we were running a business class DSL line in the office, 2 Megs, async.
The backscatter *took us offline* for over two days.
I had BATV installed within four hours, but almost nobody uses it.
Oddly enough, postmaster didn't get any complaints that I found.
We had to move our mailserver into a co-lo and purchase the bandwidth, as our ISP couldn't filter that out on the fly.
And don't start on the poor little firewall appliance nearly bursting into flames as its load went up to 5-6 on a single CPU trying to scan the content.Because of SPAM, I can't run an open relay, and my users have to connect either via VPN to a trusted open LAN submission service, or I have to install passwords in the outbound SMTP system.
Both of these take configuration changes.
Because of SPAM, users on aircards can't follow their ISPs email instructions--I've got domainkeys--they need to send mail from *my* mailsystems.So yeah, SPAM costs our company alone a minimum of $200 a year just in subscription fees and maintenance.
In practice, it's cost a lot more, and has taken us offline.
What do you think it costs a company the size of IBM, or the state of California?I'm just grateful I'm not in an industry where I'm required by law to archive all these things.
And you are aware storage is *expensive* right?
Yeah, I can get a cheap ass drive at home for $100 for 1 TB.
But at work--high availability systems, high availability storage, tape archiving, backups, redundancy.
Now--not everything needs this, but even the cheap cable attached SAS drives aren't coming in for less than $200, and those don't have much capacity and are like 7200 RPM.
To actually benefit from those, I need at least direct attached storage, or a NAS device-- $4000 - $20,000+.
Of course, I *could* build it myself and end up with no warranty or support contract...Now, to capitalize on this and back it up, I'll need either a tape backup system, shipping, or a high speed fiber link to somewhere.Lest you say all of this isn't caused by one spam--it's well established in the US that the "weak skull defense" is *not* valid.
If it's the last spam that caused my firewall to crash, or forced me to invest in the firewall--they are liable for it.Anybody who runs a megacorp network want to tell mr speedy exactly what spam actually costs their company?
Don't forget the extra AV licenses you probably had to purchase for the distributed scanners...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531854</id>
	<title>Good luck with that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>File this one with all the others who think they will get money out for punitive damages from spammers.  We all know in the end it won't work, the plaintiff won't see any money; hence don't hold your breath for your "share" either.<br> <br>
Of course, IANAL, however we see that the PDF states the lawsuit (note it was not a criminal trial) was against a company.  If the company doesn't have any responsible staffers in the US, then this suit isn't worth the paper the ruling was printed on.  Furthermore if the company goes under then the payment for the ruling will be decided in bankruptcy court (though only if they are a US-based company).<br> <br>
The plaintiff(s) would have been wise to just save their time and not bother bringing a lawyer into the matter, as in the end they will likely end up paying a lot more money to that lawyer than they will ever see form the company they just sued.</htmltext>
<tokenext>File this one with all the others who think they will get money out for punitive damages from spammers .
We all know in the end it wo n't work , the plaintiff wo n't see any money ; hence do n't hold your breath for your " share " either .
Of course , IANAL , however we see that the PDF states the lawsuit ( note it was not a criminal trial ) was against a company .
If the company does n't have any responsible staffers in the US , then this suit is n't worth the paper the ruling was printed on .
Furthermore if the company goes under then the payment for the ruling will be decided in bankruptcy court ( though only if they are a US-based company ) .
The plaintiff ( s ) would have been wise to just save their time and not bother bringing a lawyer into the matter , as in the end they will likely end up paying a lot more money to that lawyer than they will ever see form the company they just sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>File this one with all the others who think they will get money out for punitive damages from spammers.
We all know in the end it won't work, the plaintiff won't see any money; hence don't hold your breath for your "share" either.
Of course, IANAL, however we see that the PDF states the lawsuit (note it was not a criminal trial) was against a company.
If the company doesn't have any responsible staffers in the US, then this suit isn't worth the paper the ruling was printed on.
Furthermore if the company goes under then the payment for the ruling will be decided in bankruptcy court (though only if they are a US-based company).
The plaintiff(s) would have been wise to just save their time and not bother bringing a lawyer into the matter, as in the end they will likely end up paying a lot more money to that lawyer than they will ever see form the company they just sued.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532358</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that...</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1268928420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>
File this one with all the others who think they will get money out for punitive damages from spammers. We all know in the end it won't work, the plaintiff won't see any money; hence don't hold your breath for your "share" either.
</i>
</p><p>
No, he's going to collect on this one.  The other side showed up in court, represented by counsel, and lost.  The spammer has business premises within Redwood City, CA, where the court is located.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>File this one with all the others who think they will get money out for punitive damages from spammers .
We all know in the end it wo n't work , the plaintiff wo n't see any money ; hence do n't hold your breath for your " share " either .
No , he 's going to collect on this one .
The other side showed up in court , represented by counsel , and lost .
The spammer has business premises within Redwood City , CA , where the court is located .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

File this one with all the others who think they will get money out for punitive damages from spammers.
We all know in the end it won't work, the plaintiff won't see any money; hence don't hold your breath for your "share" either.
No, he's going to collect on this one.
The other side showed up in court, represented by counsel, and lost.
The spammer has business premises within Redwood City, CA, where the court is located.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531080</id>
	<title>Well I for one ...</title>
	<author>ClickOnThis</author>
	<datestamp>1268917980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... won't miss this guy for more than the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck\_time" title="wikipedia.org">Planck time</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... wo n't miss this guy for more than the Planck time [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... won't miss this guy for more than the Planck time [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530684</id>
	<title>Very disappointed</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1268915340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.barbieslapp.com was not at all what I was hoping it would be about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.barbieslapp.com was not at all what I was hoping it would be about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.barbieslapp.com was not at all what I was hoping it would be about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530514</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268914440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll save someone some time- actually, a lot of people a lot of time:
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>... (<b>x</b>) legislative<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</tt>
<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>...</tt>
<br> <br>
<tt>(<b>x</b>) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money</tt>
<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>...</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll save someone some time- actually , a lot of people a lot of time : ... ( x ) legislative .. . .. . ( x ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll save someone some time- actually, a lot of people a lot of time:
  ... (x) legislative ...

 ...
 
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money

 ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304</id>
	<title>It's Not Going To Make  A Difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268913000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know the $1,000 per e-mail is supposed to be a deterrent, but no one is ever going to see any real money from this guy. Who keeps the 'spam'? How can they prove they received it once it's gone? <br> <br>
This guy is going to declare bankruptcy as soon as his fine is handed down and the only one who's going to get any of his cash is his lawyer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the $ 1,000 per e-mail is supposed to be a deterrent , but no one is ever going to see any real money from this guy .
Who keeps the 'spam ' ?
How can they prove they received it once it 's gone ?
This guy is going to declare bankruptcy as soon as his fine is handed down and the only one who 's going to get any of his cash is his lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the $1,000 per e-mail is supposed to be a deterrent, but no one is ever going to see any real money from this guy.
Who keeps the 'spam'?
How can they prove they received it once it's gone?
This guy is going to declare bankruptcy as soon as his fine is handed down and the only one who's going to get any of his cash is his lawyer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531682</id>
	<title>$1000 damages, plus $1000 fine.</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1268922360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article says its damages, presumably payable to the person spammed by the spamming company.   Given that the CA law also says its a misdemeanor, that would imply that individuals can be fined or jailed.  Cali might be able to start prosecuting these guys and generating some revenue. Or maybe they'll stick with the easier to prove and more lucrative dwi cases.</p><p>From 17529.5. <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/BPC/1/d7/3/1/1.8/s17529.5" title="findlaw.com">http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/BPC/1/d7/3/1/1.8/s17529.5</a> [findlaw.com]<br>(a)It is unlawful for any person or entity to advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement either sent from California or sent to a California electronic mail address under any of the following circumstances:</p><p>(1)The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by a third-party's domain name without the permission of the third party.</p><p>(2)The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information. This paragraph does not apply to truthful information used by a third party who has been lawfully authorized by the advertiser to use that information.</p><p>(3)The e-mail advertisement has a subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.</p><p>(b)(1)(A)In addition to any other remedies provided by any other provision of law, the following may bring an action against a person or entity that violates any provision of this section:</p><p>(i)The Attorney General.</p><p>(ii)An electronic mail service provider.</p><p>(iii)A recipient of an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement, as defined in Section 17529.1.</p><p>(B)A person or entity bringing an action pursuant to subparagraph (A) may recover either or both of the following:</p><p>(i)Actual damages.</p><p>(ii)Liquidated damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement transmitted in violation of this section, up to one million dollars ($1,000,000) per incident.</p><p>(C)The recipient, an electronic mail service provider, or the Attorney General, if the prevailing plaintiff, may also recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs.</p><p>(D)However, there shall not be a cause of action under this section against an electronic mail service provider that is only involved in the routine transmission of the e-mail advertisement over its computer network.</p><p>(2)If the court finds that the defendant established and implemented, with due care, practices and procedures reasonably designed to effectively prevent unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements that are in violation of this section, the court shall reduce the liquidated damages recoverable under paragraph (1) to a maximum of one hundred dollars ($100) for each unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement, or a maximum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per incident.</p><p>(3)(A)A person who has brought an action against a party under this section shall not bring an action against that party under Section 17529.8 or 17538.45 for the same commercial e-mail advertisement, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 17529.1.</p><p>(B)A person who has brought an action against a party under Section 17529.8 or 17538.45 shall not bring an action against that party under this section for the same commercial e-mail advertisement, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 17529.1.</p><p>(c)A violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or both that fine and imprisonment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says its damages , presumably payable to the person spammed by the spamming company .
Given that the CA law also says its a misdemeanor , that would imply that individuals can be fined or jailed .
Cali might be able to start prosecuting these guys and generating some revenue .
Or maybe they 'll stick with the easier to prove and more lucrative dwi cases.From 17529.5. http : //codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/BPC/1/d7/3/1/1.8/s17529.5 [ findlaw.com ] ( a ) It is unlawful for any person or entity to advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement either sent from California or sent to a California electronic mail address under any of the following circumstances : ( 1 ) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by a third-party 's domain name without the permission of the third party .
( 2 ) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by falsified , misrepresented , or forged header information .
This paragraph does not apply to truthful information used by a third party who has been lawfully authorized by the advertiser to use that information .
( 3 ) The e-mail advertisement has a subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient , acting reasonably under the circumstances , about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message .
( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) In addition to any other remedies provided by any other provision of law , the following may bring an action against a person or entity that violates any provision of this section : ( i ) The Attorney General .
( ii ) An electronic mail service provider .
( iii ) A recipient of an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement , as defined in Section 17529.1 .
( B ) A person or entity bringing an action pursuant to subparagraph ( A ) may recover either or both of the following : ( i ) Actual damages .
( ii ) Liquidated damages of one thousand dollars ( $ 1,000 ) for each unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement transmitted in violation of this section , up to one million dollars ( $ 1,000,000 ) per incident .
( C ) The recipient , an electronic mail service provider , or the Attorney General , if the prevailing plaintiff , may also recover reasonable attorney 's fees and costs .
( D ) However , there shall not be a cause of action under this section against an electronic mail service provider that is only involved in the routine transmission of the e-mail advertisement over its computer network .
( 2 ) If the court finds that the defendant established and implemented , with due care , practices and procedures reasonably designed to effectively prevent unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements that are in violation of this section , the court shall reduce the liquidated damages recoverable under paragraph ( 1 ) to a maximum of one hundred dollars ( $ 100 ) for each unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement , or a maximum of one hundred thousand dollars ( $ 100,000 ) per incident .
( 3 ) ( A ) A person who has brought an action against a party under this section shall not bring an action against that party under Section 17529.8 or 17538.45 for the same commercial e-mail advertisement , as defined in subdivision ( c ) of Section 17529.1 .
( B ) A person who has brought an action against a party under Section 17529.8 or 17538.45 shall not bring an action against that party under this section for the same commercial e-mail advertisement , as defined in subdivision ( c ) of Section 17529.1 .
( c ) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor , punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ( $ 1,000 ) , imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months , or both that fine and imprisonment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says its damages, presumably payable to the person spammed by the spamming company.
Given that the CA law also says its a misdemeanor, that would imply that individuals can be fined or jailed.
Cali might be able to start prosecuting these guys and generating some revenue.
Or maybe they'll stick with the easier to prove and more lucrative dwi cases.From 17529.5. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/BPC/1/d7/3/1/1.8/s17529.5 [findlaw.com](a)It is unlawful for any person or entity to advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement either sent from California or sent to a California electronic mail address under any of the following circumstances:(1)The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by a third-party's domain name without the permission of the third party.
(2)The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information.
This paragraph does not apply to truthful information used by a third party who has been lawfully authorized by the advertiser to use that information.
(3)The e-mail advertisement has a subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.
(b)(1)(A)In addition to any other remedies provided by any other provision of law, the following may bring an action against a person or entity that violates any provision of this section:(i)The Attorney General.
(ii)An electronic mail service provider.
(iii)A recipient of an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement, as defined in Section 17529.1.
(B)A person or entity bringing an action pursuant to subparagraph (A) may recover either or both of the following:(i)Actual damages.
(ii)Liquidated damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement transmitted in violation of this section, up to one million dollars ($1,000,000) per incident.
(C)The recipient, an electronic mail service provider, or the Attorney General, if the prevailing plaintiff, may also recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
(D)However, there shall not be a cause of action under this section against an electronic mail service provider that is only involved in the routine transmission of the e-mail advertisement over its computer network.
(2)If the court finds that the defendant established and implemented, with due care, practices and procedures reasonably designed to effectively prevent unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements that are in violation of this section, the court shall reduce the liquidated damages recoverable under paragraph (1) to a maximum of one hundred dollars ($100) for each unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement, or a maximum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per incident.
(3)(A)A person who has brought an action against a party under this section shall not bring an action against that party under Section 17529.8 or 17538.45 for the same commercial e-mail advertisement, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 17529.1.
(B)A person who has brought an action against a party under Section 17529.8 or 17538.45 shall not bring an action against that party under this section for the same commercial e-mail advertisement, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 17529.1.
(c)A violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or both that fine and imprisonment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531736</id>
	<title>songs</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1268922780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>just as stupid as the $25,000 per song rulings. maybe this is indicative of how much their judges make, that $1000 doesn't seem like much to them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>just as stupid as the $ 25,000 per song rulings .
maybe this is indicative of how much their judges make , that $ 1000 does n't seem like much to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just as stupid as the $25,000 per song rulings.
maybe this is indicative of how much their judges make, that $1000 doesn't seem like much to them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>SpeedyDX</author>
	<datestamp>1268915520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't RTFPDF yet, but here are my preliminary thoughts. I understand the rationale that the fine of $1000 per email is that it is punitive, but why $1000? $1000 per email seems like an awfully exaggerated fine. Didn't we agree that fines or other cash penalties should be at least roughly tied to the amount of harm done? For example, sharing a $1 song should not amount to thousands upon thousands of dollars in fines. Likewise, a single spam email that costs the victim almost nothing but time, annoyance, and/or fractions of a cent in bandwidth costs probably shouldn't warrant a $1000 fine.</p><p>Now if a scam email actually defrauded someone of money (the victim could either be the person spammed or an ad agency), the punishment should be relative to the amount defrauded, plus some significant punitive penalty.</p><p>If we think that outrageous fines are unjust and unwarranted, shouldn't we apply this rule across the board? Figure out the actual damages and go from there instead of just slapping a $1000 price tag on each email. Doesn't that make more sense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFPDF yet , but here are my preliminary thoughts .
I understand the rationale that the fine of $ 1000 per email is that it is punitive , but why $ 1000 ?
$ 1000 per email seems like an awfully exaggerated fine .
Did n't we agree that fines or other cash penalties should be at least roughly tied to the amount of harm done ?
For example , sharing a $ 1 song should not amount to thousands upon thousands of dollars in fines .
Likewise , a single spam email that costs the victim almost nothing but time , annoyance , and/or fractions of a cent in bandwidth costs probably should n't warrant a $ 1000 fine.Now if a scam email actually defrauded someone of money ( the victim could either be the person spammed or an ad agency ) , the punishment should be relative to the amount defrauded , plus some significant punitive penalty.If we think that outrageous fines are unjust and unwarranted , should n't we apply this rule across the board ?
Figure out the actual damages and go from there instead of just slapping a $ 1000 price tag on each email .
Does n't that make more sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFPDF yet, but here are my preliminary thoughts.
I understand the rationale that the fine of $1000 per email is that it is punitive, but why $1000?
$1000 per email seems like an awfully exaggerated fine.
Didn't we agree that fines or other cash penalties should be at least roughly tied to the amount of harm done?
For example, sharing a $1 song should not amount to thousands upon thousands of dollars in fines.
Likewise, a single spam email that costs the victim almost nothing but time, annoyance, and/or fractions of a cent in bandwidth costs probably shouldn't warrant a $1000 fine.Now if a scam email actually defrauded someone of money (the victim could either be the person spammed or an ad agency), the punishment should be relative to the amount defrauded, plus some significant punitive penalty.If we think that outrageous fines are unjust and unwarranted, shouldn't we apply this rule across the board?
Figure out the actual damages and go from there instead of just slapping a $1000 price tag on each email.
Doesn't that make more sense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533192</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>gdshaw</author>
	<datestamp>1268936580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Didn't we agree that fines or other cash penalties should be at least roughly tied to the amount of harm done?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, the point was that if the cash penalty is disproportionate then the case should be tried in a criminal court with criminal standards of proof.</p><p>(Yes, I reluctantly agree that this should apply here too.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we agree that fines or other cash penalties should be at least roughly tied to the amount of harm done ? No , the point was that if the cash penalty is disproportionate then the case should be tried in a criminal court with criminal standards of proof .
( Yes , I reluctantly agree that this should apply here too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we agree that fines or other cash penalties should be at least roughly tied to the amount of harm done?No, the point was that if the cash penalty is disproportionate then the case should be tried in a criminal court with criminal standards of proof.
(Yes, I reluctantly agree that this should apply here too.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530966</id>
	<title>Re:Overboard</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is $1000 for littering "rediculous"? That's the same amount in California.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is $ 1000 for littering " rediculous " ?
That 's the same amount in California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is $1000 for littering "rediculous"?
That's the same amount in California.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531604</id>
	<title>Re:new plugin for gmail</title>
	<author>Parallax48</author>
	<datestamp>1268921520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be great to group all emails marked as spam by gmail into one folder, group it by spammer (or just main contents of message) and make those emails available to lawyers / forensics experts hoping to do some investigative research and bring a class action lawsuit.</p><p>If they simply picked the most "popular" spam message every week and got an award of $1000 per email when they located the spammer (keeping say 10\%) it would be a nice profitable business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be great to group all emails marked as spam by gmail into one folder , group it by spammer ( or just main contents of message ) and make those emails available to lawyers / forensics experts hoping to do some investigative research and bring a class action lawsuit.If they simply picked the most " popular " spam message every week and got an award of $ 1000 per email when they located the spammer ( keeping say 10 \ % ) it would be a nice profitable business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be great to group all emails marked as spam by gmail into one folder, group it by spammer (or just main contents of message) and make those emails available to lawyers / forensics experts hoping to do some investigative research and bring a class action lawsuit.If they simply picked the most "popular" spam message every week and got an award of $1000 per email when they located the spammer (keeping say 10\%) it would be a nice profitable business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531132</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1268918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Onw - 1 - person being arrested for murder does not mean murder is "solved" for all time. The only real metric is a persistent lowering not caused by underreporting. That is far more complicated than most companies think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Onw - 1 - person being arrested for murder does not mean murder is " solved " for all time .
The only real metric is a persistent lowering not caused by underreporting .
That is far more complicated than most companies think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Onw - 1 - person being arrested for murder does not mean murder is "solved" for all time.
The only real metric is a persistent lowering not caused by underreporting.
That is far more complicated than most companies think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31538762</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>PPalmgren</author>
	<datestamp>1269016860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if Cali is like my state, but if you look at the sign, it says a "MAX FINE" before the $1000.  Someone throwing out a banana peel likely won't get fined at all.  A bag of fast food trash: $50.  A full garbage bag due to laziness:  $500.  Dumping 100 pounds of trash:  $1000.  These fines are reasonable considering the damage done, and are in now way proportional to one spam or one song.</p><p>I feel sorry for you if your state really does have black-and-white fines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if Cali is like my state , but if you look at the sign , it says a " MAX FINE " before the $ 1000 .
Someone throwing out a banana peel likely wo n't get fined at all .
A bag of fast food trash : $ 50 .
A full garbage bag due to laziness : $ 500 .
Dumping 100 pounds of trash : $ 1000 .
These fines are reasonable considering the damage done , and are in now way proportional to one spam or one song.I feel sorry for you if your state really does have black-and-white fines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if Cali is like my state, but if you look at the sign, it says a "MAX FINE" before the $1000.
Someone throwing out a banana peel likely won't get fined at all.
A bag of fast food trash: $50.
A full garbage bag due to laziness:  $500.
Dumping 100 pounds of trash:  $1000.
These fines are reasonable considering the damage done, and are in now way proportional to one spam or one song.I feel sorry for you if your state really does have black-and-white fines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31534038</id>
	<title>Re:Overboard</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1268994840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK, someone managed to get &pound;270 + &pound;30 costs from a spammer through the small claims court. Costs go up inline with the claim; &pound;270 kept the costs under &pound;30. This is from 2005; I believe the figure is &pound;450 + &pound;50 these days.

</p><p> <a href="http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strategy/2005/12/28/court-victory-in-the-fight-against-spam-39244402/" title="zdnet.co.uk">http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strategy/2005/12/28/court-victory-in-the-fight-against-spam-39244402/</a> [zdnet.co.uk]

</p><p>That's not far off your $1,000.

</p><p>I think it a good figure. It's high enough to shock someone without making them bankrupt.

</p><p>I love throwing out the &pound;450 figure when spammers originate from my home town (bless you Gmail and your search Gods). The threat of knocking on their door to collect makes me feel warm inside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK , someone managed to get   270 +   30 costs from a spammer through the small claims court .
Costs go up inline with the claim ;   270 kept the costs under   30 .
This is from 2005 ; I believe the figure is   450 +   50 these days .
http : //www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strategy/2005/12/28/court-victory-in-the-fight-against-spam-39244402/ [ zdnet.co.uk ] That 's not far off your $ 1,000 .
I think it a good figure .
It 's high enough to shock someone without making them bankrupt .
I love throwing out the   450 figure when spammers originate from my home town ( bless you Gmail and your search Gods ) .
The threat of knocking on their door to collect makes me feel warm inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK, someone managed to get £270 + £30 costs from a spammer through the small claims court.
Costs go up inline with the claim; £270 kept the costs under £30.
This is from 2005; I believe the figure is £450 + £50 these days.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strategy/2005/12/28/court-victory-in-the-fight-against-spam-39244402/ [zdnet.co.uk]

That's not far off your $1,000.
I think it a good figure.
It's high enough to shock someone without making them bankrupt.
I love throwing out the £450 figure when spammers originate from my home town (bless you Gmail and your search Gods).
The threat of knocking on their door to collect makes me feel warm inside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531912</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1268924280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a spammer, he's rich.</p><p>And concealing assets, even ill-gotten gains, from the court in a bankruptcy proceeding is bankruptcy fraud, which is a federal offense you can go to prison for, not just get the crap fined out of your balance sheet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a spammer , he 's rich.And concealing assets , even ill-gotten gains , from the court in a bankruptcy proceeding is bankruptcy fraud , which is a federal offense you can go to prison for , not just get the crap fined out of your balance sheet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a spammer, he's rich.And concealing assets, even ill-gotten gains, from the court in a bankruptcy proceeding is bankruptcy fraud, which is a federal offense you can go to prison for, not just get the crap fined out of your balance sheet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530454</id>
	<title>2010 a bit late?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268913960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its 2010, well over a decade after spam became a prominent problem. Why is this the first successfull prosecution of a spammer? Bit late wouldnt you say? I thought the can-spam act has been around for years. Why arent these guys being taken down sooner?  Guess better late than never.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its 2010 , well over a decade after spam became a prominent problem .
Why is this the first successfull prosecution of a spammer ?
Bit late wouldnt you say ?
I thought the can-spam act has been around for years .
Why arent these guys being taken down sooner ?
Guess better late than never .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its 2010, well over a decade after spam became a prominent problem.
Why is this the first successfull prosecution of a spammer?
Bit late wouldnt you say?
I thought the can-spam act has been around for years.
Why arent these guys being taken down sooner?
Guess better late than never.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530690</id>
	<title>Overboard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate spam as much as the next guy, but $1,000 per e-mail is just as rediculous as the rewards we are seeing for pirating music. Can't we work to solve this problem without making up huge numbers that no one will ever be able to pay anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate spam as much as the next guy , but $ 1,000 per e-mail is just as rediculous as the rewards we are seeing for pirating music .
Ca n't we work to solve this problem without making up huge numbers that no one will ever be able to pay anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate spam as much as the next guy, but $1,000 per e-mail is just as rediculous as the rewards we are seeing for pirating music.
Can't we work to solve this problem without making up huge numbers that no one will ever be able to pay anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530408</id>
	<title>Better headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268913660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Slamming spam lands spammer in slammer"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Slamming spam lands spammer in slammer "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Slamming spam lands spammer in slammer"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531572</id>
	<title>Re:2010 a bit late?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268921160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's really late. I mean who gets SPAM anymore? I know that network admins, gmail folks, hotmail folks, some ISPs and the like do a lot of work and spend a bunch of money on preventing SPAM and from what I can see what they do works. I almost never get any SPAM at all. Maybe 1 a week between my 4 email accounts that I use. From my "end user perspective" this is a solved problem. I know it isn't solved from a network perspective - but thinking of it like someone who would end up on a jury thinking, "who gets SPAM anymore?" makes me think there won't be very many of these cases...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really late .
I mean who gets SPAM anymore ?
I know that network admins , gmail folks , hotmail folks , some ISPs and the like do a lot of work and spend a bunch of money on preventing SPAM and from what I can see what they do works .
I almost never get any SPAM at all .
Maybe 1 a week between my 4 email accounts that I use .
From my " end user perspective " this is a solved problem .
I know it is n't solved from a network perspective - but thinking of it like someone who would end up on a jury thinking , " who gets SPAM anymore ?
" makes me think there wo n't be very many of these cases.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really late.
I mean who gets SPAM anymore?
I know that network admins, gmail folks, hotmail folks, some ISPs and the like do a lot of work and spend a bunch of money on preventing SPAM and from what I can see what they do works.
I almost never get any SPAM at all.
Maybe 1 a week between my 4 email accounts that I use.
From my "end user perspective" this is a solved problem.
I know it isn't solved from a network perspective - but thinking of it like someone who would end up on a jury thinking, "who gets SPAM anymore?
" makes me think there won't be very many of these cases...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531106</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1268918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This guy is going to declare bankruptcy</p></div><p>A judge still has to grant bankruptcy status. Due to the nature of his problems, its likely a judge will not give him a pass. Abuse of the law to side step the other hand of the law isn't a typical reason allowed for bankruptcy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is going to declare bankruptcyA judge still has to grant bankruptcy status .
Due to the nature of his problems , its likely a judge will not give him a pass .
Abuse of the law to side step the other hand of the law is n't a typical reason allowed for bankruptcy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy is going to declare bankruptcyA judge still has to grant bankruptcy status.
Due to the nature of his problems, its likely a judge will not give him a pass.
Abuse of the law to side step the other hand of the law isn't a typical reason allowed for bankruptcy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530792</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268916060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dan IS the lawyer.  He runs a law firm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dan IS the lawyer .
He runs a law firm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dan IS the lawyer.
He runs a law firm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31539838</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269020340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the rational here is that a single email can do MORE than $1,000 in harm.  The most often used example is of a minor getting hardcore porn.  Other examples include opening up pornographic email at work (and risking loosing your job because of it).</p><p>I have a story on the last one.  In the late nineties my Sister worked at a domestic violence support organization.  They helped battered and abused women and there children get out of those situations.  Part of her job was to be a open contact for anyone suffering abuse, this included reading through her email box and the main companies email box.</p><p>Every day she would go through the 2-3 hundred combined emails in those two boxes, most of which were unlabeled porn ads.  At one point her boss called her in and "had a talk with her about looking at pornography in the work place".  This being the '90s not everyone knew about spam yet.  Luckily she explained and her boss understood.  She still had to walk around and apologize every time she read through her email though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the rational here is that a single email can do MORE than $ 1,000 in harm .
The most often used example is of a minor getting hardcore porn .
Other examples include opening up pornographic email at work ( and risking loosing your job because of it ) .I have a story on the last one .
In the late nineties my Sister worked at a domestic violence support organization .
They helped battered and abused women and there children get out of those situations .
Part of her job was to be a open contact for anyone suffering abuse , this included reading through her email box and the main companies email box.Every day she would go through the 2-3 hundred combined emails in those two boxes , most of which were unlabeled porn ads .
At one point her boss called her in and " had a talk with her about looking at pornography in the work place " .
This being the '90s not everyone knew about spam yet .
Luckily she explained and her boss understood .
She still had to walk around and apologize every time she read through her email though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the rational here is that a single email can do MORE than $1,000 in harm.
The most often used example is of a minor getting hardcore porn.
Other examples include opening up pornographic email at work (and risking loosing your job because of it).I have a story on the last one.
In the late nineties my Sister worked at a domestic violence support organization.
They helped battered and abused women and there children get out of those situations.
Part of her job was to be a open contact for anyone suffering abuse, this included reading through her email box and the main companies email box.Every day she would go through the 2-3 hundred combined emails in those two boxes, most of which were unlabeled porn ads.
At one point her boss called her in and "had a talk with her about looking at pornography in the work place".
This being the '90s not everyone knew about spam yet.
Luckily she explained and her boss understood.
She still had to walk around and apologize every time she read through her email though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533130</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>shadowfaxcrx</author>
	<datestamp>1268935800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, they're going easy on the guy. The 1995 TCPA allows for up to $1500 damages per offense, payable to the plaintiff.</p><p>Second, the amount of "hurt" of the penalty should be standardized. A megacorporation that gets fined a grand for some act of wrongdoing isn't going to care, and is therefore likely to continue committing the offense, writing the penalty off as a business expense, because it's likely that the business is making far more money off of breaking the law than it is losing in penalties. That same $1000 applied to a burgerflipper at McDonalds is going to hurt a lot more.</p><p>(And since corporations insist on being treated as individual people, I would say the doctrine of equal treatment under the law should come into play here, and it's certainly not equal treatment to fine the McDonalds guy 200\% of his paycheck for the same offense that you fined the corporation 0.0000001\% of its daily earnings, eh?)</p><p>Point being, the $1000 fine depends on how much this dude earned.  Some spammers earn a hell of a lot of money sending that crap out. Why should they get to keep so much of it after breaking state (and federal) law literally millions of times?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , they 're going easy on the guy .
The 1995 TCPA allows for up to $ 1500 damages per offense , payable to the plaintiff.Second , the amount of " hurt " of the penalty should be standardized .
A megacorporation that gets fined a grand for some act of wrongdoing is n't going to care , and is therefore likely to continue committing the offense , writing the penalty off as a business expense , because it 's likely that the business is making far more money off of breaking the law than it is losing in penalties .
That same $ 1000 applied to a burgerflipper at McDonalds is going to hurt a lot more .
( And since corporations insist on being treated as individual people , I would say the doctrine of equal treatment under the law should come into play here , and it 's certainly not equal treatment to fine the McDonalds guy 200 \ % of his paycheck for the same offense that you fined the corporation 0.0000001 \ % of its daily earnings , eh ?
) Point being , the $ 1000 fine depends on how much this dude earned .
Some spammers earn a hell of a lot of money sending that crap out .
Why should they get to keep so much of it after breaking state ( and federal ) law literally millions of times ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, they're going easy on the guy.
The 1995 TCPA allows for up to $1500 damages per offense, payable to the plaintiff.Second, the amount of "hurt" of the penalty should be standardized.
A megacorporation that gets fined a grand for some act of wrongdoing isn't going to care, and is therefore likely to continue committing the offense, writing the penalty off as a business expense, because it's likely that the business is making far more money off of breaking the law than it is losing in penalties.
That same $1000 applied to a burgerflipper at McDonalds is going to hurt a lot more.
(And since corporations insist on being treated as individual people, I would say the doctrine of equal treatment under the law should come into play here, and it's certainly not equal treatment to fine the McDonalds guy 200\% of his paycheck for the same offense that you fined the corporation 0.0000001\% of its daily earnings, eh?
)Point being, the $1000 fine depends on how much this dude earned.
Some spammers earn a hell of a lot of money sending that crap out.
Why should they get to keep so much of it after breaking state (and federal) law literally millions of times?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533644</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1269030240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In 2008 we had our first joe-job--we were running a business class DSL line in the office, 2 Megs, async. The backscatter *took us offline* for over two days.</i></p><p>I own a domain for private use, which is hosted by a friend. It's set up so that all mail to any address at that domain is delivered to me.</p><p>I was the victim of a joe-job a few years ago; at the height of the problem, I was getting 2000-3000 mails *per day* from the backscatter and spam to the faked from addresses. It didn't knock anything offline, but it was pretty bloody annoying. Thankfully it has since dropped to maybe a couple of dozen per day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2008 we had our first joe-job--we were running a business class DSL line in the office , 2 Megs , async .
The backscatter * took us offline * for over two days.I own a domain for private use , which is hosted by a friend .
It 's set up so that all mail to any address at that domain is delivered to me.I was the victim of a joe-job a few years ago ; at the height of the problem , I was getting 2000-3000 mails * per day * from the backscatter and spam to the faked from addresses .
It did n't knock anything offline , but it was pretty bloody annoying .
Thankfully it has since dropped to maybe a couple of dozen per day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2008 we had our first joe-job--we were running a business class DSL line in the office, 2 Megs, async.
The backscatter *took us offline* for over two days.I own a domain for private use, which is hosted by a friend.
It's set up so that all mail to any address at that domain is delivered to me.I was the victim of a joe-job a few years ago; at the height of the problem, I was getting 2000-3000 mails *per day* from the backscatter and spam to the faked from addresses.
It didn't knock anything offline, but it was pretty bloody annoying.
Thankfully it has since dropped to maybe a couple of dozen per day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530954</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Littering is $1000 in California, too.  What's the harm to anyone if someone throws a piece of (biodegradable) paper out their window?</p><p>The harm is not the 1 piece of paper, it's the 1,000,000 that result if there is no fine.  The fine has to be punitive enough to stop the 1,000,000.</p><p>Think of this as littering in someone else's inbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Littering is $ 1000 in California , too .
What 's the harm to anyone if someone throws a piece of ( biodegradable ) paper out their window ? The harm is not the 1 piece of paper , it 's the 1,000,000 that result if there is no fine .
The fine has to be punitive enough to stop the 1,000,000.Think of this as littering in someone else 's inbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Littering is $1000 in California, too.
What's the harm to anyone if someone throws a piece of (biodegradable) paper out their window?The harm is not the 1 piece of paper, it's the 1,000,000 that result if there is no fine.
The fine has to be punitive enough to stop the 1,000,000.Think of this as littering in someone else's inbox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31534072</id>
	<title>Re:Overboard</title>
	<author>malkavian</author>
	<datestamp>1268995200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm there with #2, educating people to keep their computers as clean as possible, but the others?  I'd never let a spammer near my computers..  That's asking for trouble..<br>And fining an ISP because an end user doesn't maintain their PC?  To bring out the much hated "car analogy", it's like fining the maintainers of a road because a driver using that road has a crash due to not noticing and fixing a bit of damage caused by vandals.<br>Great, by all means encourage ISPs to have 'health checks' on machines (I know mine does, as I've seen them scanning the firewall), but I'd avoid punishing them for something that is way beyond their duties and responsibilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm there with # 2 , educating people to keep their computers as clean as possible , but the others ?
I 'd never let a spammer near my computers.. That 's asking for trouble..And fining an ISP because an end user does n't maintain their PC ?
To bring out the much hated " car analogy " , it 's like fining the maintainers of a road because a driver using that road has a crash due to not noticing and fixing a bit of damage caused by vandals.Great , by all means encourage ISPs to have 'health checks ' on machines ( I know mine does , as I 've seen them scanning the firewall ) , but I 'd avoid punishing them for something that is way beyond their duties and responsibilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm there with #2, educating people to keep their computers as clean as possible, but the others?
I'd never let a spammer near my computers..  That's asking for trouble..And fining an ISP because an end user doesn't maintain their PC?
To bring out the much hated "car analogy", it's like fining the maintainers of a road because a driver using that road has a crash due to not noticing and fixing a bit of damage caused by vandals.Great, by all means encourage ISPs to have 'health checks' on machines (I know mine does, as I've seen them scanning the firewall), but I'd avoid punishing them for something that is way beyond their duties and responsibilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531422</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268920260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the spam is fraudulent, then each email is an attempt to actually defraud someone (albeit an amateurish, pathetic attempt most of the time). That's a far more serious offense than sharing a song, isn't it? I think it warrants a punitive fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the spam is fraudulent , then each email is an attempt to actually defraud someone ( albeit an amateurish , pathetic attempt most of the time ) .
That 's a far more serious offense than sharing a song , is n't it ?
I think it warrants a punitive fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the spam is fraudulent, then each email is an attempt to actually defraud someone (albeit an amateurish, pathetic attempt most of the time).
That's a far more serious offense than sharing a song, isn't it?
I think it warrants a punitive fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531892</id>
	<title>Re:Overboard</title>
	<author>pgmrdlm</author>
	<datestamp>1268924040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have ISP's take offline every machine that has been proven to issue spam until the owner cleans it to the ISP's pre defined and posted rules are met.</p><p>Any ISP that is found to NOT enforce these rules is fined 1,000 for every spam that is found to originate from their network.</p><p>Once these conditions are met and enforced heavily, ISP&rsquo;s will go out of their way to assist identifying the origin of the infections that are causing the spam. We then hand down sentences requiring that every individual prosecuted for spam must go door to door with a representative of what ever ISP and clean peoples computers of the  software issuing the spam. If the software can not be cleaned, the person that has been convicted and is cleaning these computers MUST pay to have these machines reformatted and reloaded to factory defaults. That means if there are no OS cd&rsquo;s, the person must purchase them.</p><p>These rules would accomplish a couple things.<br>1). Make ISP&rsquo;s responsible for keeping their networks clean.<br>2). Make individuals responsible for keeping their computers clean.<br>3). I&rsquo;m hoping by a spammer having to clean peoples computers that some of them get the living shit kicked out of them by angry individuals.</p><p>We have industry wide enforcement, education of individual users, and retribution sentences that make the person committing the crime to interact with his/her victims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have ISP 's take offline every machine that has been proven to issue spam until the owner cleans it to the ISP 's pre defined and posted rules are met.Any ISP that is found to NOT enforce these rules is fined 1,000 for every spam that is found to originate from their network.Once these conditions are met and enforced heavily , ISP    s will go out of their way to assist identifying the origin of the infections that are causing the spam .
We then hand down sentences requiring that every individual prosecuted for spam must go door to door with a representative of what ever ISP and clean peoples computers of the software issuing the spam .
If the software can not be cleaned , the person that has been convicted and is cleaning these computers MUST pay to have these machines reformatted and reloaded to factory defaults .
That means if there are no OS cd    s , the person must purchase them.These rules would accomplish a couple things.1 ) .
Make ISP    s responsible for keeping their networks clean.2 ) .
Make individuals responsible for keeping their computers clean.3 ) .
I    m hoping by a spammer having to clean peoples computers that some of them get the living shit kicked out of them by angry individuals.We have industry wide enforcement , education of individual users , and retribution sentences that make the person committing the crime to interact with his/her victims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have ISP's take offline every machine that has been proven to issue spam until the owner cleans it to the ISP's pre defined and posted rules are met.Any ISP that is found to NOT enforce these rules is fined 1,000 for every spam that is found to originate from their network.Once these conditions are met and enforced heavily, ISP’s will go out of their way to assist identifying the origin of the infections that are causing the spam.
We then hand down sentences requiring that every individual prosecuted for spam must go door to door with a representative of what ever ISP and clean peoples computers of the  software issuing the spam.
If the software can not be cleaned, the person that has been convicted and is cleaning these computers MUST pay to have these machines reformatted and reloaded to factory defaults.
That means if there are no OS cd’s, the person must purchase them.These rules would accomplish a couple things.1).
Make ISP’s responsible for keeping their networks clean.2).
Make individuals responsible for keeping their computers clean.3).
I’m hoping by a spammer having to clean peoples computers that some of them get the living shit kicked out of them by angry individuals.We have industry wide enforcement, education of individual users, and retribution sentences that make the person committing the crime to interact with his/her victims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530256</id>
	<title>Nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268912820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what should happen for all SPAMMERs. Once this happens to everyone, there would be thicker lines drawn between what is SPAM and whats not. Organizations that do SPAM to provide their advertisements for FREE, even the ones that have the UNSUBSCRIBE button should start getting this kind of penalties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what should happen for all SPAMMERs .
Once this happens to everyone , there would be thicker lines drawn between what is SPAM and whats not .
Organizations that do SPAM to provide their advertisements for FREE , even the ones that have the UNSUBSCRIBE button should start getting this kind of penalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what should happen for all SPAMMERs.
Once this happens to everyone, there would be thicker lines drawn between what is SPAM and whats not.
Organizations that do SPAM to provide their advertisements for FREE, even the ones that have the UNSUBSCRIBE button should start getting this kind of penalties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530278</id>
	<title>One jurisdiction down, how many to go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268912880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it seems like California got one right for once. Now, how many more places need similar laws to solve this worldwide problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it seems like California got one right for once .
Now , how many more places need similar laws to solve this worldwide problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it seems like California got one right for once.
Now, how many more places need similar laws to solve this worldwide problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532188</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1268927040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...why $1000?</p></div><p>Maybe they're trying to assign a cost according to the RIAA per-song tariffs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...why $ 1000 ? Maybe they 're trying to assign a cost according to the RIAA per-song tariffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...why $1000?Maybe they're trying to assign a cost according to the RIAA per-song tariffs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531470</id>
	<title>I'll split it with ya...</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1268920620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be willing to split the take with anyone who wants to chase down and cash in on these guys.   Hell, even at $500/per, I can retire in just a few weeks...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be willing to split the take with anyone who wants to chase down and cash in on these guys .
Hell , even at $ 500/per , I can retire in just a few weeks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be willing to split the take with anyone who wants to chase down and cash in on these guys.
Hell, even at $500/per, I can retire in just a few weeks...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532570</id>
	<title>Re:new plugin for gmail</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1268930100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not configure Gmail to automatically forward your spam to a remote host daemon process used to aggregate your spam emails by blue-pill-vendor.com http site and automatically send those compilations as a bill to each sales@bluepill.com, Oh, and be sure to CC: your chosen MyLawyer@LeagalProfession.com and Guido@collections-now.com. No buttons required! Just sit back and collect the payments. <p>

If the money flow starts slacking off during these economic hard times, just create a few more disposable email addresses, like 48sjklfhfa@sneakemail.com (my favourite disposable email address site, but I think they are no longer free), and be sure to post them on a private no-spiders-allowed/robots.txt labelled web site. The more spam, the more money! Life is good once again...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not configure Gmail to automatically forward your spam to a remote host daemon process used to aggregate your spam emails by blue-pill-vendor.com http site and automatically send those compilations as a bill to each sales @ bluepill.com , Oh , and be sure to CC : your chosen MyLawyer @ LeagalProfession.com and Guido @ collections-now.com .
No buttons required !
Just sit back and collect the payments .
If the money flow starts slacking off during these economic hard times , just create a few more disposable email addresses , like 48sjklfhfa @ sneakemail.com ( my favourite disposable email address site , but I think they are no longer free ) , and be sure to post them on a private no-spiders-allowed/robots.txt labelled web site .
The more spam , the more money !
Life is good once again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not configure Gmail to automatically forward your spam to a remote host daemon process used to aggregate your spam emails by blue-pill-vendor.com http site and automatically send those compilations as a bill to each sales@bluepill.com, Oh, and be sure to CC: your chosen MyLawyer@LeagalProfession.com and Guido@collections-now.com.
No buttons required!
Just sit back and collect the payments.
If the money flow starts slacking off during these economic hard times, just create a few more disposable email addresses, like 48sjklfhfa@sneakemail.com (my favourite disposable email address site, but I think they are no longer free), and be sure to post them on a private no-spiders-allowed/robots.txt labelled web site.
The more spam, the more money!
Life is good once again...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31534976</id>
	<title>Well damn, most times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My post is disputed because of my opinion the user should be held responsible due their machines being infected. lol</p><p>Let me clarify here. I think the ISP's are ONE of the responsible parties for spam. I think they should be doing a better job of policing their networks.  The reason they most likely are not is due to them being afraid of;<br>1): Bad publicity due to terminated accounts.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *** Big bad ISP terminates grandma's account because she does not know how to clean machine of infected bot ware.<br>2). Loss of customers because its not an industry standard to police infected machines.</p><p>By mandating that they must police their network and terminate accounts if users refuse to clean up their machines.  They can point at the big bad government as their escape goat and clean up their network.  They also will not have to worry that customers will go to other lazy/non compliant ISP's that don't care if a machine is infected.</p><p>Just prosecuting the spammer is not going to clean up this problem. ISP's need to clean up their networks better. Users need to monitor their machines and clean them. The offenders need to be put into the wild of pissed off users who have been infected by the spammer.  The last point would probably do more to stop spamming then anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My post is disputed because of my opinion the user should be held responsible due their machines being infected .
lolLet me clarify here .
I think the ISP 's are ONE of the responsible parties for spam .
I think they should be doing a better job of policing their networks .
The reason they most likely are not is due to them being afraid of ; 1 ) : Bad publicity due to terminated accounts .
      * * * Big bad ISP terminates grandma 's account because she does not know how to clean machine of infected bot ware.2 ) .
Loss of customers because its not an industry standard to police infected machines.By mandating that they must police their network and terminate accounts if users refuse to clean up their machines .
They can point at the big bad government as their escape goat and clean up their network .
They also will not have to worry that customers will go to other lazy/non compliant ISP 's that do n't care if a machine is infected.Just prosecuting the spammer is not going to clean up this problem .
ISP 's need to clean up their networks better .
Users need to monitor their machines and clean them .
The offenders need to be put into the wild of pissed off users who have been infected by the spammer .
The last point would probably do more to stop spamming then anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My post is disputed because of my opinion the user should be held responsible due their machines being infected.
lolLet me clarify here.
I think the ISP's are ONE of the responsible parties for spam.
I think they should be doing a better job of policing their networks.
The reason they most likely are not is due to them being afraid of;1): Bad publicity due to terminated accounts.
      *** Big bad ISP terminates grandma's account because she does not know how to clean machine of infected bot ware.2).
Loss of customers because its not an industry standard to police infected machines.By mandating that they must police their network and terminate accounts if users refuse to clean up their machines.
They can point at the big bad government as their escape goat and clean up their network.
They also will not have to worry that customers will go to other lazy/non compliant ISP's that don't care if a machine is infected.Just prosecuting the spammer is not going to clean up this problem.
ISP's need to clean up their networks better.
Users need to monitor their machines and clean them.
The offenders need to be put into the wild of pissed off users who have been infected by the spammer.
The last point would probably do more to stop spamming then anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531214</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>metrometro</author>
	<datestamp>1268918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a degree of pragmatism here. The ratio [spam sent] to [court cases won] will be lower than 1000:1, making the per-email judgement, in most cases considerably lower than $1 a message. Of course, a class action could destroy somebody, but then, that's kind of the idea. Deterrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a degree of pragmatism here .
The ratio [ spam sent ] to [ court cases won ] will be lower than 1000 : 1 , making the per-email judgement , in most cases considerably lower than $ 1 a message .
Of course , a class action could destroy somebody , but then , that 's kind of the idea .
Deterrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a degree of pragmatism here.
The ratio [spam sent] to [court cases won] will be lower than 1000:1, making the per-email judgement, in most cases considerably lower than $1 a message.
Of course, a class action could destroy somebody, but then, that's kind of the idea.
Deterrent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530334</id>
	<title>sore hands?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268913240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>more like sore ass when oboingo, harry reis, and nancy pelosi finish fucking it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>more like sore ass when oboingo , harry reis , and nancy pelosi finish fucking it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more like sore ass when oboingo, harry reis, and nancy pelosi finish fucking it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530900</id>
	<title>If I had a nickel...</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1268916780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For every spam I got, I could buy a nice house in the mountains.  If I had a <i>grand</i> for each of them, I could retire the national debt!</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For every spam I got , I could buy a nice house in the mountains .
If I had a grand for each of them , I could retire the national debt ! -jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every spam I got, I could buy a nice house in the mountains.
If I had a grand for each of them, I could retire the national debt!-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531946</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>vandrooo</author>
	<datestamp>1268924700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an attempted scam of 1000's of dollars.  If you try to murder someone, but fail, you still get screwed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an attempted scam of 1000 's of dollars .
If you try to murder someone , but fail , you still get screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an attempted scam of 1000's of dollars.
If you try to murder someone, but fail, you still get screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532160</id>
	<title>Re:2010 a bit late?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268926680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you rather have swift justice?</p><p>Give the courts a few more years, the last thing we need are more computer/internet laws by people who [insert zinger about old people being clueless about computers].</p><p>Hell, just look at the cyberbullying crap being pushed through now.<br>Do you really want <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/drew\_court/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">jail time</a> [wired.com] for violating a website's ToS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you rather have swift justice ? Give the courts a few more years , the last thing we need are more computer/internet laws by people who [ insert zinger about old people being clueless about computers ] .Hell , just look at the cyberbullying crap being pushed through now.Do you really want jail time [ wired.com ] for violating a website 's ToS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you rather have swift justice?Give the courts a few more years, the last thing we need are more computer/internet laws by people who [insert zinger about old people being clueless about computers].Hell, just look at the cyberbullying crap being pushed through now.Do you really want jail time [wired.com] for violating a website's ToS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31535528</id>
	<title>Re:new plugin for gmail</title>
	<author>Anonymous Crobar</author>
	<datestamp>1269008400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As your attorney, I feel compelled to remind you that after fees and my bonus, the real number comes out to be $32.43.   I'll have my secretary mail you a check.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As your attorney , I feel compelled to remind you that after fees and my bonus , the real number comes out to be $ 32.43 .
I 'll have my secretary mail you a check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As your attorney, I feel compelled to remind you that after fees and my bonus, the real number comes out to be $32.43.
I'll have my secretary mail you a check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531298</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268919360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I can make a case for far more than $1000 in lost wages (as a male prostitute) after that male enhancement spam turned out to be fake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I can make a case for far more than $ 1000 in lost wages ( as a male prostitute ) after that male enhancement spam turned out to be fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I can make a case for far more than $1000 in lost wages (as a male prostitute) after that male enhancement spam turned out to be fake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532346</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>smhsmh</author>
	<datestamp>1268928300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Damages" in a civil complaint, despite legal theorems,  has two components.  The obvious one is the the costs suffered by the plaintiff.  The other (less often explicitly acknowledged) is the punishment to discourage future repetitions.</p><p>Suppose some extremely-clever human-engineered phish or spam yields on average more than the fraction of a cent cost that span penalties might obtain.  There would be no disincentive for spamming</p><p>Of course, spamming today has essentially no cost to the perpetrators.  When there is an international corps that track down spammers and either puts a bullet in their brains or shuts off internet connectivity to their entire country, operating characteristics will change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Damages " in a civil complaint , despite legal theorems , has two components .
The obvious one is the the costs suffered by the plaintiff .
The other ( less often explicitly acknowledged ) is the punishment to discourage future repetitions.Suppose some extremely-clever human-engineered phish or spam yields on average more than the fraction of a cent cost that span penalties might obtain .
There would be no disincentive for spammingOf course , spamming today has essentially no cost to the perpetrators .
When there is an international corps that track down spammers and either puts a bullet in their brains or shuts off internet connectivity to their entire country , operating characteristics will change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Damages" in a civil complaint, despite legal theorems,  has two components.
The obvious one is the the costs suffered by the plaintiff.
The other (less often explicitly acknowledged) is the punishment to discourage future repetitions.Suppose some extremely-clever human-engineered phish or spam yields on average more than the fraction of a cent cost that span penalties might obtain.
There would be no disincentive for spammingOf course, spamming today has essentially no cost to the perpetrators.
When there is an international corps that track down spammers and either puts a bullet in their brains or shuts off internet connectivity to their entire country, operating characteristics will change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530230</id>
	<title>Missing item...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1268912640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, you're supposed to post an web or e-mail address link so people can reach you in the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , you 're supposed to post an web or e-mail address link so people can reach you in the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, you're supposed to post an web or e-mail address link so people can reach you in the summary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532104</id>
	<title>Re:It's Not Going To Make A Difference</title>
	<author>Xaositecte</author>
	<datestamp>1268926200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did a little searching for relevant non e-mail equivalents.</p><p>Sending Junk snail-mail doesn't seem to be against the law in most jurisdictions.</p><p>The closest equivalent I could find is laws against sending junk faxes, which can result in damages of several thousand dollars per page in most jurisdictions.</p><p>So yes, $1000 per e-mail is not without precedent.</p><p>--------------</p><p>With the file-sharing thing, suppose you're in trouble for 10 songs.  You could have stolen a CD, get caught, charged with Petty theft, and let off with community service...</p><p>Or you could have used a file-sharing program, and had your life ruined in the ensuing lawsuit.  The punishment is not only completely out of proportion to the crime, it flies in the face of all precedents for dealing with similar crimes offline.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a little searching for relevant non e-mail equivalents.Sending Junk snail-mail does n't seem to be against the law in most jurisdictions.The closest equivalent I could find is laws against sending junk faxes , which can result in damages of several thousand dollars per page in most jurisdictions.So yes , $ 1000 per e-mail is not without precedent.--------------With the file-sharing thing , suppose you 're in trouble for 10 songs .
You could have stolen a CD , get caught , charged with Petty theft , and let off with community service...Or you could have used a file-sharing program , and had your life ruined in the ensuing lawsuit .
The punishment is not only completely out of proportion to the crime , it flies in the face of all precedents for dealing with similar crimes offline .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a little searching for relevant non e-mail equivalents.Sending Junk snail-mail doesn't seem to be against the law in most jurisdictions.The closest equivalent I could find is laws against sending junk faxes, which can result in damages of several thousand dollars per page in most jurisdictions.So yes, $1000 per e-mail is not without precedent.--------------With the file-sharing thing, suppose you're in trouble for 10 songs.
You could have stolen a CD, get caught, charged with Petty theft, and let off with community service...Or you could have used a file-sharing program, and had your life ruined in the ensuing lawsuit.
The punishment is not only completely out of proportion to the crime, it flies in the face of all precedents for dealing with similar crimes offline.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31534038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31538762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31539838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31535528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31534976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31534072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_2237230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31534976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31534072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31534038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31539838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530954
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31538762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531164
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31533644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_2237230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31530820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31532570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31535528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_2237230.31531604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
