<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_24_1214239</id>
	<title>Full ACTA Leak Online</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269435180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Following months of small Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement leaks,
the <a href="http://www.laquadrature.net/files/201001\_acta.pdf">full
consolidated ACTA text</a> has now been posted online. The consolidated
text provides a clear indication of how the negotiations have altered
earlier proposals (see this <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4730/125/">post for
links to the early leaks</a>) as well as the first look at several
other ACTA elements. For example, last spring it was <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3834/125/">revealed</a>
that several countries had proposed including a de minimus provision to
counter fears that the border measures chapter would lead to iPod
searching border guards. The leak shows there are <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4900/125/">four
proposals on the table</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Following months of small Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement leaks , the full consolidated ACTA text has now been posted online .
The consolidated text provides a clear indication of how the negotiations have altered earlier proposals ( see this post for links to the early leaks ) as well as the first look at several other ACTA elements .
For example , last spring it was revealed that several countries had proposed including a de minimus provision to counter fears that the border measures chapter would lead to iPod searching border guards .
The leak shows there are four proposals on the table .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Following months of small Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement leaks,
the full
consolidated ACTA text has now been posted online.
The consolidated
text provides a clear indication of how the negotiations have altered
earlier proposals (see this post for
links to the early leaks) as well as the first look at several
other ACTA elements.
For example, last spring it was revealed
that several countries had proposed including a de minimus provision to
counter fears that the border measures chapter would lead to iPod
searching border guards.
The leak shows there are four
proposals on the table.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598636</id>
	<title>Re:Am I reading this right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269449400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be entertaining if Microsoft or Apple added GPL code without sharing derivative work and ended up handing over their entire products to the writer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be entertaining if Microsoft or Apple added GPL code without sharing derivative work and ended up handing over their entire products to the writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be entertaining if Microsoft or Apple added GPL code without sharing derivative work and ended up handing over their entire products to the writer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596466</id>
	<title>Full Consolidated?</title>
	<author>Mrdzone</author>
	<datestamp>1269439680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on now... at least take 30 seconds to read the story before you publish it. It's either Full or Consolidated.... not both</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on now... at least take 30 seconds to read the story before you publish it .
It 's either Full or Consolidated.... not both</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on now... at least take 30 seconds to read the story before you publish it.
It's either Full or Consolidated.... not both</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602616</id>
	<title>Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_tex</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269464220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Cool, Thank you. - And yes, please keep all of the original errors and typos, Law droids have all sorts of fun with those. "For lack of a comma the land was lost" and all of that..</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I wonder which of these apparent typos are really parts of a fingerprint to determine which copy, and thus who, was leaked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , Thank you .
- And yes , please keep all of the original errors and typos , Law droids have all sorts of fun with those .
" For lack of a comma the land was lost " and all of that. . I wonder which of these apparent typos are really parts of a fingerprint to determine which copy , and thus who , was leaked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, Thank you.
- And yes, please keep all of the original errors and typos, Law droids have all sorts of fun with those.
"For lack of a comma the land was lost" and all of that..
I wonder which of these apparent typos are really parts of a fingerprint to determine which copy, and thus who, was leaked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596442</id>
	<title>Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_tex</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1269439560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks very much!  Glad to know the Internet isn't all 4chan trolls and hot grits chasers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks very much !
Glad to know the Internet is n't all 4chan trolls and hot grits chasers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks very much!
Glad to know the Internet isn't all 4chan trolls and hot grits chasers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368</id>
	<title>Capable?</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1269439200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content even if they were allowed access. Seriously, would I have to carry receipts, license docs, original packaging and so forth?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content even if they were allowed access .
Seriously , would I have to carry receipts , license docs , original packaging and so forth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content even if they were allowed access.
Seriously, would I have to carry receipts, license docs, original packaging and so forth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597646</id>
	<title>Re:Am I reading this right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269445680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is how I read the thing.  All your "poisoned fruits" are belong to us!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is how I read the thing .
All your " poisoned fruits " are belong to us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is how I read the thing.
All your "poisoned fruits" are belong to us!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597100</id>
	<title>Injunctions against "intermediaries"</title>
	<author>SwedishPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1269443340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's great to know what our corrupt EU politicians over here have been up to. EU citizens: remember, this is what <b>your government ministers</b> have agreed to, it's not just some faceless EU bureaucracy. Hold them responsible for their actions in the EU, don't let them hide behind the bureaucracy.</p><p><i>Article 2.x, option 2 (EU)<br>"Each party shall ensure that, where a judicial decision is taken finding infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may issue against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement. <b>The parties shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by the third party to infringe an intellectual property right.</b>"</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's great to know what our corrupt EU politicians over here have been up to .
EU citizens : remember , this is what your government ministers have agreed to , it 's not just some faceless EU bureaucracy .
Hold them responsible for their actions in the EU , do n't let them hide behind the bureaucracy.Article 2.x , option 2 ( EU ) " Each party shall ensure that , where a judicial decision is taken finding infringement of an intellectual property right , the judicial authorities may issue against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement .
The parties shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by the third party to infringe an intellectual property right .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's great to know what our corrupt EU politicians over here have been up to.
EU citizens: remember, this is what your government ministers have agreed to, it's not just some faceless EU bureaucracy.
Hold them responsible for their actions in the EU, don't let them hide behind the bureaucracy.Article 2.x, option 2 (EU)"Each party shall ensure that, where a judicial decision is taken finding infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may issue against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the infringement.
The parties shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by the third party to infringe an intellectual property right.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344</id>
	<title>http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_text</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269438900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_text" title="swpat.org">http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_text</a> [swpat.org]</p><p>I'm typing up the whole thing, for easier reading, searching, copying</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.swpat.org/wiki/201001 \ _acta.pdf \ _as \ _text [ swpat.org ] I 'm typing up the whole thing , for easier reading , searching , copying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_text [swpat.org]I'm typing up the whole thing, for easier reading, searching, copying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596872</id>
	<title>Scanned With Free Software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269442320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PDF was scanned using XSane version 0.996.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PDF was scanned using XSane version 0.996 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PDF was scanned using XSane version 0.996.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31600150</id>
	<title>Re:PETITION EU PARLIAMENT - NOW !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269454860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an American I envy you members of the EU who have something like this.  In the "land of the free" we get to write our Senators, and promptly get ignored or at best a generic e-mail in reply that ignores the points we argued entirely.  Take advantage of this!  The apathy I am surrounded with is bad enough but we really don't have any means like this that is set up and taken seriously!  Use all the tools in your power to prevent this and anything else that would strip away your rights from being enacted into law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an American I envy you members of the EU who have something like this .
In the " land of the free " we get to write our Senators , and promptly get ignored or at best a generic e-mail in reply that ignores the points we argued entirely .
Take advantage of this !
The apathy I am surrounded with is bad enough but we really do n't have any means like this that is set up and taken seriously !
Use all the tools in your power to prevent this and anything else that would strip away your rights from being enacted into law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an American I envy you members of the EU who have something like this.
In the "land of the free" we get to write our Senators, and promptly get ignored or at best a generic e-mail in reply that ignores the points we argued entirely.
Take advantage of this!
The apathy I am surrounded with is bad enough but we really don't have any means like this that is set up and taken seriously!
Use all the tools in your power to prevent this and anything else that would strip away your rights from being enacted into law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602664</id>
	<title>Re:One Small Leap</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1269421200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm just happy *someone*, *somewhere* had enough moral integrity to defy their corporate-led masters.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd say you are naive. Leaking is frequently used as a political tool. Much more likely than some noble individual leaking this is that one of the countries involved didn't want to piss of the US by taking an official stance against it, and hence they leak the document instead.</p><p>"OF COURSE we agree completely with you on this treaty. It's just SUCH A SHAME it was leaked. We couldn't possibly accept it with all this negative press and all. You understand that, right ? "</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just happy * someone * , * somewhere * had enough moral integrity to defy their corporate-led masters.I 'd say you are naive .
Leaking is frequently used as a political tool .
Much more likely than some noble individual leaking this is that one of the countries involved did n't want to piss of the US by taking an official stance against it , and hence they leak the document instead .
" OF COURSE we agree completely with you on this treaty .
It 's just SUCH A SHAME it was leaked .
We could n't possibly accept it with all this negative press and all .
You understand that , right ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just happy *someone*, *somewhere* had enough moral integrity to defy their corporate-led masters.I'd say you are naive.
Leaking is frequently used as a political tool.
Much more likely than some noble individual leaking this is that one of the countries involved didn't want to piss of the US by taking an official stance against it, and hence they leak the document instead.
"OF COURSE we agree completely with you on this treaty.
It's just SUCH A SHAME it was leaked.
We couldn't possibly accept it with all this negative press and all.
You understand that, right ?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596930</id>
	<title>Does this mean...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269442560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean I can't use my iPod to search the boarder guards anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I ca n't use my iPod to search the boarder guards anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I can't use my iPod to search the boarder guards anymore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596420</id>
	<title>Origin of the file (kinda)</title>
	<author>kemenaran</author>
	<datestamp>1269439380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the way, the file was released by the french association "La quadrature du Net", which is quite active as a defender of Net freedom and neutrality in France (they fought against HADOPI and the LOOPSI-pedo-filtering-and-blocking laws).<br>
<br>
I don't know if they got the file themselves or if they just released it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , the file was released by the french association " La quadrature du Net " , which is quite active as a defender of Net freedom and neutrality in France ( they fought against HADOPI and the LOOPSI-pedo-filtering-and-blocking laws ) .
I do n't know if they got the file themselves or if they just released it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, the file was released by the french association "La quadrature du Net", which is quite active as a defender of Net freedom and neutrality in France (they fought against HADOPI and the LOOPSI-pedo-filtering-and-blocking laws).
I don't know if they got the file themselves or if they just released it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598424</id>
	<title>I've started reading the text through ...</title>
	<author>dbarclay10</author>
	<datestamp>1269448740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've started reading the text through, and all I can say is: GO CANADA!<br><br>As a Canadian I've been dreading our role in these negotiations. I feel that we really haven't pressed our position sufficiently in bilateral treaties with the US when it comes to commerce (this goes back decades). This is exasperated by the current Federal party in power in parliament (though it's a minority), which demonstrably follows the US lead in many areas.<br><br>However, it seems that at least in this case, our government (as distinct from parliament, I might add) is clearly pushing for the Right Stuff(tm). At least as hard as the EU, maybe harder. As an example, it seems that wherever punishments (remedies) for infringers are mentioned, Canada (and usually the EU) has added: [the judicial authorities] "shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies ordered as well as the interest of third parties."<br><br>In other words, no ridiculous court cases where a 16-year-old gets saddled with a $750,000 judgement against them because they downloaded a few tracks from Kazaa (or whatever the kids are using these days<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) and didn't know enough to turn it off.<br><br>DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT. TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've started reading the text through , and all I can say is : GO CANADA ! As a Canadian I 've been dreading our role in these negotiations .
I feel that we really have n't pressed our position sufficiently in bilateral treaties with the US when it comes to commerce ( this goes back decades ) .
This is exasperated by the current Federal party in power in parliament ( though it 's a minority ) , which demonstrably follows the US lead in many areas.However , it seems that at least in this case , our government ( as distinct from parliament , I might add ) is clearly pushing for the Right Stuff ( tm ) .
At least as hard as the EU , maybe harder .
As an example , it seems that wherever punishments ( remedies ) for infringers are mentioned , Canada ( and usually the EU ) has added : [ the judicial authorities ] " shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies ordered as well as the interest of third parties .
" In other words , no ridiculous court cases where a 16-year-old gets saddled with a $ 750,000 judgement against them because they downloaded a few tracks from Kazaa ( or whatever the kids are using these days : ) and did n't know enough to turn it off.DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT .
TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've started reading the text through, and all I can say is: GO CANADA!As a Canadian I've been dreading our role in these negotiations.
I feel that we really haven't pressed our position sufficiently in bilateral treaties with the US when it comes to commerce (this goes back decades).
This is exasperated by the current Federal party in power in parliament (though it's a minority), which demonstrably follows the US lead in many areas.However, it seems that at least in this case, our government (as distinct from parliament, I might add) is clearly pushing for the Right Stuff(tm).
At least as hard as the EU, maybe harder.
As an example, it seems that wherever punishments (remedies) for infringers are mentioned, Canada (and usually the EU) has added: [the judicial authorities] "shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies ordered as well as the interest of third parties.
"In other words, no ridiculous court cases where a 16-year-old gets saddled with a $750,000 judgement against them because they downloaded a few tracks from Kazaa (or whatever the kids are using these days :) and didn't know enough to turn it off.DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT.
TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596924</id>
	<title>Will Someone Please!!!?</title>
	<author>Pitawg</author>
	<datestamp>1269442500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone with some music talent should put out a song with the text of the agreement used as lyrics, and charge the negotiators with international copyright infringement and distribution! NOW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone with some music talent should put out a song with the text of the agreement used as lyrics , and charge the negotiators with international copyright infringement and distribution !
NOW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone with some music talent should put out a song with the text of the agreement used as lyrics, and charge the negotiators with international copyright infringement and distribution!
NOW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596472</id>
	<title>One Small Leap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269439740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just happy *someone*, *somewhere* had enough moral integrity to defy their corporate-led masters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just happy * someone * , * somewhere * had enough moral integrity to defy their corporate-led masters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just happy *someone*, *somewhere* had enough moral integrity to defy their corporate-led masters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31601956</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Provisions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269461640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's legally stopping your country from altering the constitution to say "$mycountry can unilaterally resign ny treaties by 5/6th vote on parliament"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's legally stopping your country from altering the constitution to say " $ mycountry can unilaterally resign ny treaties by 5/6th vote on parliament " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's legally stopping your country from altering the constitution to say "$mycountry can unilaterally resign ny treaties by 5/6th vote on parliament"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596336</id>
	<title>Short summary of the treaty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269438900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All your files are belong to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All your files are belong to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your files are belong to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596850</id>
	<title>then theres only one thing to say</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1269442200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Viva la france !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Viva la france !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viva la france !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597120</id>
	<title>Re:Am I reading this right?</title>
	<author>Mindcontrolled</author>
	<datestamp>1269443400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I read this, not only the product in violation, but also the means of production which are predominantly used to produce the product in question can be forfeited. This is not exactly new, at least in the area of patents. If you build a machine the primary purpose of which is producing something that is patented by someone else, you are indirectly violating that patent. The weird thing is that every other paragraph of this article contains the provision "at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings", which is missing here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I read this , not only the product in violation , but also the means of production which are predominantly used to produce the product in question can be forfeited .
This is not exactly new , at least in the area of patents .
If you build a machine the primary purpose of which is producing something that is patented by someone else , you are indirectly violating that patent .
The weird thing is that every other paragraph of this article contains the provision " at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings " , which is missing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I read this, not only the product in violation, but also the means of production which are predominantly used to produce the product in question can be forfeited.
This is not exactly new, at least in the area of patents.
If you build a machine the primary purpose of which is producing something that is patented by someone else, you are indirectly violating that patent.
The weird thing is that every other paragraph of this article contains the provision "at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings", which is missing here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597166</id>
	<title>Re:Capable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Section 2 Options 1,2,3 state that personal baggage of a non-commercial nature do not need to be searched.</p><p>Later in that section the only things Border Guards would have control over are items where they have been provided with accurate enough descriptions in order to identify them.</p><p>It doesn't look to me that this guards searching your iPod for illegal mp3s. Rather I think this is a truck full of burned DVDs, knockoff designer items, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Section 2 Options 1,2,3 state that personal baggage of a non-commercial nature do not need to be searched.Later in that section the only things Border Guards would have control over are items where they have been provided with accurate enough descriptions in order to identify them.It does n't look to me that this guards searching your iPod for illegal mp3s .
Rather I think this is a truck full of burned DVDs , knockoff designer items , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Section 2 Options 1,2,3 state that personal baggage of a non-commercial nature do not need to be searched.Later in that section the only things Border Guards would have control over are items where they have been provided with accurate enough descriptions in order to identify them.It doesn't look to me that this guards searching your iPod for illegal mp3s.
Rather I think this is a truck full of burned DVDs, knockoff designer items, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31603866</id>
	<title>Re:Short summary of the treaty</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1269426000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All your <b>file</b> are belong to us.</p></div><p>FTFY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All your file are belong to us.FTFY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your file are belong to us.FTFY.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597224</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Provisions</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269444000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most concerning to all of us should be, the fact that a separate group of "rights" holders are being defined, and that governments are going to sign away authority and sovereignty to those "rights" holders.</p><p>You think you've seen some crazy shit in the past?  Just wait until half the nations on earth are subject to the whims of some greedy sumbitch with a blockbuster movie or two to his name.</p><p>Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty - in effect, you've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law.  Those "rights" holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow, Washington, London, and Beijing, just how "intellectual property" will be handled in the future.</p><p>Farewell, Public Domain.  From now on, it will all be pubic domain, because those "rights" holders will be sticking it to all of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most concerning to all of us should be , the fact that a separate group of " rights " holders are being defined , and that governments are going to sign away authority and sovereignty to those " rights " holders.You think you 've seen some crazy shit in the past ?
Just wait until half the nations on earth are subject to the whims of some greedy sumbitch with a blockbuster movie or two to his name.Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation 's sovereignty - in effect , you 've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law .
Those " rights " holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow , Washington , London , and Beijing , just how " intellectual property " will be handled in the future.Farewell , Public Domain .
From now on , it will all be pubic domain , because those " rights " holders will be sticking it to all of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most concerning to all of us should be, the fact that a separate group of "rights" holders are being defined, and that governments are going to sign away authority and sovereignty to those "rights" holders.You think you've seen some crazy shit in the past?
Just wait until half the nations on earth are subject to the whims of some greedy sumbitch with a blockbuster movie or two to his name.Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty - in effect, you've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law.
Those "rights" holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow, Washington, London, and Beijing, just how "intellectual property" will be handled in the future.Farewell, Public Domain.
From now on, it will all be pubic domain, because those "rights" holders will be sticking it to all of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597096</id>
	<title>Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_tex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269443340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are not the only one, the telecomix/werebuild cluster has started up a transcription effort together with la Quadrature at <a href="http://chaos.faxpad.org:9000/lqactatranscript" title="faxpad.org" rel="nofollow">this faxpad</a> [faxpad.org] as well. The finished pages are available at <a href="http://werebuild.eu/wiki/index.php?title=ACTA-leak\_2010-03-23" title="werebuild.eu" rel="nofollow">the wiki.</a> [werebuild.eu]</p><p>In thruth, it is almost finished, with only about 5-10 pages left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not the only one , the telecomix/werebuild cluster has started up a transcription effort together with la Quadrature at this faxpad [ faxpad.org ] as well .
The finished pages are available at the wiki .
[ werebuild.eu ] In thruth , it is almost finished , with only about 5-10 pages left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not the only one, the telecomix/werebuild cluster has started up a transcription effort together with la Quadrature at this faxpad [faxpad.org] as well.
The finished pages are available at the wiki.
[werebuild.eu]In thruth, it is almost finished, with only about 5-10 pages left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596526</id>
	<title>Speaking of leaked treachery...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269439980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember when Obongo promised us he'd post the full text of every bill online for the public to view for at least 5 days before he'd sign it into law?  Health care takeover?  36 hours...  He now controls the banks, GM, Chrysler, your mortgage, your student loans, and now your access to health care.  Next up: your access to energy.  Can you say "Fascism?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when Obongo promised us he 'd post the full text of every bill online for the public to view for at least 5 days before he 'd sign it into law ?
Health care takeover ?
36 hours... He now controls the banks , GM , Chrysler , your mortgage , your student loans , and now your access to health care .
Next up : your access to energy .
Can you say " Fascism ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when Obongo promised us he'd post the full text of every bill online for the public to view for at least 5 days before he'd sign it into law?
Health care takeover?
36 hours...  He now controls the banks, GM, Chrysler, your mortgage, your student loans, and now your access to health care.
Next up: your access to energy.
Can you say "Fascism?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31599488</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Provisions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269452520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty - in effect, you've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law. Those "rights" holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow, Washington, London, and Beijing, just how "intellectual property" will be handled in the future.</p></div><p>A treaty does NOT supersede a nations sovereignty.  A treaty is an agreement between one or more countries (there have been single nation treaties signed) where all parties agree to do something.  There is not force behind that agreement, each country has to decide that they want to follow the agreement and then do so.</p><p>There is no force behind the treaty other than the other nations would be upset.  Japan ignored several treaties (and then broke them) prior to WWII.  The United States ignored many, many treaties dealing with Indian nations.  Both Britain and France have a long list of treaties that were ignored.</p><p>The most famous treaty not worth its own paper, would be that acknowledging Belgium's neutrality, signed by Germany (Treaty of London 1839).</p><p>If you are a US citizen there is a concern that a signed treaty is a way to side step Constitutional protections.  Under the Constitution a treaty has more weight under law than one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights for example.  This is of course subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS.</p><p>However even in this situation you would still have to have agents of the Government choosing to act on those treaty items.  There would be no force of law requiring them to do so.  If the President issued an executive order to not-enforce that provision of the treaty there would be little to no consequence (barring political backlash).</p><p>In addition, at any time, a nation can withdraw from a treaty.  It is sort of like standing up and saying, "hey fellas, I don't care anymore."</p><p>I would suggest at least reading the Wikipedia page on treaties for a better understanding of them:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation 's sovereignty - in effect , you 've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law .
Those " rights " holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow , Washington , London , and Beijing , just how " intellectual property " will be handled in the future.A treaty does NOT supersede a nations sovereignty .
A treaty is an agreement between one or more countries ( there have been single nation treaties signed ) where all parties agree to do something .
There is not force behind that agreement , each country has to decide that they want to follow the agreement and then do so.There is no force behind the treaty other than the other nations would be upset .
Japan ignored several treaties ( and then broke them ) prior to WWII .
The United States ignored many , many treaties dealing with Indian nations .
Both Britain and France have a long list of treaties that were ignored.The most famous treaty not worth its own paper , would be that acknowledging Belgium 's neutrality , signed by Germany ( Treaty of London 1839 ) .If you are a US citizen there is a concern that a signed treaty is a way to side step Constitutional protections .
Under the Constitution a treaty has more weight under law than one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights for example .
This is of course subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS.However even in this situation you would still have to have agents of the Government choosing to act on those treaty items .
There would be no force of law requiring them to do so .
If the President issued an executive order to not-enforce that provision of the treaty there would be little to no consequence ( barring political backlash ) .In addition , at any time , a nation can withdraw from a treaty .
It is sort of like standing up and saying , " hey fellas , I do n't care anymore .
" I would suggest at least reading the Wikipedia page on treaties for a better understanding of them : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Understand that a treaty supersedes a nation's sovereignty - in effect, you've signed away the right to abjudicate disagreements according to your own law.
Those "rights" holders are attempting to dictate to Moscow, Washington, London, and Beijing, just how "intellectual property" will be handled in the future.A treaty does NOT supersede a nations sovereignty.
A treaty is an agreement between one or more countries (there have been single nation treaties signed) where all parties agree to do something.
There is not force behind that agreement, each country has to decide that they want to follow the agreement and then do so.There is no force behind the treaty other than the other nations would be upset.
Japan ignored several treaties (and then broke them) prior to WWII.
The United States ignored many, many treaties dealing with Indian nations.
Both Britain and France have a long list of treaties that were ignored.The most famous treaty not worth its own paper, would be that acknowledging Belgium's neutrality, signed by Germany (Treaty of London 1839).If you are a US citizen there is a concern that a signed treaty is a way to side step Constitutional protections.
Under the Constitution a treaty has more weight under law than one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights for example.
This is of course subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS.However even in this situation you would still have to have agents of the Government choosing to act on those treaty items.
There would be no force of law requiring them to do so.
If the President issued an executive order to not-enforce that provision of the treaty there would be little to no consequence (barring political backlash).In addition, at any time, a nation can withdraw from a treaty.
It is sort of like standing up and saying, "hey fellas, I don't care anymore.
"I would suggest at least reading the Wikipedia page on treaties for a better understanding of them:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662</id>
	<title>Am I reading this right?</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1269440760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>On page 6, article 2.3 paragraph 2:

Where it says materials and implements does that mean if i use a infringing line of code or part to make a product like a Ferrari, then the whole item can possibly be forfeited?</htmltext>
<tokenext>On page 6 , article 2.3 paragraph 2 : Where it says materials and implements does that mean if i use a infringing line of code or part to make a product like a Ferrari , then the whole item can possibly be forfeited ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On page 6, article 2.3 paragraph 2:

Where it says materials and implements does that mean if i use a infringing line of code or part to make a product like a Ferrari, then the whole item can possibly be forfeited?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597906</id>
	<title>Not too bad</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1269446820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading through the entire thing it actually doesn't look too bad.</p><p>The only major problem I see in it is trying to make 3rd parties liable for people who use their services. I'd recommend pestering your elected representatives and tell them to follow NZ lead on those articles.</p><p>The rest of it basically says:<br>1) make sure its illegal to copy and distribute pirated works.<br>2) make sure there are tools to enforce those laws.<br>3) provide these legal tools to foreign copyright holders.</p><p>These seem like pretty logical steps. I think the real fight here should be to shorten the absurd copyright lengths currently in use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading through the entire thing it actually does n't look too bad.The only major problem I see in it is trying to make 3rd parties liable for people who use their services .
I 'd recommend pestering your elected representatives and tell them to follow NZ lead on those articles.The rest of it basically says : 1 ) make sure its illegal to copy and distribute pirated works.2 ) make sure there are tools to enforce those laws.3 ) provide these legal tools to foreign copyright holders.These seem like pretty logical steps .
I think the real fight here should be to shorten the absurd copyright lengths currently in use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading through the entire thing it actually doesn't look too bad.The only major problem I see in it is trying to make 3rd parties liable for people who use their services.
I'd recommend pestering your elected representatives and tell them to follow NZ lead on those articles.The rest of it basically says:1) make sure its illegal to copy and distribute pirated works.2) make sure there are tools to enforce those laws.3) provide these legal tools to foreign copyright holders.These seem like pretty logical steps.
I think the real fight here should be to shorten the absurd copyright lengths currently in use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596328</id>
	<title>Canada</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1269438840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the french originated country but up with that shit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the french originated country but up with that shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the french originated country but up with that shit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597772</id>
	<title>Re:One Small Leap</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269446340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're rooting for China?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're rooting for China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're rooting for China?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596814</id>
	<title>iPod searching border guards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269441840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What for?  If I wanted to hide data on a device, you would need a computer forensics expert to find it.  Border guards are doing well to find their dick with both hands, never mind uncovering evidence of encrypted data hidden in executable code.  The obvious workaround is storing your data on a server and sftp'ing it across geographic borders and anyone can manage that.</p><p>What is the exact problem that would be solved by permitting border control staff to rummage through peoples private data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What for ?
If I wanted to hide data on a device , you would need a computer forensics expert to find it .
Border guards are doing well to find their dick with both hands , never mind uncovering evidence of encrypted data hidden in executable code .
The obvious workaround is storing your data on a server and sftp'ing it across geographic borders and anyone can manage that.What is the exact problem that would be solved by permitting border control staff to rummage through peoples private data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What for?
If I wanted to hide data on a device, you would need a computer forensics expert to find it.
Border guards are doing well to find their dick with both hands, never mind uncovering evidence of encrypted data hidden in executable code.
The obvious workaround is storing your data on a server and sftp'ing it across geographic borders and anyone can manage that.What is the exact problem that would be solved by permitting border control staff to rummage through peoples private data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597164</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Provisions</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1269443760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also circumvents current laws that most countries have regarding home copies (either subsidized through taxes levied on blank media) and fair use by stating that all copies (regardless of commercial gain) are 'illegal'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also circumvents current laws that most countries have regarding home copies ( either subsidized through taxes levied on blank media ) and fair use by stating that all copies ( regardless of commercial gain ) are 'illegal' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also circumvents current laws that most countries have regarding home copies (either subsidized through taxes levied on blank media) and fair use by stating that all copies (regardless of commercial gain) are 'illegal'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598786</id>
	<title>Global Fascism Acid Test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269449880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has the hallmarks of an acid test.  Global law negotiations done in secret, under the guise of treaty...exactly the way we don't want it to go.  From here there will be more laws in secret and the only way you'll find out you've violated them is that you don't have the required permit on your passport and you're accosted at the border.  This is exactly how the global fascists (corpratists) want it.  Without control over global travel, they cannot control the flow of goods and information.  Each intersection of borders is a profit gradient.  If goods are allowed to pass by osmosis, they lose all the leverage they could use to pump wealth back and forth between countries while taking a cut off the top.  Sooner or later, they have it all.</p><p>There are basically two forks in this road: one, where there is a single world democracy with the corporations below that rule of law and the other where there are separate country laws (like there are now) and the corporations flit above them BUT prohibit the individual.  That's where we're headed now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has the hallmarks of an acid test .
Global law negotiations done in secret , under the guise of treaty...exactly the way we do n't want it to go .
From here there will be more laws in secret and the only way you 'll find out you 've violated them is that you do n't have the required permit on your passport and you 're accosted at the border .
This is exactly how the global fascists ( corpratists ) want it .
Without control over global travel , they can not control the flow of goods and information .
Each intersection of borders is a profit gradient .
If goods are allowed to pass by osmosis , they lose all the leverage they could use to pump wealth back and forth between countries while taking a cut off the top .
Sooner or later , they have it all.There are basically two forks in this road : one , where there is a single world democracy with the corporations below that rule of law and the other where there are separate country laws ( like there are now ) and the corporations flit above them BUT prohibit the individual .
That 's where we 're headed now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has the hallmarks of an acid test.
Global law negotiations done in secret, under the guise of treaty...exactly the way we don't want it to go.
From here there will be more laws in secret and the only way you'll find out you've violated them is that you don't have the required permit on your passport and you're accosted at the border.
This is exactly how the global fascists (corpratists) want it.
Without control over global travel, they cannot control the flow of goods and information.
Each intersection of borders is a profit gradient.
If goods are allowed to pass by osmosis, they lose all the leverage they could use to pump wealth back and forth between countries while taking a cut off the top.
Sooner or later, they have it all.There are basically two forks in this road: one, where there is a single world democracy with the corporations below that rule of law and the other where there are separate country laws (like there are now) and the corporations flit above them BUT prohibit the individual.
That's where we're headed now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596628</id>
	<title>Safe Harbor Provisions</title>
	<author>snsr</author>
	<datestamp>1269440580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most concerning to me is that this bullshit may effect safe harbor provisions for service providers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most concerning to me is that this bullshit may effect safe harbor provisions for service providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most concerning to me is that this bullshit may effect safe harbor provisions for service providers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597140</id>
	<title>Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_tex</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269443520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're awesome.  I've skimmed through the PDF, but it's positively crap.  I owe you a little something toward your next pair of glasses, after you've read and transcribed all that mess!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're awesome .
I 've skimmed through the PDF , but it 's positively crap .
I owe you a little something toward your next pair of glasses , after you 've read and transcribed all that mess !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're awesome.
I've skimmed through the PDF, but it's positively crap.
I owe you a little something toward your next pair of glasses, after you've read and transcribed all that mess!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31603896</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Provisions</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269426060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read through that document, you will see that signatories are agreeing to rules for abjudication which may or may not comply with national laws.  Alright, to be more fair, the nation isn't exactly signing away sovereignty - they are abdicating their sovereignty, and licensing the "rights holders" to take over the administration of law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read through that document , you will see that signatories are agreeing to rules for abjudication which may or may not comply with national laws .
Alright , to be more fair , the nation is n't exactly signing away sovereignty - they are abdicating their sovereignty , and licensing the " rights holders " to take over the administration of law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read through that document, you will see that signatories are agreeing to rules for abjudication which may or may not comply with national laws.
Alright, to be more fair, the nation isn't exactly signing away sovereignty - they are abdicating their sovereignty, and licensing the "rights holders" to take over the administration of law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31599488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597334</id>
	<title>Re:Capable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269444420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No you wouldn't. Usually I'd say RTFA, but given the size of the thing, it would be a bit inappropriate.</p><p>Please look over Section 2 (all the options have a similar provision)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Where a traveler's personal baggage contains trademark goods or copyright materials of a non-commercial nature within the limits of the duty-free allowance {Aus: or where the copyright materials or trademark goods are sent in small consignments} and there are no material indications to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic, Parties may consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Agreement.]</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No you would n't .
Usually I 'd say RTFA , but given the size of the thing , it would be a bit inappropriate.Please look over Section 2 ( all the options have a similar provision ) Where a traveler 's personal baggage contains trademark goods or copyright materials of a non-commercial nature within the limits of the duty-free allowance { Aus : or where the copyright materials or trademark goods are sent in small consignments } and there are no material indications to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic , Parties may consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Agreement .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you wouldn't.
Usually I'd say RTFA, but given the size of the thing, it would be a bit inappropriate.Please look over Section 2 (all the options have a similar provision)Where a traveler's personal baggage contains trademark goods or copyright materials of a non-commercial nature within the limits of the duty-free allowance {Aus: or where the copyright materials or trademark goods are sent in small consignments} and there are no material indications to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic, Parties may consider such goods to be outside the scope of this Agreement.
] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597508</id>
	<title>Coming up: DMCA takedown request</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269445140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596634</id>
	<title>Mirrors, in case it's slashdotted</title>
	<author>mariushm</author>
	<datestamp>1269440640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's some mirrors of the original document, in case the original site is slashdotted:</p><p><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28853862/201001-acta" title="scribd.com">http://www.scribd.com/doc/28853862/201001-acta</a> [scribd.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?wdnjg2nrmne" title="mediafire.com">http://www.mediafire.com/?wdnjg2nrmne</a> [mediafire.com]</p><p><a href="http://rapidshare.com/files/367572656/201001\_acta.pdf" title="rapidshare.com">http://rapidshare.com/files/367572656/201001\_acta.pdf</a> [rapidshare.com]<br><a href="http://hotfile.com/dl/34373604/038b957/201001\_acta.pdf.html" title="hotfile.com">http://hotfile.com/dl/34373604/038b957/201001\_acta.pdf.html</a> [hotfile.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's some mirrors of the original document , in case the original site is slashdotted : http : //www.scribd.com/doc/28853862/201001-acta [ scribd.com ] http : //www.mediafire.com/ ? wdnjg2nrmne [ mediafire.com ] http : //rapidshare.com/files/367572656/201001 \ _acta.pdf [ rapidshare.com ] http : //hotfile.com/dl/34373604/038b957/201001 \ _acta.pdf.html [ hotfile.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's some mirrors of the original document, in case the original site is slashdotted:http://www.scribd.com/doc/28853862/201001-acta [scribd.com]http://www.mediafire.com/?wdnjg2nrmne [mediafire.com]http://rapidshare.com/files/367572656/201001\_acta.pdf [rapidshare.com]http://hotfile.com/dl/34373604/038b957/201001\_acta.pdf.html [hotfile.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596934</id>
	<title>Re:Am I reading this right?</title>
	<author>djnforce9</author>
	<datestamp>1269442560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Border searches would take an eternity if the guard has to conduct the search in THAT level of detail. Even with iPods, I'd say good luck having someone verify ownership of every single file on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Border searches would take an eternity if the guard has to conduct the search in THAT level of detail .
Even with iPods , I 'd say good luck having someone verify ownership of every single file on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Border searches would take an eternity if the guard has to conduct the search in THAT level of detail.
Even with iPods, I'd say good luck having someone verify ownership of every single file on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31600024</id>
	<title>Re:PETITION EU PARLIAMENT - NOW !</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1269454440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been living the EU for 4 years now. But i don't think i can fill in a petition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been living the EU for 4 years now .
But i do n't think i can fill in a petition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been living the EU for 4 years now.
But i don't think i can fill in a petition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596796</id>
	<title>Re:Short summary of the treaty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269441720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/me puts on his anti-static rubber gloves..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/me puts on his anti-static rubber gloves. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/me puts on his anti-static rubber gloves..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598784</id>
	<title>This must be fake</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1269449880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the part that justified the secrecy?  I don't see it here. Somebody obviously edited out the part requiring the US to sell puppy shredders to Iran in exchange for releasing hostages.  If they edited <em>that</em> out, then who knows what else is inaccurate?</p><p>But seriously: let's see <strong>who</strong> is now going to "walk away from the table" now that the big secret is out of the bag.  If we don't see countries withdrawing from the treaty now, then <strong>Kirk was lying</strong>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the part that justified the secrecy ?
I do n't see it here .
Somebody obviously edited out the part requiring the US to sell puppy shredders to Iran in exchange for releasing hostages .
If they edited that out , then who knows what else is inaccurate ? But seriously : let 's see who is now going to " walk away from the table " now that the big secret is out of the bag .
If we do n't see countries withdrawing from the treaty now , then Kirk was lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the part that justified the secrecy?
I don't see it here.
Somebody obviously edited out the part requiring the US to sell puppy shredders to Iran in exchange for releasing hostages.
If they edited that out, then who knows what else is inaccurate?But seriously: let's see who is now going to "walk away from the table" now that the big secret is out of the bag.
If we don't see countries withdrawing from the treaty now, then Kirk was lying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598474</id>
	<title>Damages and DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Article 2.2 1 (b)</p><blockquote><div><p>in determining the amount of damages for infringement<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. its authorities [shall] consider<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. the value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, [or] the suggested retail price</p></div></blockquote><p>Here's the big problem: if the infringing copy does not contain DRM but the retail version does contain DRM, then there <em>is</em> no retail price for the infringing copy to compare to.</p><p>Let's say in 2010 Sony sells a Bluray disc of movie for $20.  Let's say you rip the movie, removing the DRM which keeps most people who buy it from being able to play it, and then spread seven billion copies of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mkv file.</p><p>In the eyes of this treaty, the resulting law is going to value the damages at around $140 billion.  But in real life, the damages are $0.00, because Sony doesn't really have a usable product on the market.  They haven't lost a single sale.  This discrepancy needs to be dealt with.</p><p>The catch is that Sony <em>may</em> in the future lose some sales due to the past infringement.  Suppose in 2012 Sony decides to enter the market and start selling the movie without DRM.  Why buy Sony's non-DRM copy of the movie in 2012 if you downloaded it in 2010 for free?  That's a problem and clearly something has gone wrong.</p><p>But we've got to remember that the purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to release creative works.  If Sony doesn't really release the movie until 2012, then it doesn't make any sense for them to have a copyright in 2010, so those unauthorized copies shouldn't be considered infringing. And this is where copyright law really breaks down, because it considers the work to be copyrighted as of 2010, and considers a DRMed copy to be a real publication, and even contains other weirdnesses to not only allow DRM, but legitimize and endorse it.  In US, the very act of removing the DRM is prohibited.  That's just insane.</p><p>ACTA is too soon.  We need to repair copyright law <em>before</em> we pass a treaty like this.  But if we must have ACTA, then it needs to contain a provision that copyright should not be granted or enforced, when the holder doesn't make a good faith effort to get the work onto the market.  DRM should mean no copyright.  Add that provision, and everyone -- publishers, consumers, and public domain trawlers a hundred years in the future -- wins.  Without that provision, ACTA is worse than useless, because it only compounds the error in existing copyright law.</p><p>Do not support this treaty without that provision.  If your Senator votes to ratify it, vote him out.  If the president doesn't tell his commerce people to make that a top priority, vote <em>him</em> out too.  As is, the treaty just isn't being proposed with any good faith at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Article 2.2 1 ( b ) in determining the amount of damages for infringement .. its authorities [ shall ] consider .. the value of the infringed good or service , measured by the market price , [ or ] the suggested retail priceHere 's the big problem : if the infringing copy does not contain DRM but the retail version does contain DRM , then there is no retail price for the infringing copy to compare to.Let 's say in 2010 Sony sells a Bluray disc of movie for $ 20 .
Let 's say you rip the movie , removing the DRM which keeps most people who buy it from being able to play it , and then spread seven billion copies of the .mkv file.In the eyes of this treaty , the resulting law is going to value the damages at around $ 140 billion .
But in real life , the damages are $ 0.00 , because Sony does n't really have a usable product on the market .
They have n't lost a single sale .
This discrepancy needs to be dealt with.The catch is that Sony may in the future lose some sales due to the past infringement .
Suppose in 2012 Sony decides to enter the market and start selling the movie without DRM .
Why buy Sony 's non-DRM copy of the movie in 2012 if you downloaded it in 2010 for free ?
That 's a problem and clearly something has gone wrong.But we 've got to remember that the purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to release creative works .
If Sony does n't really release the movie until 2012 , then it does n't make any sense for them to have a copyright in 2010 , so those unauthorized copies should n't be considered infringing .
And this is where copyright law really breaks down , because it considers the work to be copyrighted as of 2010 , and considers a DRMed copy to be a real publication , and even contains other weirdnesses to not only allow DRM , but legitimize and endorse it .
In US , the very act of removing the DRM is prohibited .
That 's just insane.ACTA is too soon .
We need to repair copyright law before we pass a treaty like this .
But if we must have ACTA , then it needs to contain a provision that copyright should not be granted or enforced , when the holder does n't make a good faith effort to get the work onto the market .
DRM should mean no copyright .
Add that provision , and everyone -- publishers , consumers , and public domain trawlers a hundred years in the future -- wins .
Without that provision , ACTA is worse than useless , because it only compounds the error in existing copyright law.Do not support this treaty without that provision .
If your Senator votes to ratify it , vote him out .
If the president does n't tell his commerce people to make that a top priority , vote him out too .
As is , the treaty just is n't being proposed with any good faith at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article 2.2 1 (b)in determining the amount of damages for infringement .. its authorities [shall] consider .. the value of the infringed good or service, measured by the market price, [or] the suggested retail priceHere's the big problem: if the infringing copy does not contain DRM but the retail version does contain DRM, then there is no retail price for the infringing copy to compare to.Let's say in 2010 Sony sells a Bluray disc of movie for $20.
Let's say you rip the movie, removing the DRM which keeps most people who buy it from being able to play it, and then spread seven billion copies of the .mkv file.In the eyes of this treaty, the resulting law is going to value the damages at around $140 billion.
But in real life, the damages are $0.00, because Sony doesn't really have a usable product on the market.
They haven't lost a single sale.
This discrepancy needs to be dealt with.The catch is that Sony may in the future lose some sales due to the past infringement.
Suppose in 2012 Sony decides to enter the market and start selling the movie without DRM.
Why buy Sony's non-DRM copy of the movie in 2012 if you downloaded it in 2010 for free?
That's a problem and clearly something has gone wrong.But we've got to remember that the purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to release creative works.
If Sony doesn't really release the movie until 2012, then it doesn't make any sense for them to have a copyright in 2010, so those unauthorized copies shouldn't be considered infringing.
And this is where copyright law really breaks down, because it considers the work to be copyrighted as of 2010, and considers a DRMed copy to be a real publication, and even contains other weirdnesses to not only allow DRM, but legitimize and endorse it.
In US, the very act of removing the DRM is prohibited.
That's just insane.ACTA is too soon.
We need to repair copyright law before we pass a treaty like this.
But if we must have ACTA, then it needs to contain a provision that copyright should not be granted or enforced, when the holder doesn't make a good faith effort to get the work onto the market.
DRM should mean no copyright.
Add that provision, and everyone -- publishers, consumers, and public domain trawlers a hundred years in the future -- wins.
Without that provision, ACTA is worse than useless, because it only compounds the error in existing copyright law.Do not support this treaty without that provision.
If your Senator votes to ratify it, vote him out.
If the president doesn't tell his commerce people to make that a top priority, vote him out too.
As is, the treaty just isn't being proposed with any good faith at all.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596956</id>
	<title>Re:iPod searching border guards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269442680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Border guards are doing well to find their dick with both hands</p></div></blockquote><p>Man, I've traveled in parts of Eastern Europe and the Balkans where the border guards are fucking animals.</p><p>The last time I traveled from Sutomore to Sarejevo by car it was less bad, but they still seem to be actively recruiting sociopaths.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Border guards are doing well to find their dick with both handsMan , I 've traveled in parts of Eastern Europe and the Balkans where the border guards are fucking animals.The last time I traveled from Sutomore to Sarejevo by car it was less bad , but they still seem to be actively recruiting sociopaths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Border guards are doing well to find their dick with both handsMan, I've traveled in parts of Eastern Europe and the Balkans where the border guards are fucking animals.The last time I traveled from Sutomore to Sarejevo by car it was less bad, but they still seem to be actively recruiting sociopaths.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596632</id>
	<title>a companies bad busines model</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1269440640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is clearly not a government's problem.  The ACTA needs to be stopped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is clearly not a government 's problem .
The ACTA needs to be stopped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is clearly not a government's problem.
The ACTA needs to be stopped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31622188</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269540420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And people call these things leaks.....</p><p>Which ratifications shall they address?  Hmm... let us go look at this board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And people call these things leaks.....Which ratifications shall they address ?
Hmm... let us go look at this board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people call these things leaks.....Which ratifications shall they address?
Hmm... let us go look at this board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602022</id>
	<title>Re:Not too bad</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1269461940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if your country only believes in 7 year copyrights?  What if your country believes that copyrights stifle innovation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if your country only believes in 7 year copyrights ?
What if your country believes that copyrights stifle innovation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if your country only believes in 7 year copyrights?
What if your country believes that copyrights stifle innovation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597926</id>
	<title>What are odds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269446880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next draft will include making it a criminal offense to release secret treaty information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next draft will include making it a criminal offense to release secret treaty information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next draft will include making it a criminal offense to release secret treaty information?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596980</id>
	<title>PETITION EU PARLIAMENT - NOW !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269442800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submit.do?language=EN" title="europa.eu">https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submit.do?language=EN</a> [europa.eu]</p><p>if you are living in an Eu member country, Eu member candidate country, or a resident of an Eu member country, or working for a company that has its quarters in an Eu member country, you have the right to petition European Parliament.</p><p>This is not your ordinary online petition page - this is an official petition page, petitions of which are each processed by real bureaucrats and acted upon, if you give your credentials correctly. (Name surname and so on). Its serious shit.</p><p>As of this moment, the affiliates of american media cartels are flooding Eu parliament members with the falsified and baseless statistics they have been using to fool the senators in united states. Eu parliament members are generally much more informed than u.s. senators, however it is much better not to leave anything to chance.</p><p>So, if you fulfill any of the above conditions, you should fill a petition urging European Parliament to side with the people rather than the corporate interests, and you should inform them about the falsified statistics that media cartels are using. If you have any links to the various realistic statistics that were made by independent organizations, you can also forward the information to them. (like the p2p research done in netherlands a while ago).</p><p>Eu parliament already basically blocked some draconian items in the acta treaty. they did it with great majority. so they DO listen and heed people. If Eu parliament shoots acta down totally, then there is no way in hell that it can come into being, because since china and russia would never accept and enforce it, (and noone can force them to do so), if you add europe to that it basically makes approx 4/7th of world population.</p><p>Go for it. time is now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>https : //www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submit.do ? language = EN [ europa.eu ] if you are living in an Eu member country , Eu member candidate country , or a resident of an Eu member country , or working for a company that has its quarters in an Eu member country , you have the right to petition European Parliament.This is not your ordinary online petition page - this is an official petition page , petitions of which are each processed by real bureaucrats and acted upon , if you give your credentials correctly .
( Name surname and so on ) .
Its serious shit.As of this moment , the affiliates of american media cartels are flooding Eu parliament members with the falsified and baseless statistics they have been using to fool the senators in united states .
Eu parliament members are generally much more informed than u.s. senators , however it is much better not to leave anything to chance.So , if you fulfill any of the above conditions , you should fill a petition urging European Parliament to side with the people rather than the corporate interests , and you should inform them about the falsified statistics that media cartels are using .
If you have any links to the various realistic statistics that were made by independent organizations , you can also forward the information to them .
( like the p2p research done in netherlands a while ago ) .Eu parliament already basically blocked some draconian items in the acta treaty .
they did it with great majority .
so they DO listen and heed people .
If Eu parliament shoots acta down totally , then there is no way in hell that it can come into being , because since china and russia would never accept and enforce it , ( and noone can force them to do so ) , if you add europe to that it basically makes approx 4/7th of world population.Go for it .
time is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submit.do?language=EN [europa.eu]if you are living in an Eu member country, Eu member candidate country, or a resident of an Eu member country, or working for a company that has its quarters in an Eu member country, you have the right to petition European Parliament.This is not your ordinary online petition page - this is an official petition page, petitions of which are each processed by real bureaucrats and acted upon, if you give your credentials correctly.
(Name surname and so on).
Its serious shit.As of this moment, the affiliates of american media cartels are flooding Eu parliament members with the falsified and baseless statistics they have been using to fool the senators in united states.
Eu parliament members are generally much more informed than u.s. senators, however it is much better not to leave anything to chance.So, if you fulfill any of the above conditions, you should fill a petition urging European Parliament to side with the people rather than the corporate interests, and you should inform them about the falsified statistics that media cartels are using.
If you have any links to the various realistic statistics that were made by independent organizations, you can also forward the information to them.
(like the p2p research done in netherlands a while ago).Eu parliament already basically blocked some draconian items in the acta treaty.
they did it with great majority.
so they DO listen and heed people.
If Eu parliament shoots acta down totally, then there is no way in hell that it can come into being, because since china and russia would never accept and enforce it, (and noone can force them to do so), if you add europe to that it basically makes approx 4/7th of world population.Go for it.
time is now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597792</id>
	<title>Re:Capable?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1269446400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content</i></p><p>"Article 2.7: Ex-Officio Action" [presenting just the US version here]</p><p>"1. Each party shall provide that its customs authorities may act upon their own initiative, to suspend the release of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... suspected pirated copyright goods..."</p><p>The content need not be illegal (nor easily discriminated as such), the guard merely needs to posit suspicion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content " Article 2.7 : Ex-Officio Action " [ presenting just the US version here ] " 1 .
Each party shall provide that its customs authorities may act upon their own initiative , to suspend the release of ... suspected pirated copyright goods... " The content need not be illegal ( nor easily discriminated as such ) , the guard merely needs to posit suspicion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the idea that all border guards will be able to easily discriminate the legality of content"Article 2.7: Ex-Officio Action" [presenting just the US version here]"1.
Each party shall provide that its customs authorities may act upon their own initiative, to suspend the release of ... suspected pirated copyright goods..."The content need not be illegal (nor easily discriminated as such), the guard merely needs to posit suspicion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602644</id>
	<title>Re:Not too bad</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1269464340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the investigating official suspect that something is in violation of copyright, but doesn't know?</p><p>What proof is required?</p><p>What "due process" is required?</p><p>I wouldn't say it as "not bad".  I'd say it was terrible. But I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm wrong.  But I doubt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the investigating official suspect that something is in violation of copyright , but does n't know ? What proof is required ? What " due process " is required ? I would n't say it as " not bad " .
I 'd say it was terrible .
But I 'm not a lawyer , so perhaps I 'm wrong .
But I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the investigating official suspect that something is in violation of copyright, but doesn't know?What proof is required?What "due process" is required?I wouldn't say it as "not bad".
I'd say it was terrible.
But I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm wrong.
But I doubt it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597838</id>
	<title>Re:Capable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269446520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, would I have to carry receipts, license docs, original packaging and so forth?</p></div><p> I can see where this is going: encrypted storage for an e-receipt for a media and a device. The store signs the receipt and can provide customer service even without the paper receipt. Of course, it will be cracked but so are the paper receipts copied as well. Then again, if the content licence forbids transferring the content to another storage by any means the customer is screwed anyway as the receipt would provide unique product type id to ensure the product would be in the proper (content) configuration (media) as (semi-) automatically inspected by the border officials. In my dreams, this post provides a prior art so that nobody can extract any additional licence profits from something possibly included in everything sold.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , would I have to carry receipts , license docs , original packaging and so forth ?
I can see where this is going : encrypted storage for an e-receipt for a media and a device .
The store signs the receipt and can provide customer service even without the paper receipt .
Of course , it will be cracked but so are the paper receipts copied as well .
Then again , if the content licence forbids transferring the content to another storage by any means the customer is screwed anyway as the receipt would provide unique product type id to ensure the product would be in the proper ( content ) configuration ( media ) as ( semi- ) automatically inspected by the border officials .
In my dreams , this post provides a prior art so that nobody can extract any additional licence profits from something possibly included in everything sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, would I have to carry receipts, license docs, original packaging and so forth?
I can see where this is going: encrypted storage for an e-receipt for a media and a device.
The store signs the receipt and can provide customer service even without the paper receipt.
Of course, it will be cracked but so are the paper receipts copied as well.
Then again, if the content licence forbids transferring the content to another storage by any means the customer is screwed anyway as the receipt would provide unique product type id to ensure the product would be in the proper (content) configuration (media) as (semi-) automatically inspected by the border officials.
In my dreams, this post provides a prior art so that nobody can extract any additional licence profits from something possibly included in everything sold.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596424</id>
	<title>Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_tex</title>
	<author>Paul server guy</author>
	<datestamp>1269439380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_text" title="swpat.org">http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_text</a> [swpat.org] </p><p>I'm typing up the whole thing, for easier reading, searching, copying</p></div><p>Cool, Thank you. - And yes, please keep all of the original errors and typos, Law droids have all sorts of fun with those. "For lack of a comma the land was lost" and all of that..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.swpat.org/wiki/201001 \ _acta.pdf \ _as \ _text [ swpat.org ] I 'm typing up the whole thing , for easier reading , searching , copyingCool , Thank you .
- And yes , please keep all of the original errors and typos , Law droids have all sorts of fun with those .
" For lack of a comma the land was lost " and all of that. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_text [swpat.org] I'm typing up the whole thing, for easier reading, searching, copyingCool, Thank you.
- And yes, please keep all of the original errors and typos, Law droids have all sorts of fun with those.
"For lack of a comma the land was lost" and all of that..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31657030</id>
	<title>Re:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/201001\_acta.pdf\_as\_tex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269877140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was really surprised by all the errors. Are we sure this is a genuine document?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was really surprised by all the errors .
Are we sure this is a genuine document ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was really surprised by all the errors.
Are we sure this is a genuine document?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596424</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31603866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31601956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31600024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31657030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31600150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31603896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31599488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_1214239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31657030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31601956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31599488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31603896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31603866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31600150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31600024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31598784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31597772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31602664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_1214239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_1214239.31596850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
