<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_29_1255245</id>
	<title>Pirate Party Pillages Private Papers</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269870300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:davidcrafti@pirateparty.org.au" rel="nofollow">David Crafti</a> writes <i>"Pirate Party Australia has <a href="http://pirateparty.org.au/Pirate-Party-Pillages-Private-Papers">made the move</a> to host the recently <a href="http://www.pirateparty.org.au/press\_releases/ACTA\_18\_01\_2010.pdf">leaked ACTA document</a> in order to highlight the lack of government transparency in the negotiation process. We believe that the document is not under copyright, and we are not party to any NDAs, so there should be no restriction on us posting it. We would like to see what the government (any government) tries to do about it. If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down, then we will, but if this happens, it will only validate the document's authenticity."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Crafti writes " Pirate Party Australia has made the move to host the recently leaked ACTA document in order to highlight the lack of government transparency in the negotiation process .
We believe that the document is not under copyright , and we are not party to any NDAs , so there should be no restriction on us posting it .
We would like to see what the government ( any government ) tries to do about it .
If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down , then we will , but if this happens , it will only validate the document 's authenticity .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Crafti writes "Pirate Party Australia has made the move to host the recently leaked ACTA document in order to highlight the lack of government transparency in the negotiation process.
We believe that the document is not under copyright, and we are not party to any NDAs, so there should be no restriction on us posting it.
We would like to see what the government (any government) tries to do about it.
If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down, then we will, but if this happens, it will only validate the document's authenticity.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656900</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with their motives...</title>
	<author>Diss Champ</author>
	<datestamp>1269876600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What sort of screwed up system would prevent discussion of something because it was amoung "issues currently up for debate"? Isn't the whole point of a debate to supposed to be to discuss something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What sort of screwed up system would prevent discussion of something because it was amoung " issues currently up for debate " ?
Is n't the whole point of a debate to supposed to be to discuss something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What sort of screwed up system would prevent discussion of something because it was amoung "issues currently up for debate"?
Isn't the whole point of a debate to supposed to be to discuss something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656850</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Hogwash McFly</author>
	<datestamp>1269876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perchance Pirate Party Private Paper Pillaging Prompts Protests? Perhaps Personal Power Prevails? Private Plutocratic Plundering Prevents Public Performance, People's Participation.  Preposterous Proposals Per Privileged Punks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perchance Pirate Party Private Paper Pillaging Prompts Protests ?
Perhaps Personal Power Prevails ?
Private Plutocratic Plundering Prevents Public Performance , People 's Participation .
Preposterous Proposals Per Privileged Punks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perchance Pirate Party Private Paper Pillaging Prompts Protests?
Perhaps Personal Power Prevails?
Private Plutocratic Plundering Prevents Public Performance, People's Participation.
Preposterous Proposals Per Privileged Punks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656756</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>MonsterTrimble</author>
	<datestamp>1269875820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?</p> </div><p>I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily stretching back that far. I would go 30 years, but that's my opinion. Highway to Hell, Who's Next &amp; IV would all be free of copyright restrictions and I can wait a few more years until Appetite for Destruction is loose.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters</p></div><p> Fan fiction based in the universes of Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Porter and the like is great, but obviously the owners of the franchises are not going to go hunting down their own fanbase (leave that to the MAFIAA)because of stories which are generally dicey at best. They do *OWN* the franchise after all and they have the right to make sure the franchise does not fail. Would I WANT to see a movie based on a derivative work of Alien? I have no problem with companies still controlling the franchises and having control over the works released under their banner but their older works released to the public. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A period of say 20 years or so : imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie , music , book , or software from 1990 or before ?
I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily stretching back that far .
I would go 30 years , but that 's my opinion .
Highway to Hell , Who 's Next &amp; IV would all be free of copyright restrictions and I can wait a few more years until Appetite for Destruction is loose.And that 's not even whats important , whats important is derivative works : say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters , plot devices , and characters Fan fiction based in the universes of Star Wars , Star Trek , Harry Porter and the like is great , but obviously the owners of the franchises are not going to go hunting down their own fanbase ( leave that to the MAFIAA ) because of stories which are generally dicey at best .
They do * OWN * the franchise after all and they have the right to make sure the franchise does not fail .
Would I WANT to see a movie based on a derivative work of Alien ?
I have no problem with companies still controlling the franchises and having control over the works released under their banner but their older works released to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?
I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily stretching back that far.
I would go 30 years, but that's my opinion.
Highway to Hell, Who's Next &amp; IV would all be free of copyright restrictions and I can wait a few more years until Appetite for Destruction is loose.And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters Fan fiction based in the universes of Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Porter and the like is great, but obviously the owners of the franchises are not going to go hunting down their own fanbase (leave that to the MAFIAA)because of stories which are generally dicey at best.
They do *OWN* the franchise after all and they have the right to make sure the franchise does not fail.
Would I WANT to see a movie based on a derivative work of Alien?
I have no problem with companies still controlling the franchises and having control over the works released under their banner but their older works released to the public. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657042</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with their motives...</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1269877200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it is up for debate amongst a group trying to reach consensus before they present the agreed upon result to the everyone else.</p><p>Sure you can argue that that is a stupid idea in the first place, but the point of debate is for a group to reach consensus not to convince everyone else/get input from everyone else.</p><p>This makes much more sense in the Australian tradition of voting along party lines than in the US where it isn't the norm for everyone to vote with their party.</p><p>Doesn't make it a good thing of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is up for debate amongst a group trying to reach consensus before they present the agreed upon result to the everyone else.Sure you can argue that that is a stupid idea in the first place , but the point of debate is for a group to reach consensus not to convince everyone else/get input from everyone else.This makes much more sense in the Australian tradition of voting along party lines than in the US where it is n't the norm for everyone to vote with their party.Does n't make it a good thing of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is up for debate amongst a group trying to reach consensus before they present the agreed upon result to the everyone else.Sure you can argue that that is a stupid idea in the first place, but the point of debate is for a group to reach consensus not to convince everyone else/get input from everyone else.This makes much more sense in the Australian tradition of voting along party lines than in the US where it isn't the norm for everyone to vote with their party.Doesn't make it a good thing of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386</id>
	<title>Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269874260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN.  None of this pretend public domain, if it doesn't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service.  A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?  And that's not even whats <i>important</i>, whats <b>important</b> is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters!  These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain!  But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that <i>could</i> have been right out from under our noses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN .
None of this pretend public domain , if it does n't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service .
A period of say 20 years or so : imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie , music , book , or software from 1990 or before ?
And that 's not even whats important , whats important is derivative works : say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters , plot devices , and characters !
These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain !
But of course , we have now , the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN.
None of this pretend public domain, if it doesn't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service.
A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?
And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters!
These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain!
But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657118</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269877500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking exactly the same about the story headline. A tongue twister for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd. "Pirate Party Pillages Private Papers"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking exactly the same about the story headline .
A tongue twister for the / .
crowd. " Pirate Party Pillages Private Papers "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking exactly the same about the story headline.
A tongue twister for the /.
crowd. "Pirate Party Pillages Private Papers"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663092</id>
	<title>Re:Read into the record.</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1269860880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're a serious party. Politics is all about a meeting-in-the-middle fallacy, so wackos like these guys and Stallman help make Valenti and the MAFIAA appear extremists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're a serious party .
Politics is all about a meeting-in-the-middle fallacy , so wackos like these guys and Stallman help make Valenti and the MAFIAA appear extremists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're a serious party.
Politics is all about a meeting-in-the-middle fallacy, so wackos like these guys and Stallman help make Valenti and the MAFIAA appear extremists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657412</id>
	<title>Re:Berne convention will block this.</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1269878520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of international treaties that are ignored, by one or multiple parties.</p><p>There are plenty of cases where nothing is, or even can be realistically done about it.</p><p>If the people of a country wish their government to withdraw from some treaty or other, I'm not sure that "There is nothing that can be done about it" is the proper answer.</p><p>Do you live in sovereign state or not?</p><p>Regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of international treaties that are ignored , by one or multiple parties.There are plenty of cases where nothing is , or even can be realistically done about it.If the people of a country wish their government to withdraw from some treaty or other , I 'm not sure that " There is nothing that can be done about it " is the proper answer.Do you live in sovereign state or not ? Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of international treaties that are ignored, by one or multiple parties.There are plenty of cases where nothing is, or even can be realistically done about it.If the people of a country wish their government to withdraw from some treaty or other, I'm not sure that "There is nothing that can be done about it" is the proper answer.Do you live in sovereign state or not?Regards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656844</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269876240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sally sells seashells by the seashore</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sally sells seashells by the seashore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sally sells seashells by the seashore</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656558</id>
	<title>What a world</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1269875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this parallel universe, the Pirates are the good guys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this parallel universe , the Pirates are the good guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this parallel universe, the Pirates are the good guys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657144</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269877620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are all against alliteration? AAAARG!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are all against alliteration ?
AAAARG ! ! ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are all against alliteration?
AAAARG!!!!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1269874020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.<br> <br>
That headline is a mouthful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers .
That headline is a mouthful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.
That headline is a mouthful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656352</id>
	<title>About time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269874140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad that someone is finally using government 'tricks' against them - the whole 'catch 22' thing that the PPA have going is making me all fuzzy inside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad that someone is finally using government 'tricks ' against them - the whole 'catch 22 ' thing that the PPA have going is making me all fuzzy inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad that someone is finally using government 'tricks' against them - the whole 'catch 22' thing that the PPA have going is making me all fuzzy inside.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659672</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1269888180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Additionally, while I agree with shorter copyright limits, one could make the argument that infinitely-long copyrights are better for society than no copyrights.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, not if one understands human history one can't. Humans created art before copyright, and some of those works have come down to us today. Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/18/cbs-uncovers-rare-ja.html" title="boingboing.net" rel="nofollow">existing copyright is preventing the preservation of existing works</a> [boingboing.net].</p><blockquote><div><p>and without copyrights, there is no good economic model for the production of a lot of new work.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure there are. There's various forms of patronage, there's government-funded production (which is no more an intervention into the "free market" than copyright is), and there's my favorite, royalty-right: anyone can copy a work for free, but commercial use -- selling copies or derivative works -- requires payment of a royalty. (Modeled on songwriter royalties: sing in the shower all you want, but sing at the bar to bring in more customers, and the songwriter gets their nickel.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , while I agree with shorter copyright limits , one could make the argument that infinitely-long copyrights are better for society than no copyrights.No , not if one understands human history one ca n't .
Humans created art before copyright , and some of those works have come down to us today .
Meanwhile , existing copyright is preventing the preservation of existing works [ boingboing.net ] .and without copyrights , there is no good economic model for the production of a lot of new work.Sure there are .
There 's various forms of patronage , there 's government-funded production ( which is no more an intervention into the " free market " than copyright is ) , and there 's my favorite , royalty-right : anyone can copy a work for free , but commercial use -- selling copies or derivative works -- requires payment of a royalty .
( Modeled on songwriter royalties : sing in the shower all you want , but sing at the bar to bring in more customers , and the songwriter gets their nickel .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, while I agree with shorter copyright limits, one could make the argument that infinitely-long copyrights are better for society than no copyrights.No, not if one understands human history one can't.
Humans created art before copyright, and some of those works have come down to us today.
Meanwhile, existing copyright is preventing the preservation of existing works [boingboing.net].and without copyrights, there is no good economic model for the production of a lot of new work.Sure there are.
There's various forms of patronage, there's government-funded production (which is no more an intervention into the "free market" than copyright is), and there's my favorite, royalty-right: anyone can copy a work for free, but commercial use -- selling copies or derivative works -- requires payment of a royalty.
(Modeled on songwriter royalties: sing in the shower all you want, but sing at the bar to bring in more customers, and the songwriter gets their nickel.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31664562</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1269868860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?</p></div><p> <i>Imagine</i> it? I'm doing it as we speak. =)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie , music , book , or software from 1990 or before ?
Imagine it ?
I 'm doing it as we speak .
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?
Imagine it?
I'm doing it as we speak.
=)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657260</id>
	<title>Re:Read into the record.</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1269878100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least in the US, the obvious public interest and lack of commercial value would *clearly* trump any potential copyright claim in the document itself in a first amendment analysis.</p><p>No sane judge would order this taken down for copyright reasons.</p><p>"National security grounds" might be a different story.<br>My understanding is that our government is attempting to justify the secrecy on these grounds.<br>But this is obviously complete bullshit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in the US , the obvious public interest and lack of commercial value would * clearly * trump any potential copyright claim in the document itself in a first amendment analysis.No sane judge would order this taken down for copyright reasons .
" National security grounds " might be a different story.My understanding is that our government is attempting to justify the secrecy on these grounds.But this is obviously complete bullshit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in the US, the obvious public interest and lack of commercial value would *clearly* trump any potential copyright claim in the document itself in a first amendment analysis.No sane judge would order this taken down for copyright reasons.
"National security grounds" might be a different story.My understanding is that our government is attempting to justify the secrecy on these grounds.But this is obviously complete bullshit...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688</id>
	<title>Berne convention will block this.</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1269875460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Countries are bound by an international treaty. shorting copyright is not an option.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention\_for\_the\_Protection\_of\_Literary\_and\_Artistic\_Works/Articles\_1\_to\_21" title="wikisource.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention\_for\_the\_Protection\_of\_Literary\_and\_Artistic\_Works/Articles\_1\_to\_21</a> [wikisource.org]</p><p>article 7:</p><p>(1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>(6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraph<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>(7) Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention which grant, in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act, shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act.</p><p>So by international treaty they can shorten the copyright to the length it was when signing the treaty, or lengthen it arbitrary, but no country can shorten it below the length set in the treaty.</p><p>A pirate party is free to discuss this issue, but is almost impossible to make this a law, unless there was a law before the countries signed the Berne convention that limited the length. The only way to do this is a trick: leave Berne convention, set a copyright of 5 years and then join again. I bet this is not a point a minority party can establish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Countries are bound by an international treaty .
shorting copyright is not an option.http : //en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention \ _for \ _the \ _Protection \ _of \ _Literary \ _and \ _Artistic \ _Works/Articles \ _1 \ _to \ _21 [ wikisource.org ] article 7 : ( 1 ) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death .
.... ( 6 ) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraph .... ( 7 ) Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention which grant , in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act , shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act.So by international treaty they can shorten the copyright to the length it was when signing the treaty , or lengthen it arbitrary , but no country can shorten it below the length set in the treaty.A pirate party is free to discuss this issue , but is almost impossible to make this a law , unless there was a law before the countries signed the Berne convention that limited the length .
The only way to do this is a trick : leave Berne convention , set a copyright of 5 years and then join again .
I bet this is not a point a minority party can establish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Countries are bound by an international treaty.
shorting copyright is not an option.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention\_for\_the\_Protection\_of\_Literary\_and\_Artistic\_Works/Articles\_1\_to\_21 [wikisource.org]article 7:(1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.
....(6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraph ....(7) Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention which grant, in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act, shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act.So by international treaty they can shorten the copyright to the length it was when signing the treaty, or lengthen it arbitrary, but no country can shorten it below the length set in the treaty.A pirate party is free to discuss this issue, but is almost impossible to make this a law, unless there was a law before the countries signed the Berne convention that limited the length.
The only way to do this is a trick: leave Berne convention, set a copyright of 5 years and then join again.
I bet this is not a point a minority party can establish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659374</id>
	<title>Re:Well Played</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1269886920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As was mentioned earlier, if you were to accuse me of burning puppies, I could accuse you of libel. However, if it comes to be proven that I <i>do</i> burn puppies, I just set myself up for a nice perjury/abusing justice/whatever suit.</p><p>The argument boils down to: You can't order the takedown because you don't like the document. Either you ask for it to be taken down because it's true but protected by copyright (or a matter of national security, that works too), or you ask for it to be taken down because it's false and libellous. But if you choose to call it false and it isn't, you've set yourself up for a perjury suit later on if/when ACTA is passed into law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As was mentioned earlier , if you were to accuse me of burning puppies , I could accuse you of libel .
However , if it comes to be proven that I do burn puppies , I just set myself up for a nice perjury/abusing justice/whatever suit.The argument boils down to : You ca n't order the takedown because you do n't like the document .
Either you ask for it to be taken down because it 's true but protected by copyright ( or a matter of national security , that works too ) , or you ask for it to be taken down because it 's false and libellous .
But if you choose to call it false and it is n't , you 've set yourself up for a perjury suit later on if/when ACTA is passed into law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As was mentioned earlier, if you were to accuse me of burning puppies, I could accuse you of libel.
However, if it comes to be proven that I do burn puppies, I just set myself up for a nice perjury/abusing justice/whatever suit.The argument boils down to: You can't order the takedown because you don't like the document.
Either you ask for it to be taken down because it's true but protected by copyright (or a matter of national security, that works too), or you ask for it to be taken down because it's false and libellous.
But if you choose to call it false and it isn't, you've set yourself up for a perjury suit later on if/when ACTA is passed into law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656778</id>
	<title>Yes but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>\This document must be protected from
~:~~:~:~~::;~:~~~u~n~l~s~ed
e-mail or fax, discussed ovcrunsecured
phonelines,andstoredonunelassified
computer systems. It must be stored in a
~~~tOrsecuredbuilding. room,or cabinet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>\ This document must be protected from ~ : ~ ~ : ~ : ~ ~ : : ; ~ : ~ ~ ~ u ~ n ~ l ~ s ~ ed e-mail or fax , discussed ovcrunsecured phonelines,andstoredonunelassified computer systems .
It must be stored in a ~ ~ ~ tOrsecuredbuilding .
room,or cabinet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>\This document must be protected from
~:~~:~:~~::;~:~~~u~n~l~s~ed
e-mail or fax, discussed ovcrunsecured
phonelines,andstoredonunelassified
computer systems.
It must be stored in a
~~~tOrsecuredbuilding.
room,or cabinet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658634</id>
	<title>It's [fairly] safe to join the Pirate Party</title>
	<author>feepcreature</author>
	<datestamp>1269883680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're wrong! It's pretty safe to join, without making civilisation collapse.</p><blockquote><div><p>The Pirate Party isn't fighting for responsible copyright laws, they want to gut the whole thing.</p></div></blockquote><p>From the Aussie Pirate Party FAQ:</p><p> <i>What are your main policy areas?<br></i> </p><p>We aim to protect civil liberties and promote culture and innovation, primarily through... <i>[various free speech, privacy and anti-censorship issues... ], and</i> </p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Reforming the life + 70 years copyright length</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Decriminalisation of non-commercial copyright infringement</p><p> <i>Do you support abolishing intellectual property entirely?<br></i> </p><p>No. We believe that the original goals of intellectual property protections, which are to promote creativity and invention, are reasonable. We don't believe that prosecuting non-commercial file sharers for copying a song from the 1940s is reasonable, however.</p><p> <i>Do you think that commercial copyright infringement or patent infringement is ok?<br></i> </p><p>No. Our position is that companies should pay for the use of copyrighted works and patented designs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're wrong !
It 's pretty safe to join , without making civilisation collapse.The Pirate Party is n't fighting for responsible copyright laws , they want to gut the whole thing.From the Aussie Pirate Party FAQ : What are your main policy areas ?
We aim to protect civil liberties and promote culture and innovation , primarily through... [ various free speech , privacy and anti-censorship issues... ] , and         * Reforming the life + 70 years copyright length         * Decriminalisation of non-commercial copyright infringement Do you support abolishing intellectual property entirely ?
No. We believe that the original goals of intellectual property protections , which are to promote creativity and invention , are reasonable .
We do n't believe that prosecuting non-commercial file sharers for copying a song from the 1940s is reasonable , however .
Do you think that commercial copyright infringement or patent infringement is ok ?
No. Our position is that companies should pay for the use of copyrighted works and patented designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're wrong!
It's pretty safe to join, without making civilisation collapse.The Pirate Party isn't fighting for responsible copyright laws, they want to gut the whole thing.From the Aussie Pirate Party FAQ: What are your main policy areas?
We aim to protect civil liberties and promote culture and innovation, primarily through... [various free speech, privacy and anti-censorship issues... ], and 
        * Reforming the life + 70 years copyright length
        * Decriminalisation of non-commercial copyright infringement Do you support abolishing intellectual property entirely?
No. We believe that the original goals of intellectual property protections, which are to promote creativity and invention, are reasonable.
We don't believe that prosecuting non-commercial file sharers for copying a song from the 1940s is reasonable, however.
Do you think that commercial copyright infringement or patent infringement is ok?
No. Our position is that companies should pay for the use of copyrighted works and patented designs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657872</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with their motives...</title>
	<author>redhog</author>
	<datestamp>1269880260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your country restricts the discussion (free speech) for its citizen of issues currently being discussed by its parliament, it can not have much of a democracy.<br><br>Democracy means holding politicians responsible towards the people for their actions and opinions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your country restricts the discussion ( free speech ) for its citizen of issues currently being discussed by its parliament , it can not have much of a democracy.Democracy means holding politicians responsible towards the people for their actions and opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your country restricts the discussion (free speech) for its citizen of issues currently being discussed by its parliament, it can not have much of a democracy.Democracy means holding politicians responsible towards the people for their actions and opinions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348</id>
	<title>Read into the record.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269874080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should read it into the record of any parliament that they have seats in -- legislators (at least in the US, and I assume other countries too) have immunity from arrest for speech made as part of their legislative business. If they desire to declassify this information, then doing it in a way that's clearly part of their legislative business is the best way to keep the information public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should read it into the record of any parliament that they have seats in -- legislators ( at least in the US , and I assume other countries too ) have immunity from arrest for speech made as part of their legislative business .
If they desire to declassify this information , then doing it in a way that 's clearly part of their legislative business is the best way to keep the information public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should read it into the record of any parliament that they have seats in -- legislators (at least in the US, and I assume other countries too) have immunity from arrest for speech made as part of their legislative business.
If they desire to declassify this information, then doing it in a way that's clearly part of their legislative business is the best way to keep the information public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658670</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269883920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but you may call me "P".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but you may call me " P " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but you may call me "P".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656862</id>
	<title>Re:Well Played</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269876360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No...  It's a check play.  "Checkmate" would be if they had it read into the minutes of the legislatures and parliaments of several of the differing countries in addition to<br>doing what they're doing now.  It makes it clear just precisely what they're up to.  As it stands, at least one of my Senators won't be getting my vote as they're<br>in line with savaging our rights in exchange for "protecting" IP- as evidenced by a stupid form e-mail they sent in reply to my concerns about the overall lack of<br>transparency they've got in the whole thing.  A lack of transparency the US and a few others asked for- which wasn't needed if it was all above board like they're<br>claiming it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No... It 's a check play .
" Checkmate " would be if they had it read into the minutes of the legislatures and parliaments of several of the differing countries in addition todoing what they 're doing now .
It makes it clear just precisely what they 're up to .
As it stands , at least one of my Senators wo n't be getting my vote as they'rein line with savaging our rights in exchange for " protecting " IP- as evidenced by a stupid form e-mail they sent in reply to my concerns about the overall lack oftransparency they 've got in the whole thing .
A lack of transparency the US and a few others asked for- which was n't needed if it was all above board like they'reclaiming it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No...  It's a check play.
"Checkmate" would be if they had it read into the minutes of the legislatures and parliaments of several of the differing countries in addition todoing what they're doing now.
It makes it clear just precisely what they're up to.
As it stands, at least one of my Senators won't be getting my vote as they'rein line with savaging our rights in exchange for "protecting" IP- as evidenced by a stupid form e-mail they sent in reply to my concerns about the overall lack oftransparency they've got in the whole thing.
A lack of transparency the US and a few others asked for- which wasn't needed if it was all above board like they'reclaiming it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657916</id>
	<title>Don't Join the Pirate Party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269880440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Pirate Party isn't fighting for responsible copyright laws, they want to gut the whole thing.  It's an extreme overreaction that gives us a system that's *worse* than the current system.  I'd support an organization that was more moderate on these issues.  The Pirate Party is anything but moderate.  Count me as one vote against the the Pirate Party's ridiculous "system".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pirate Party is n't fighting for responsible copyright laws , they want to gut the whole thing .
It 's an extreme overreaction that gives us a system that 's * worse * than the current system .
I 'd support an organization that was more moderate on these issues .
The Pirate Party is anything but moderate .
Count me as one vote against the the Pirate Party 's ridiculous " system " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pirate Party isn't fighting for responsible copyright laws, they want to gut the whole thing.
It's an extreme overreaction that gives us a system that's *worse* than the current system.
I'd support an organization that was more moderate on these issues.
The Pirate Party is anything but moderate.
Count me as one vote against the the Pirate Party's ridiculous "system".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657434</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with their motives...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269878640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But restrictions on public discussion are precisely the problem.<br>Keeping some specific details of, say, national security matters might be appropriate for a representative government, but not something like this.<br>The oppressive, secretive process being engaged in by all the governments that are parties to this mess cannot be allowed to stand.<br>That's a matter of principle, and has nothing to do with the end results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But restrictions on public discussion are precisely the problem.Keeping some specific details of , say , national security matters might be appropriate for a representative government , but not something like this.The oppressive , secretive process being engaged in by all the governments that are parties to this mess can not be allowed to stand.That 's a matter of principle , and has nothing to do with the end results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But restrictions on public discussion are precisely the problem.Keeping some specific details of, say, national security matters might be appropriate for a representative government, but not something like this.The oppressive, secretive process being engaged in by all the governments that are parties to this mess cannot be allowed to stand.That's a matter of principle, and has nothing to do with the end results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657686</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269879660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you were going to use a name, the historically accurate version would have to be "Mary" because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary\_Anning#Impact\_and\_legacy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Mary Anning</a> [wikipedia.org] was the person for which the saying was written (she really <i>did</i> sell sea shells and other things by the sea shore in Lyme Regis).  But "Mary" doesn't alliterate, so "She sells seashells..." is how it goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were going to use a name , the historically accurate version would have to be " Mary " because Mary Anning [ wikipedia.org ] was the person for which the saying was written ( she really did sell sea shells and other things by the sea shore in Lyme Regis ) .
But " Mary " does n't alliterate , so " She sells seashells... " is how it goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were going to use a name, the historically accurate version would have to be "Mary" because Mary Anning [wikipedia.org] was the person for which the saying was written (she really did sell sea shells and other things by the sea shore in Lyme Regis).
But "Mary" doesn't alliterate, so "She sells seashells..." is how it goes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657200</id>
	<title>Re:Well Played</title>
	<author>jmknsd</author>
	<datestamp>1269877860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there is always the option of knocking all of the pieces off the board and throwing a tantrum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is always the option of knocking all of the pieces off the board and throwing a tantrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is always the option of knocking all of the pieces off the board and throwing a tantrum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660326</id>
	<title>Re:Not copyrighted?</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1269891240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most countries laws explicitly declare statutes, law acts, treaties, law projects, government-issued documents and all kinds of the like (the lists vary from country to country but are usually quite long) as public domain and no subject of copyright law. They are protected by other laws (e.g. copies that differ from the official version must be clearly marked as such), but never copyrighted.</p><p>The protection from publication and redistribution may come as a separate secret/confidential clause in national defense statutes, and too exact copies may fall under counterfeit clauses (for limited run certificates and the like, a copy or a sample must be clearly marked as such) but never is financial profit from redistribution by the author of the document a reason to limit its distribution.</p><p>Similarly, government logos, anthems, national emblems and the like are untrademarkable and protected from abuse by separate laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most countries laws explicitly declare statutes , law acts , treaties , law projects , government-issued documents and all kinds of the like ( the lists vary from country to country but are usually quite long ) as public domain and no subject of copyright law .
They are protected by other laws ( e.g .
copies that differ from the official version must be clearly marked as such ) , but never copyrighted.The protection from publication and redistribution may come as a separate secret/confidential clause in national defense statutes , and too exact copies may fall under counterfeit clauses ( for limited run certificates and the like , a copy or a sample must be clearly marked as such ) but never is financial profit from redistribution by the author of the document a reason to limit its distribution.Similarly , government logos , anthems , national emblems and the like are untrademarkable and protected from abuse by separate laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most countries laws explicitly declare statutes, law acts, treaties, law projects, government-issued documents and all kinds of the like (the lists vary from country to country but are usually quite long) as public domain and no subject of copyright law.
They are protected by other laws (e.g.
copies that differ from the official version must be clearly marked as such), but never copyrighted.The protection from publication and redistribution may come as a separate secret/confidential clause in national defense statutes, and too exact copies may fall under counterfeit clauses (for limited run certificates and the like, a copy or a sample must be clearly marked as such) but never is financial profit from redistribution by the author of the document a reason to limit its distribution.Similarly, government logos, anthems, national emblems and the like are untrademarkable and protected from abuse by separate laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658734</id>
	<title>Re:Read into the record.</title>
	<author>Christian Engstrom</author>
	<datestamp>1269884220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A MS Word version of (what I believe is) the same ACTA document can be found on my blog: <a href="http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/consolidated-acta-leak-as-word-document/" title="wordpress.com">Consolidated ACTA leak as Word document</a> [wordpress.com].
<p>
I don't really think that any parliamentary immunity will be necessary in connection with spreading this document, but as a Member of the European Parliament I can confirm that I have it, in case it turns out to be useful.
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>/Christian Engstr&#246;m</i> <br>
Member of the European Parliament<br>
Piratpartiet (The Pirate Party), Sweden</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A MS Word version of ( what I believe is ) the same ACTA document can be found on my blog : Consolidated ACTA leak as Word document [ wordpress.com ] .
I do n't really think that any parliamentary immunity will be necessary in connection with spreading this document , but as a Member of the European Parliament I can confirm that I have it , in case it turns out to be useful .
/Christian Engstr   m Member of the European Parliament Piratpartiet ( The Pirate Party ) , Sweden</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A MS Word version of (what I believe is) the same ACTA document can be found on my blog: Consolidated ACTA leak as Word document [wordpress.com].
I don't really think that any parliamentary immunity will be necessary in connection with spreading this document, but as a Member of the European Parliament I can confirm that I have it, in case it turns out to be useful.
/Christian Engström 
Member of the European Parliament
Piratpartiet (The Pirate Party), Sweden</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656618</id>
	<title>Re:Read into the record.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269875220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't hold any seats, they're a joke not a real party.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't hold any seats , they 're a joke not a real party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't hold any seats, they're a joke not a real party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657520</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>zobier</author>
	<datestamp>1269879000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUCK THE MAFIAA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK THE MAFIAA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK THE MAFIAA!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657236</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with their motives...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269877980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, I wonder if parliamentary decorum doesn't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...</p></div><p>I think I speak for <em>the people</em> when I say <em>fuck decorum</em> <strong>if it conflicts with public debate.</strong> It is <strong>The People</strong> who will be suffering the effects of these bad to-be-laws for the foreseeable future if they should be passed, and therefore it is the people who must be able to debate the issues. That which flourishes in the dark and cannot withstand the light of public scrutiny has no place in the institutions of men.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I wonder if parliamentary decorum does n't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...I think I speak for the people when I say fuck decorum if it conflicts with public debate .
It is The People who will be suffering the effects of these bad to-be-laws for the foreseeable future if they should be passed , and therefore it is the people who must be able to debate the issues .
That which flourishes in the dark and can not withstand the light of public scrutiny has no place in the institutions of men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I wonder if parliamentary decorum doesn't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...I think I speak for the people when I say fuck decorum if it conflicts with public debate.
It is The People who will be suffering the effects of these bad to-be-laws for the foreseeable future if they should be passed, and therefore it is the people who must be able to debate the issues.
That which flourishes in the dark and cannot withstand the light of public scrutiny has no place in the institutions of men.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657970</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1269880800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People forget that trademarks and copyright are not the same thing.  Realistically, if Steamboat Willy fell into public domain (yeah right, like that will ever happen...) you still couldn't go off and start making your own mickey mouse movies because mickey mouse would still be an active trademark of Disney.  You would however be free to distribute and modify Steamboat Willy as you saw fit.</p><p>Of course trademarks are vulnerable to other things, such as becoming generic....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People forget that trademarks and copyright are not the same thing .
Realistically , if Steamboat Willy fell into public domain ( yeah right , like that will ever happen... ) you still could n't go off and start making your own mickey mouse movies because mickey mouse would still be an active trademark of Disney .
You would however be free to distribute and modify Steamboat Willy as you saw fit.Of course trademarks are vulnerable to other things , such as becoming generic... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People forget that trademarks and copyright are not the same thing.
Realistically, if Steamboat Willy fell into public domain (yeah right, like that will ever happen...) you still couldn't go off and start making your own mickey mouse movies because mickey mouse would still be an active trademark of Disney.
You would however be free to distribute and modify Steamboat Willy as you saw fit.Of course trademarks are vulnerable to other things, such as becoming generic....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656870</id>
	<title>But PPAU still need your membership! (it's FREE)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269876420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please, if you're an Australian citizen and are concerned at all about ACTA, the Australian internet filter, ridiculous software patents and Big Media's stranglehold on copyright laws then <a href="http://pirateparty.org.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp;t=11338" title="pirateparty.org.au">join the Pirate Party Australia</a> [pirateparty.org.au]!<br> <br>
They only need a few more members to be able to officially register as a political party and it's now FREE TO JOIN! Just print out the form, sign it, scan/photograph it, email it in and be part of the solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , if you 're an Australian citizen and are concerned at all about ACTA , the Australian internet filter , ridiculous software patents and Big Media 's stranglehold on copyright laws then join the Pirate Party Australia [ pirateparty.org.au ] !
They only need a few more members to be able to officially register as a political party and it 's now FREE TO JOIN !
Just print out the form , sign it , scan/photograph it , email it in and be part of the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, if you're an Australian citizen and are concerned at all about ACTA, the Australian internet filter, ridiculous software patents and Big Media's stranglehold on copyright laws then join the Pirate Party Australia [pirateparty.org.au]!
They only need a few more members to be able to officially register as a political party and it's now FREE TO JOIN!
Just print out the form, sign it, scan/photograph it, email it in and be part of the solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656884</id>
	<title>Re:Well Played</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1269876540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes a checkmate is really a catch-22. Be careful of your footing when you make a sweeping statement like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes a checkmate is really a catch-22 .
Be careful of your footing when you make a sweeping statement like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes a checkmate is really a catch-22.
Be careful of your footing when you make a sweeping statement like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656860</id>
	<title>Re:Read into the record.</title>
	<author>pv2b</author>
	<datestamp>1269876360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I know, yes - the Pirate Party Australia does not currently hold any seats.</p><p>If by "they" you mean the collection Pirate Parties in general, you'll find that Piratpartiet (Sweden) has two Members of European Parliament. That's more than some "established" or "legitimate" political parties in Sweden.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) Pretty good for a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , yes - the Pirate Party Australia does not currently hold any seats.If by " they " you mean the collection Pirate Parties in general , you 'll find that Piratpartiet ( Sweden ) has two Members of European Parliament .
That 's more than some " established " or " legitimate " political parties in Sweden .
; - ) Pretty good for a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know, yes - the Pirate Party Australia does not currently hold any seats.If by "they" you mean the collection Pirate Parties in general, you'll find that Piratpartiet (Sweden) has two Members of European Parliament.
That's more than some "established" or "legitimate" political parties in Sweden.
;-) Pretty good for a joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660196</id>
	<title>Not a work of art?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269890580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about laws in Australia but at least here in Finland something has to be a work of art or it can't be copyrighted. There are a few exceptions (such as maps) but you couldn't for example copyright any legal document, contract or such because they aren't works of art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about laws in Australia but at least here in Finland something has to be a work of art or it ca n't be copyrighted .
There are a few exceptions ( such as maps ) but you could n't for example copyright any legal document , contract or such because they are n't works of art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about laws in Australia but at least here in Finland something has to be a work of art or it can't be copyrighted.
There are a few exceptions (such as maps) but you couldn't for example copyright any legal document, contract or such because they aren't works of art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659314</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1269886740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A UNIX saleslady, Lenore,<br>Enjoys work, but she likes the beach more.<br>She found a good way<br>To combine work and play:<br>She sells C shells by the seashore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A UNIX saleslady , Lenore,Enjoys work , but she likes the beach more.She found a good wayTo combine work and play : She sells C shells by the seashore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A UNIX saleslady, Lenore,Enjoys work, but she likes the beach more.She found a good wayTo combine work and play:She sells C shells by the seashore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658082</id>
	<title>Re:Well Played</title>
	<author>s1lverl0rd</author>
	<datestamp>1269881220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not checkmate just yet. What if the government says the document was forged by the Pirate Party?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not checkmate just yet .
What if the government says the document was forged by the Pirate Party ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not checkmate just yet.
What if the government says the document was forged by the Pirate Party?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656816</id>
	<title>Re:Well Played</title>
	<author>AndGodSed</author>
	<datestamp>1269876120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well this depends largely of the content of said document and the events surrounding it (context). In this case it will work, in another it might not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well this depends largely of the content of said document and the events surrounding it ( context ) .
In this case it will work , in another it might not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well this depends largely of the content of said document and the events surrounding it (context).
In this case it will work, in another it might not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368</id>
	<title>Well Played</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269874140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We would like to see what the government (any government) tries to do about it. If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down, then we will, but if this happens, it will only validate the document's authenticity.</p></div><p>We will post this to show what you guys are up to.<br>
If you try to get it taken down, it shows everything in the documentis true and real.<br>
<br>
That, my friends, is called a checkmate in my book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We would like to see what the government ( any government ) tries to do about it .
If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down , then we will , but if this happens , it will only validate the document 's authenticity.We will post this to show what you guys are up to .
If you try to get it taken down , it shows everything in the documentis true and real .
That , my friends , is called a checkmate in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would like to see what the government (any government) tries to do about it.
If it turns out that there is some reason that we have to take it down, then we will, but if this happens, it will only validate the document's authenticity.We will post this to show what you guys are up to.
If you try to get it taken down, it shows everything in the documentis true and real.
That, my friends, is called a checkmate in my book.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657800</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>jb\_nizet</author>
	<datestamp>1269880020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suffer from stammering, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suffer from stammering , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suffer from stammering, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657112</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1269877500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily<br>&gt; stretching back that far.</p><p>The point is to give authors a financial incentive to create works, not to make sure that they are able to extract every conceivable nickle of revenue from every work.  Twenty years is quite long enough to make an author glad he wrote the thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily &gt; stretching back that far.The point is to give authors a financial incentive to create works , not to make sure that they are able to extract every conceivable nickle of revenue from every work .
Twenty years is quite long enough to make an author glad he wrote the thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I think 20 years is a bit too short nowadays with videos and such easily&gt; stretching back that far.The point is to give authors a financial incentive to create works, not to make sure that they are able to extract every conceivable nickle of revenue from every work.
Twenty years is quite long enough to make an author glad he wrote the thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656826</id>
	<title>Re:Read into the record.</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1269876180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is , but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion , we 'd live in a very different world than we do today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31662614</id>
	<title>Re:Read into the record.</title>
	<author>GumphMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1269858480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parliamentary privilege does exist in Australian Parliaments.  However, the Pirate Party has no seats in any Australian Parliament AFAICT.   The majority of seats are held by members of the two parties that have been happily "negotiating" this in secret, so I guess they won't do it.   We might be able to get an independent MP or senator to do it, but I wouldn't be holding my breathe on that.  Of the independents in the Federal House of Representatives, we have a farmer with economics education, a lawyer, and a former Liberal odd-ball.  In the Senate the independents you might get one of the 5 Greens to do it, everyone else strikes me as unlikely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parliamentary privilege does exist in Australian Parliaments .
However , the Pirate Party has no seats in any Australian Parliament AFAICT .
The majority of seats are held by members of the two parties that have been happily " negotiating " this in secret , so I guess they wo n't do it .
We might be able to get an independent MP or senator to do it , but I would n't be holding my breathe on that .
Of the independents in the Federal House of Representatives , we have a farmer with economics education , a lawyer , and a former Liberal odd-ball .
In the Senate the independents you might get one of the 5 Greens to do it , everyone else strikes me as unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parliamentary privilege does exist in Australian Parliaments.
However, the Pirate Party has no seats in any Australian Parliament AFAICT.
The majority of seats are held by members of the two parties that have been happily "negotiating" this in secret, so I guess they won't do it.
We might be able to get an independent MP or senator to do it, but I wouldn't be holding my breathe on that.
Of the independents in the Federal House of Representatives, we have a farmer with economics education, a lawyer, and a former Liberal odd-ball.
In the Senate the independents you might get one of the 5 Greens to do it, everyone else strikes me as unlikely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657842</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1269880200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Pirate Party is bad because they want to make everything public domain - a pretty extreme overreaction, don't you think?  Additionally, while I agree with shorter copyright limits, one could make the argument that infinitely-long copyrights are better for society than no copyrights.  How is that possible?  Because the fact that the public has to pay for something doesn't render it valueless (it's not like copyrighted-material is only valuable when it reaches the public domain), and without copyrights, there is no good economic model for the production of a lot of new work.  (Just think of all the copyrighted software that you've bought, and got value from.  The fact that you didn't get it for free doesn't mean it was worthless.)  Now, I'm not arguing for long copyrights, I disagree with them.  I'm just arguing that the whole Pirate Party idea of eliminating copyright is worse than what we've got.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pirate Party is bad because they want to make everything public domain - a pretty extreme overreaction , do n't you think ?
Additionally , while I agree with shorter copyright limits , one could make the argument that infinitely-long copyrights are better for society than no copyrights .
How is that possible ?
Because the fact that the public has to pay for something does n't render it valueless ( it 's not like copyrighted-material is only valuable when it reaches the public domain ) , and without copyrights , there is no good economic model for the production of a lot of new work .
( Just think of all the copyrighted software that you 've bought , and got value from .
The fact that you did n't get it for free does n't mean it was worthless .
) Now , I 'm not arguing for long copyrights , I disagree with them .
I 'm just arguing that the whole Pirate Party idea of eliminating copyright is worse than what we 've got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pirate Party is bad because they want to make everything public domain - a pretty extreme overreaction, don't you think?
Additionally, while I agree with shorter copyright limits, one could make the argument that infinitely-long copyrights are better for society than no copyrights.
How is that possible?
Because the fact that the public has to pay for something doesn't render it valueless (it's not like copyrighted-material is only valuable when it reaches the public domain), and without copyrights, there is no good economic model for the production of a lot of new work.
(Just think of all the copyrighted software that you've bought, and got value from.
The fact that you didn't get it for free doesn't mean it was worthless.
)  Now, I'm not arguing for long copyrights, I disagree with them.
I'm just arguing that the whole Pirate Party idea of eliminating copyright is worse than what we've got.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660248</id>
	<title>Re:Well Played</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269890880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How Glen Beck of you.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How Glen Beck of you.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How Glen Beck of you.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31664534</id>
	<title>Re:Read into the record.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1269868740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Hence the idea behind <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary\_privilege" title="wikipedia.org">parliamentary privilege</a> [wikipedia.org] here in Australia (as well as Canada and the UK).<br> <br>

Yes it has its drawbacks but the big advantage is that it only takes one parliamentarian to have the stones to reveal a secret like ACTA. The scott free clause can be abused for the purposes of slander but typically this will be taken care of by the parliament or governor general.<br> <br>

The problem is that the Pirate Party Australia does not have any seats in parliament, to be fair they did not even exist at the last election.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is , but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion , we 'd live in a very different world than we do today .
Hence the idea behind parliamentary privilege [ wikipedia.org ] here in Australia ( as well as Canada and the UK ) .
Yes it has its drawbacks but the big advantage is that it only takes one parliamentarian to have the stones to reveal a secret like ACTA .
The scott free clause can be abused for the purposes of slander but typically this will be taken care of by the parliament or governor general .
The problem is that the Pirate Party Australia does not have any seats in parliament , to be fair they did not even exist at the last election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.
Hence the idea behind parliamentary privilege [wikipedia.org] here in Australia (as well as Canada and the UK).
Yes it has its drawbacks but the big advantage is that it only takes one parliamentarian to have the stones to reveal a secret like ACTA.
The scott free clause can be abused for the purposes of slander but typically this will be taken care of by the parliament or governor general.
The problem is that the Pirate Party Australia does not have any seats in parliament, to be fair they did not even exist at the last election.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31662220</id>
	<title>2 P or not 2 P?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1269856920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...<br>, promptly promoting periodic proactive promulgation pertaining  to promiscuous perfunctory prosecution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... , promptly promoting periodic proactive promulgation pertaining to promiscuous perfunctory prosecution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..., promptly promoting periodic proactive promulgation pertaining  to promiscuous perfunctory prosecution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659158</id>
	<title>Re:Berne convention will block this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269886200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or... just drop out of the treaty? Exactly what benefit is this treaty providing for the people of the member states?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or... just drop out of the treaty ?
Exactly what benefit is this treaty providing for the people of the member states ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or... just drop out of the treaty?
Exactly what benefit is this treaty providing for the people of the member states?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657668</id>
	<title>Re:Berne convention will block this.</title>
	<author>Gr8Apes</author>
	<datestamp>1269879600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part (7) says countries can maintain their current length as of the signing date (for US 1987) So there's nothing preventing a roll back to the signing date for each respective country.</p><p>Part (8) In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work.</p><p>Is interesting as well.</p><p>What's also interesting is that the US adopted the UCC Geneva instead of the Berne in 1955 because the various clauses in the Berne Convention, such as the life of the author clause, were in direct contradiction with US law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part ( 7 ) says countries can maintain their current length as of the signing date ( for US 1987 ) So there 's nothing preventing a roll back to the signing date for each respective country.Part ( 8 ) In any case , the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed ; however , unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides , the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work.Is interesting as well.What 's also interesting is that the US adopted the UCC Geneva instead of the Berne in 1955 because the various clauses in the Berne Convention , such as the life of the author clause , were in direct contradiction with US law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part (7) says countries can maintain their current length as of the signing date (for US 1987) So there's nothing preventing a roll back to the signing date for each respective country.Part (8) In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work.Is interesting as well.What's also interesting is that the US adopted the UCC Geneva instead of the Berne in 1955 because the various clauses in the Berne Convention, such as the life of the author clause, were in direct contradiction with US law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659262</id>
	<title>Re:Berne convention will block this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269886560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its called ignoring the law US does it all the time</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its called ignoring the law US does it all the time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its called ignoring the law US does it all the time</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656638</id>
	<title>Re:Well Played</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269875340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that the document is published, is there anything in it that we didn't already suspect or know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that the document is published , is there anything in it that we did n't already suspect or know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that the document is published, is there anything in it that we didn't already suspect or know?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31662398</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Join the Pirate Party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's an extreme overreaction that gives us a system that's *worse* than the current system.</p></div><p>Apart from the fact that you're wrong (see feepcreature's post), I don't think it's possible to be worse than the current system.  The complete absence of copyright would, in my view, be an improvement.  I'd prefer to see some sensible, less pervasive copyright, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an extreme overreaction that gives us a system that 's * worse * than the current system.Apart from the fact that you 're wrong ( see feepcreature 's post ) , I do n't think it 's possible to be worse than the current system .
The complete absence of copyright would , in my view , be an improvement .
I 'd prefer to see some sensible , less pervasive copyright , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an extreme overreaction that gives us a system that's *worse* than the current system.Apart from the fact that you're wrong (see feepcreature's post), I don't think it's possible to be worse than the current system.
The complete absence of copyright would, in my view, be an improvement.
I'd prefer to see some sensible, less pervasive copyright, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682</id>
	<title>I agree with their motives...</title>
	<author>Tsian</author>
	<datestamp>1269875460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And admire their resolve to make the treaty public -- indeed I am curious to see what it contains.</p><p>However, I wonder if parliamentary decorum doesn't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...</p><p>Just because it is an unwritten rule does not mean it should be casually ignored... as much as we might disagree with the end results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And admire their resolve to make the treaty public -- indeed I am curious to see what it contains.However , I wonder if parliamentary decorum does n't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...Just because it is an unwritten rule does not mean it should be casually ignored... as much as we might disagree with the end results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And admire their resolve to make the treaty public -- indeed I am curious to see what it contains.However, I wonder if parliamentary decorum doesn't traditionally restrict public discussion of issues currently up for debate...Just because it is an unwritten rule does not mean it should be casually ignored... as much as we might disagree with the end results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656628</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>solevita</author>
	<datestamp>1269875280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alliteration. I think it was deliberate.

Shock news: Editors write headline to catch reader's attention<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alliteration .
I think it was deliberate .
Shock news : Editors write headline to catch reader 's attention ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alliteration.
I think it was deliberate.
Shock news: Editors write headline to catch reader's attention ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663174</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1269861480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are all against alliteration? AAAARG!!!!!</p></div><p>It's an insultingly cheap shot. If your article isn't interesting enough to merit reading, you should improve it so that it does, not try to fool people into reading it by giving it a catchy title.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are all against alliteration ?
AAAARG ! ! ! ! ! It 's an insultingly cheap shot .
If your article is n't interesting enough to merit reading , you should improve it so that it does , not try to fool people into reading it by giving it a catchy title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are all against alliteration?
AAAARG!!!!!It's an insultingly cheap shot.
If your article isn't interesting enough to merit reading, you should improve it so that it does, not try to fool people into reading it by giving it a catchy title.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656780</id>
	<title>Re:Berne convention will block this.</title>
	<author>Dodgy G33za</author>
	<datestamp>1269875940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You gave the answer yourself. All it takes is a government with the bollocks to do it.


So we are all doomed...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You gave the answer yourself .
All it takes is a government with the bollocks to do it .
So we are all doomed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You gave the answer yourself.
All it takes is a government with the bollocks to do it.
So we are all doomed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663128</id>
	<title>Re:Berne convention will block this.</title>
	<author>Teun</author>
	<datestamp>1269861120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Very few countries place treaty agreements higher than national laws like the US does.</p></div><p>You might want to look that part about "very few countries" up...</p><p>
For as far as the western world is concerned it's more likely the other way around, international treaties override national law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Very few countries place treaty agreements higher than national laws like the US does.You might want to look that part about " very few countries " up.. . For as far as the western world is concerned it 's more likely the other way around , international treaties override national law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Very few countries place treaty agreements higher than national laws like the US does.You might want to look that part about "very few countries" up...
For as far as the western world is concerned it's more likely the other way around, international treaties override national law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656848</id>
	<title>Re:Well Played</title>
	<author>Deadstick</author>
	<datestamp>1269876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK...I shall post a message that you like to set fire to puppies. If you make me take it down, we'll know you do.</p><p>rj</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK...I shall post a message that you like to set fire to puppies .
If you make me take it down , we 'll know you do.rj</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK...I shall post a message that you like to set fire to puppies.
If you make me take it down, we'll know you do.rj</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663844</id>
	<title>Feeling like poking a stick at the system today...</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1269865140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pondering.... The document says it is "confidential" not "classified" so I'm sitting here reasoning that if the NY Times can publish classified (and weren't some marked Top Secret) war documents then I outta be able to get away with mirroring a copy of this here in the US of A.  The fun part is I'd do it on my homepage hosted on a public library's site and equipment.  Now the way I see it one of three results are possible.</p><p>1.  I get shipped off a federal pen and buggered for the next ten years or more.   This outcome would be bad but is it a realistic risk?</p><p>2.  I get a take down notice.  I comply.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  And then we find out if the EFF is done with insane BDS ravings and ready to actually defend the online world from a real out of control Justice Dept.  After all, news of the takedown and the legal wrangling would create far more interest in the document than it would ever get on a crappy homepage that hasn't even been updated for a while.  Imagine the public relations nightmare Holder would be walking into!  After almost eight years of deranged ravings about Bushitler's Justice Dept wanting to violate all sorts of fundemental rights at libraries, or hell just shutting them down or something because he was such an unhoopy frood and all, to now have them forced to take on the Obama Justice Dept for a real attack on a library would be so much fun to watch.  Always good when you can cause chaos in the camp of one's foes AND strike a blow for Freedom at the same time.  This scenario has so much potential for an Epic Win I can't imagine it actually happening.</p><p>3.  Which leads to the more probable option: Nothing happens.  Oh well, try again.</p><p>I really can't see any risk of #1 but before I actually do it I figure it is worth tossing the idea out for comment first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pondering.... The document says it is " confidential " not " classified " so I 'm sitting here reasoning that if the NY Times can publish classified ( and were n't some marked Top Secret ) war documents then I outta be able to get away with mirroring a copy of this here in the US of A. The fun part is I 'd do it on my homepage hosted on a public library 's site and equipment .
Now the way I see it one of three results are possible.1 .
I get shipped off a federal pen and buggered for the next ten years or more .
This outcome would be bad but is it a realistic risk ? 2 .
I get a take down notice .
I comply .
: ) And then we find out if the EFF is done with insane BDS ravings and ready to actually defend the online world from a real out of control Justice Dept .
After all , news of the takedown and the legal wrangling would create far more interest in the document than it would ever get on a crappy homepage that has n't even been updated for a while .
Imagine the public relations nightmare Holder would be walking into !
After almost eight years of deranged ravings about Bushitler 's Justice Dept wanting to violate all sorts of fundemental rights at libraries , or hell just shutting them down or something because he was such an unhoopy frood and all , to now have them forced to take on the Obama Justice Dept for a real attack on a library would be so much fun to watch .
Always good when you can cause chaos in the camp of one 's foes AND strike a blow for Freedom at the same time .
This scenario has so much potential for an Epic Win I ca n't imagine it actually happening.3 .
Which leads to the more probable option : Nothing happens .
Oh well , try again.I really ca n't see any risk of # 1 but before I actually do it I figure it is worth tossing the idea out for comment first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pondering.... The document says it is "confidential" not "classified" so I'm sitting here reasoning that if the NY Times can publish classified (and weren't some marked Top Secret) war documents then I outta be able to get away with mirroring a copy of this here in the US of A.  The fun part is I'd do it on my homepage hosted on a public library's site and equipment.
Now the way I see it one of three results are possible.1.
I get shipped off a federal pen and buggered for the next ten years or more.
This outcome would be bad but is it a realistic risk?2.
I get a take down notice.
I comply.
:)  And then we find out if the EFF is done with insane BDS ravings and ready to actually defend the online world from a real out of control Justice Dept.
After all, news of the takedown and the legal wrangling would create far more interest in the document than it would ever get on a crappy homepage that hasn't even been updated for a while.
Imagine the public relations nightmare Holder would be walking into!
After almost eight years of deranged ravings about Bushitler's Justice Dept wanting to violate all sorts of fundemental rights at libraries, or hell just shutting them down or something because he was such an unhoopy frood and all, to now have them forced to take on the Obama Justice Dept for a real attack on a library would be so much fun to watch.
Always good when you can cause chaos in the camp of one's foes AND strike a blow for Freedom at the same time.
This scenario has so much potential for an Epic Win I can't imagine it actually happening.3.
Which leads to the more probable option: Nothing happens.
Oh well, try again.I really can't see any risk of #1 but before I actually do it I figure it is worth tossing the idea out for comment first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31661192</id>
	<title>Re:Read into the record.</title>
	<author>garyebickford</author>
	<datestamp>1269895200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.</p></div><p>The key there is 'without repercussion' - in the US, it's true (or at least used to be) that any Congressperson can have anything inserted into the Congressional Record.  It's quite common for those folks to have the 'corrected' (much longer) version of their speeches, along with supporting documents, plus anything else that might look good to their constituents.  I think, but don't know, that this even applies to copyrighted material, as the government has special rights for public proceedings.  Perhaps someone else can expound on this.</p><p>Congresspeople have gotten in trouble after the fact for inserting classified material, IIRC.  But there's no prior restraint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is , but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion , we 'd live in a very different world than we do today.The key there is 'without repercussion ' - in the US , it 's true ( or at least used to be ) that any Congressperson can have anything inserted into the Congressional Record .
It 's quite common for those folks to have the 'corrected ' ( much longer ) version of their speeches , along with supporting documents , plus anything else that might look good to their constituents .
I think , but do n't know , that this even applies to copyrighted material , as the government has special rights for public proceedings .
Perhaps someone else can expound on this.Congresspeople have gotten in trouble after the fact for inserting classified material , IIRC .
But there 's no prior restraint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.The key there is 'without repercussion' - in the US, it's true (or at least used to be) that any Congressperson can have anything inserted into the Congressional Record.
It's quite common for those folks to have the 'corrected' (much longer) version of their speeches, along with supporting documents, plus anything else that might look good to their constituents.
I think, but don't know, that this even applies to copyrighted material, as the government has special rights for public proceedings.
Perhaps someone else can expound on this.Congresspeople have gotten in trouble after the fact for inserting classified material, IIRC.
But there's no prior restraint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660854</id>
	<title>Re:Berne convention will block this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269893520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>These effing newspeak backronyms like this one, PATRIOT, and many others really have to stop. It's like the responsible go, "Yeah, we fucked up your rights, <em>and</em> we chose, like, a REALLY ironic name for it. Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>These effing newspeak backronyms like this one , PATRIOT , and many others really have to stop .
It 's like the responsible go , " Yeah , we fucked up your rights , and we chose , like , a REALLY ironic name for it .
Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These effing newspeak backronyms like this one, PATRIOT, and many others really have to stop.
It's like the responsible go, "Yeah, we fucked up your rights, and we chose, like, a REALLY ironic name for it.
Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656748</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269875820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN.  None of this pretend public domain, if it doesn't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service.  A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?  And that's not even whats <i>important</i>, whats <b>important</b> is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters!  These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain!  But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that <i>could</i> have been right out from under our noses.</p></div><p>You've either:</p><p>1) Never have read fanfic.</p><p>2) Have read (or have written) fanfic, and didn't notice how horrible it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN .
None of this pretend public domain , if it does n't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service .
A period of say 20 years or so : imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie , music , book , or software from 1990 or before ?
And that 's not even whats important , whats important is derivative works : say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters , plot devices , and characters !
These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain !
But of course , we have now , the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses.You 've either : 1 ) Never have read fanfic.2 ) Have read ( or have written ) fanfic , and did n't notice how horrible it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one issue that would make me vote for the Pirate Party when they come to my nation is that they platform on restoring an actual PUBLIC DOMAIN.
None of this pretend public domain, if it doesn't expire in my lifetime there is no public domain - there is only lip-service.
A period of say 20 years or so: imagine if you could go to any bittorrent site and download any movie, music, book, or software from 1990 or before?
And that's not even whats important, whats important is derivative works: say a new movie based on Alien with actual alien characters, plot devices, and characters!
These new works would then be eligible for their own copyright and with a well so deep to draw from you can imagine the explosion of works that would result from having a public domain!
But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses.You've either:1) Never have read fanfic.2) Have read (or have written) fanfic, and didn't notice how horrible it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657656</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1269879540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She sells C-shells by the seashore.</p><p>And her prices for bash shells are a ripoff!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She sells C-shells by the seashore.And her prices for bash shells are a ripoff !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She sells C-shells by the seashore.And her prices for bash shells are a ripoff!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31665272</id>
	<title>You should see the headline in "The Daily MFIAA"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269873540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prosecute! In Particularly Parsimonious Process, Pirate Party Peckerheads Procure and Proceed to Publicize Pack of Pirated Propaganda Papers, Properly Pissing Poor Pitiful us off.</p><p>---</p><p>Heh, heh captcha is "prairie"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prosecute !
In Particularly Parsimonious Process , Pirate Party Peckerheads Procure and Proceed to Publicize Pack of Pirated Propaganda Papers , Properly Pissing Poor Pitiful us off.---Heh , heh captcha is " prairie " : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prosecute!
In Particularly Parsimonious Process, Pirate Party Peckerheads Procure and Proceed to Publicize Pack of Pirated Propaganda Papers, Properly Pissing Poor Pitiful us off.---Heh, heh captcha is "prairie" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656792</id>
	<title>Re:What a world</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1269876000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only *good*, the pirates are some of the chosen few touched by his noodly appendage, which would make them the equivalent of *saints*!!! <a href="http://www.venganza.org/" title="venganza.org">http://www.venganza.org/</a> [venganza.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only * good * , the pirates are some of the chosen few touched by his noodly appendage , which would make them the equivalent of * saints * ! ! !
http : //www.venganza.org/ [ venganza.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only *good*, the pirates are some of the chosen few touched by his noodly appendage, which would make them the equivalent of *saints*!!!
http://www.venganza.org/ [venganza.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659948</id>
	<title>Re:Not copyrighted?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1269889500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, this being Australia, this might under the notion of common law copyright, which is a very different animal than statutory copyright.</p><p>The notion that authors have a natural right to control their published works in common law is a matter long settled: they don't.  However in some jurisdictions (the United States for example), authors have a right to control the use of their unpublished works.  So if Wikileaks gets a hold of J.K. Rowling's next novel and puts it on-line, in the US they are considered to have violated a fundamental right of the author to control her unpublished works.   Once the works are published, her rights are very different.</p><p>The problem with a copyright claim when it comes to something like ACTA is that it's not really about protecting the author's expression. It's an attempt to parlay an acknowledged legal right over expression into an extra-legal power to limit news coverage of government activities.   If there is any party whose interests ought to be protected in a case such as this, it is the public who employs the officials drafting this thing.  The public's interest is not in revenues  from sales of this law's text or possible derivative works from this law.  It is in the nature and extent of obligations and restrictions that are going to be placed on them by the law -- something that is not in any sense intrinsically copyrightable.</p><p>The status quo ante here is that anyone who gets wind of what's going on with something like this can blow the whistle, if they're willing to take the risk. The rest of society is not obligated to help government officials squelch the leak. Officials are allowed to work without the public scrutinizing every jot as it is written, but if anyone in the process is alarmed enough, they can blow the whistle and the officials have to give an accounting of what they are up to.  That's a reasonable compromise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this being Australia , this might under the notion of common law copyright , which is a very different animal than statutory copyright.The notion that authors have a natural right to control their published works in common law is a matter long settled : they do n't .
However in some jurisdictions ( the United States for example ) , authors have a right to control the use of their unpublished works .
So if Wikileaks gets a hold of J.K. Rowling 's next novel and puts it on-line , in the US they are considered to have violated a fundamental right of the author to control her unpublished works .
Once the works are published , her rights are very different.The problem with a copyright claim when it comes to something like ACTA is that it 's not really about protecting the author 's expression .
It 's an attempt to parlay an acknowledged legal right over expression into an extra-legal power to limit news coverage of government activities .
If there is any party whose interests ought to be protected in a case such as this , it is the public who employs the officials drafting this thing .
The public 's interest is not in revenues from sales of this law 's text or possible derivative works from this law .
It is in the nature and extent of obligations and restrictions that are going to be placed on them by the law -- something that is not in any sense intrinsically copyrightable.The status quo ante here is that anyone who gets wind of what 's going on with something like this can blow the whistle , if they 're willing to take the risk .
The rest of society is not obligated to help government officials squelch the leak .
Officials are allowed to work without the public scrutinizing every jot as it is written , but if anyone in the process is alarmed enough , they can blow the whistle and the officials have to give an accounting of what they are up to .
That 's a reasonable compromise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this being Australia, this might under the notion of common law copyright, which is a very different animal than statutory copyright.The notion that authors have a natural right to control their published works in common law is a matter long settled: they don't.
However in some jurisdictions (the United States for example), authors have a right to control the use of their unpublished works.
So if Wikileaks gets a hold of J.K. Rowling's next novel and puts it on-line, in the US they are considered to have violated a fundamental right of the author to control her unpublished works.
Once the works are published, her rights are very different.The problem with a copyright claim when it comes to something like ACTA is that it's not really about protecting the author's expression.
It's an attempt to parlay an acknowledged legal right over expression into an extra-legal power to limit news coverage of government activities.
If there is any party whose interests ought to be protected in a case such as this, it is the public who employs the officials drafting this thing.
The public's interest is not in revenues  from sales of this law's text or possible derivative works from this law.
It is in the nature and extent of obligations and restrictions that are going to be placed on them by the law -- something that is not in any sense intrinsically copyrightable.The status quo ante here is that anyone who gets wind of what's going on with something like this can blow the whistle, if they're willing to take the risk.
The rest of society is not obligated to help government officials squelch the leak.
Officials are allowed to work without the public scrutinizing every jot as it is written, but if anyone in the process is alarmed enough, they can blow the whistle and the officials have to give an accounting of what they are up to.
That's a reasonable compromise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656536</id>
	<title>Logo</title>
	<author>MrTripps</author>
	<datestamp>1269874920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should replace that flag logo with a kangaroo wearing an eye patch. Maybe have a koala on its shoulder instead of a parrot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should replace that flag logo with a kangaroo wearing an eye patch .
Maybe have a koala on its shoulder instead of a parrot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should replace that flag logo with a kangaroo wearing an eye patch.
Maybe have a koala on its shoulder instead of a parrot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659150</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Muros</author>
	<datestamp>1269886140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps a premier post pertaining predominantly to the Pirate Party's proceedings would be proper?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps a premier post pertaining predominantly to the Pirate Party 's proceedings would be proper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps a premier post pertaining predominantly to the Pirate Party's proceedings would be proper?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658388</id>
	<title>Some interesting things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269882540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Japan would like to know from the US or other countries which adopt a restriction on circumvention of access control, the [...] amount of harm by circumvention [...] [and] how effective the legal remedy against [it] was (e.g. shrinkage of harm, number of litigation cases, what kind of major actions were ceased in terms of copyright protection perspective)." </i></p><p>I am sure you all would like to write a mail to Natoka-san about how the beauty of the DCMA....</p><p>More fun stuff in there as well; 3-strike suggestions, mandatory name/address release of suspected infringers by ISPs, make available funding to "persuade" developing countries to enact similar laws.</p><p>One of the good things in this draft is you can really see the different opinions of different countries about the wording (example: US: promptly made available to the public, Morocco: in appropriate time, Singapore: if deemed necessary).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Japan would like to know from the US or other countries which adopt a restriction on circumvention of access control , the [ ... ] amount of harm by circumvention [ ... ] [ and ] how effective the legal remedy against [ it ] was ( e.g .
shrinkage of harm , number of litigation cases , what kind of major actions were ceased in terms of copyright protection perspective ) .
" I am sure you all would like to write a mail to Natoka-san about how the beauty of the DCMA....More fun stuff in there as well ; 3-strike suggestions , mandatory name/address release of suspected infringers by ISPs , make available funding to " persuade " developing countries to enact similar laws.One of the good things in this draft is you can really see the different opinions of different countries about the wording ( example : US : promptly made available to the public , Morocco : in appropriate time , Singapore : if deemed necessary ) .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Japan would like to know from the US or other countries which adopt a restriction on circumvention of access control, the [...] amount of harm by circumvention [...] [and] how effective the legal remedy against [it] was (e.g.
shrinkage of harm, number of litigation cases, what kind of major actions were ceased in terms of copyright protection perspective).
" I am sure you all would like to write a mail to Natoka-san about how the beauty of the DCMA....More fun stuff in there as well; 3-strike suggestions, mandatory name/address release of suspected infringers by ISPs, make available funding to "persuade" developing countries to enact similar laws.One of the good things in this draft is you can really see the different opinions of different countries about the wording (example: US: promptly made available to the public, Morocco: in appropriate time, Singapore: if deemed necessary).
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657524</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain NOW!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269879060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses."</p><p>It's not like they are "stealing" works (although in the terminology that copyright maximalists regularly use, maybe it is), it is more like they are staking a claim in some new territory and walling it off to prevent anyone else from using it without their permission.  They're making property out of something that wasn't *specifically* owned previously, although you could as equally argue that it belonged to everyone before (i.e. the commons).  The truth, of course, is that genuinely "virgin" territory hasn't existed in millenia, and they're laying their claims on top of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimpsest" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">palimpsest</a> [wikipedia.org] as if no idea has ever been present there before.  It's a huge, permanent land grab.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But of course , we have now , the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses .
" It 's not like they are " stealing " works ( although in the terminology that copyright maximalists regularly use , maybe it is ) , it is more like they are staking a claim in some new territory and walling it off to prevent anyone else from using it without their permission .
They 're making property out of something that was n't * specifically * owned previously , although you could as equally argue that it belonged to everyone before ( i.e .
the commons ) .
The truth , of course , is that genuinely " virgin " territory has n't existed in millenia , and they 're laying their claims on top of a palimpsest [ wikipedia.org ] as if no idea has ever been present there before .
It 's a huge , permanent land grab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But of course, we have now, the content industry is hoarding every work to themselves in perpetuity stealing works that could have been right out from under our noses.
"It's not like they are "stealing" works (although in the terminology that copyright maximalists regularly use, maybe it is), it is more like they are staking a claim in some new territory and walling it off to prevent anyone else from using it without their permission.
They're making property out of something that wasn't *specifically* owned previously, although you could as equally argue that it belonged to everyone before (i.e.
the commons).
The truth, of course, is that genuinely "virgin" territory hasn't existed in millenia, and they're laying their claims on top of a palimpsest [wikipedia.org] as if no idea has ever been present there before.
It's a huge, permanent land grab.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658556</id>
	<title>Not copyrighted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269883320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We believe that the document is not under copyright"</p><p>Uh, how/why?</p><p>I mean, I agree with the principle behind providing it, but if somebody wrote a document then the list of circumstances where something isn't under copyright is pretty small.  Which one supposedly applies in this case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We believe that the document is not under copyright " Uh , how/why ? I mean , I agree with the principle behind providing it , but if somebody wrote a document then the list of circumstances where something is n't under copyright is pretty small .
Which one supposedly applies in this case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We believe that the document is not under copyright"Uh, how/why?I mean, I agree with the principle behind providing it, but if somebody wrote a document then the list of circumstances where something isn't under copyright is pretty small.
Which one supposedly applies in this case?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658882</id>
	<title>Re:Berne convention will block this.</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269885000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I have pointed out many times, any nation can, at any time, withdraw from a treaty they are a part of.<br> <br>

If any nation decided they wanted shorter limits they simply have to change any applicable national laws, then withdraw from the treaty.  A nation could also just ignore the treaty as well.  (Very few countries place treaty agreements higher than national laws like the US does.  In most nations when a treaty is signed, it has no force of law until the member nation creates a set of national laws covering the agreement.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I have pointed out many times , any nation can , at any time , withdraw from a treaty they are a part of .
If any nation decided they wanted shorter limits they simply have to change any applicable national laws , then withdraw from the treaty .
A nation could also just ignore the treaty as well .
( Very few countries place treaty agreements higher than national laws like the US does .
In most nations when a treaty is signed , it has no force of law until the member nation creates a set of national laws covering the agreement .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I have pointed out many times, any nation can, at any time, withdraw from a treaty they are a part of.
If any nation decided they wanted shorter limits they simply have to change any applicable national laws, then withdraw from the treaty.
A nation could also just ignore the treaty as well.
(Very few countries place treaty agreements higher than national laws like the US does.
In most nations when a treaty is signed, it has no force of law until the member nation creates a set of national laws covering the agreement.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31664534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31662614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31662398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31664562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31665272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31661192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_1255245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_1255245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_1255245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_1255245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31665272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_1255245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31664534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31661192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31662614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_1255245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_1255245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31662398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_1255245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31664562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31659158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31658882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31660854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_1255245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31656900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31657236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_1255245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_1255245.31663844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
