<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_03_2050231</id>
	<title>Download Taxes As a Weapon Against File-Sharing</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244020080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"An examination of a new "digital downloads" taxation law in Washington State suggests that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2349035107.shtml">files downloaded via file sharing programs may be covered by the law</a> &mdash; meaning that you may be expected to pay taxes based on 'the value of the digital product ... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.'  Thus, if you were to download music or movies and not pay the taxes, would you be liable for tax evasion charges?  How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " An examination of a new " digital downloads " taxation law in Washington State suggests that files downloaded via file sharing programs may be covered by the law    meaning that you may be expected to pay taxes based on 'the value of the digital product ... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product .
' Thus , if you were to download music or movies and not pay the taxes , would you be liable for tax evasion charges ?
How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "An examination of a new "digital downloads" taxation law in Washington State suggests that files downloaded via file sharing programs may be covered by the law — meaning that you may be expected to pay taxes based on 'the value of the digital product ... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.
'  Thus, if you were to download music or movies and not pay the taxes, would you be liable for tax evasion charges?
How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201839</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because a 10 songs CD is 20$, it doesn't mean that each song is 2$. Maybe it's 1$ for the store, 50&#194; for transport and 50&#194; for the physical CD and box. So why would you be taxed on a 2$ purchase if you downloaded something which has no value? And it isn't different for paid-for music download services. Maybe you are paying for bandwith and servers. Nothing tells you that you are paying for the song. Plus, when you walk in front of a restaurant, your ears are also "downloading" a song. Would you need to pay taxes for that too? If there are 50 people in the restaurant, is the taxable ammount 2$/person or 4&#194;/person?<br>It just doesn't work that way. When you make a copy of something for free, the value is 0. And that's what you are taxed for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a 10 songs CD is 20 $ , it does n't mean that each song is 2 $ .
Maybe it 's 1 $ for the store , 50   for transport and 50   for the physical CD and box .
So why would you be taxed on a 2 $ purchase if you downloaded something which has no value ?
And it is n't different for paid-for music download services .
Maybe you are paying for bandwith and servers .
Nothing tells you that you are paying for the song .
Plus , when you walk in front of a restaurant , your ears are also " downloading " a song .
Would you need to pay taxes for that too ?
If there are 50 people in the restaurant , is the taxable ammount 2 $ /person or 4   /person ? It just does n't work that way .
When you make a copy of something for free , the value is 0 .
And that 's what you are taxed for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a 10 songs CD is 20$, it doesn't mean that each song is 2$.
Maybe it's 1$ for the store, 50Â for transport and 50Â for the physical CD and box.
So why would you be taxed on a 2$ purchase if you downloaded something which has no value?
And it isn't different for paid-for music download services.
Maybe you are paying for bandwith and servers.
Nothing tells you that you are paying for the song.
Plus, when you walk in front of a restaurant, your ears are also "downloading" a song.
Would you need to pay taxes for that too?
If there are 50 people in the restaurant, is the taxable ammount 2$/person or 4Â/person?It just doesn't work that way.
When you make a copy of something for free, the value is 0.
And that's what you are taxed for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202641</id>
	<title>IF interpetted that way</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244028420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then yes, you need to declare them;However they can not share what you put in your taxes with any government body without a court order specifically requesting information on specific tax situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then yes , you need to declare them ; However they can not share what you put in your taxes with any government body without a court order specifically requesting information on specific tax situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then yes, you need to declare them;However they can not share what you put in your taxes with any government body without a court order specifically requesting information on specific tax situations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204863</id>
	<title>Lets just tax all binary information</title>
	<author>LSDelirious</author>
	<datestamp>1244041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Zeros are free, but Ones will cost ya!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zeros are free , but Ones will cost ya !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zeros are free, but Ones will cost ya!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205879</id>
	<title>Tax our Air</title>
	<author>zymano</author>
	<datestamp>1244052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tax our water too.</p><p>We need to spend more money.  We have a credit card society. Spend Spend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tax our water too.We need to spend more money .
We have a credit card society .
Spend Spend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tax our water too.We need to spend more money.
We have a credit card society.
Spend Spend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207789</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1244121480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> So if I were to download Ubuntu, would I have to pay taxes based on Windows Vista or Windows 7? Ultimate? Professional? Home starter?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, you would pay $0. This is <b>clearly</b> stated in the bill, in plain English, absolutely unambiguously.  The people who write the article at Techdirt didn't bother to actually read the bill (although some of their readers did, and this is covered in the comments there).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I were to download Ubuntu , would I have to pay taxes based on Windows Vista or Windows 7 ?
Ultimate ? Professional ?
Home starter ? No , you would pay $ 0 .
This is clearly stated in the bill , in plain English , absolutely unambiguously .
The people who write the article at Techdirt did n't bother to actually read the bill ( although some of their readers did , and this is covered in the comments there ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So if I were to download Ubuntu, would I have to pay taxes based on Windows Vista or Windows 7?
Ultimate? Professional?
Home starter?No, you would pay $0.
This is clearly stated in the bill, in plain English, absolutely unambiguously.
The people who write the article at Techdirt didn't bother to actually read the bill (although some of their readers did, and this is covered in the comments there).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208257</id>
	<title>this</title>
	<author>jsnipy</author>
	<datestamp>1244124360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is merely hackery using legislation; the creation a tax law to be used as a form of punishment. This is similar to what they did with refrigerants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is merely hackery using legislation ; the creation a tax law to be used as a form of punishment .
This is similar to what they did with refrigerants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is merely hackery using legislation; the creation a tax law to be used as a form of punishment.
This is similar to what they did with refrigerants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207705</id>
	<title>Air and Rain</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1244121000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Next they'll tax the air you breath and the rain that falls on your property.  If you think that's far fetched, there was a report the other day about a western state that made it legal to collect the rain that used to run off your house.  Since it was illegal, and is now legal, it must be income, and thus taxable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next they 'll tax the air you breath and the rain that falls on your property .
If you think that 's far fetched , there was a report the other day about a western state that made it legal to collect the rain that used to run off your house .
Since it was illegal , and is now legal , it must be income , and thus taxable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next they'll tax the air you breath and the rain that falls on your property.
If you think that's far fetched, there was a report the other day about a western state that made it legal to collect the rain that used to run off your house.
Since it was illegal, and is now legal, it must be income, and thus taxable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202187</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>GMFTatsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1244026680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because in your case, you're talking about an object with a definite monetary worth:  a gift certificate for an amount, or a pile of money with set value.</p><p>Market value on the Internet is a much more squirrely proposition.  Outright purchases are one thing, but "gifts" become a whole different beast.  There's plenty on the Internet that's made available for free, but does the same job as priced alternatives.  Which one is the real cost?  What does it mean to give something to somebody without actually losing the thing you gave?</p><p>Hell, market value at *all* is a squirrely thing.  There's not an authoritative "MARKET" out there that sets the prices.  The value is determined at the moment a customer and a vendor agree to so business for a price.  If that decision doesn't happen, or happens too much, either of the participants is welcome to adjust the perceived value accordingly.  What's worth X to one may be worth Y to another.  Who do you believe has the "right" price?</p><p>And what's really being exchanged on the Internet?  In your cases, somebody lost $10,000 and someone else got the same amount -- that's a transfer.  On the Internet, you don't really lose anything when you give it out.  You have an effectively infinite supply once an item is created.  What does that do to the supply/demand curve?</p><p>And<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how is the state going to know that an exchange took place?  I suppose that's what this law seeks to address, but I'm disturbed at the implications to the integrity of the network and the relationship of the citizen to the state itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because in your case , you 're talking about an object with a definite monetary worth : a gift certificate for an amount , or a pile of money with set value.Market value on the Internet is a much more squirrely proposition .
Outright purchases are one thing , but " gifts " become a whole different beast .
There 's plenty on the Internet that 's made available for free , but does the same job as priced alternatives .
Which one is the real cost ?
What does it mean to give something to somebody without actually losing the thing you gave ? Hell , market value at * all * is a squirrely thing .
There 's not an authoritative " MARKET " out there that sets the prices .
The value is determined at the moment a customer and a vendor agree to so business for a price .
If that decision does n't happen , or happens too much , either of the participants is welcome to adjust the perceived value accordingly .
What 's worth X to one may be worth Y to another .
Who do you believe has the " right " price ? And what 's really being exchanged on the Internet ?
In your cases , somebody lost $ 10,000 and someone else got the same amount -- that 's a transfer .
On the Internet , you do n't really lose anything when you give it out .
You have an effectively infinite supply once an item is created .
What does that do to the supply/demand curve ? And ... how is the state going to know that an exchange took place ?
I suppose that 's what this law seeks to address , but I 'm disturbed at the implications to the integrity of the network and the relationship of the citizen to the state itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because in your case, you're talking about an object with a definite monetary worth:  a gift certificate for an amount, or a pile of money with set value.Market value on the Internet is a much more squirrely proposition.
Outright purchases are one thing, but "gifts" become a whole different beast.
There's plenty on the Internet that's made available for free, but does the same job as priced alternatives.
Which one is the real cost?
What does it mean to give something to somebody without actually losing the thing you gave?Hell, market value at *all* is a squirrely thing.
There's not an authoritative "MARKET" out there that sets the prices.
The value is determined at the moment a customer and a vendor agree to so business for a price.
If that decision doesn't happen, or happens too much, either of the participants is welcome to adjust the perceived value accordingly.
What's worth X to one may be worth Y to another.
Who do you believe has the "right" price?And what's really being exchanged on the Internet?
In your cases, somebody lost $10,000 and someone else got the same amount -- that's a transfer.
On the Internet, you don't really lose anything when you give it out.
You have an effectively infinite supply once an item is created.
What does that do to the supply/demand curve?And ... how is the state going to know that an exchange took place?
I suppose that's what this law seeks to address, but I'm disturbed at the implications to the integrity of the network and the relationship of the citizen to the state itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208231</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1244124180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless Washington State is different, Sales tax is still on the amount an item is sold for and has nothing at all to do with the value of an item.  Keep in mind we are not discussing income tax...Sales tax generally excludes people reselling items they already paid sales tax on as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless Washington State is different , Sales tax is still on the amount an item is sold for and has nothing at all to do with the value of an item .
Keep in mind we are not discussing income tax...Sales tax generally excludes people reselling items they already paid sales tax on as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless Washington State is different, Sales tax is still on the amount an item is sold for and has nothing at all to do with the value of an item.
Keep in mind we are not discussing income tax...Sales tax generally excludes people reselling items they already paid sales tax on as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28210425</id>
	<title>flawed concept</title>
	<author>Wolfger</author>
	<datestamp>1244133720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'the value of the digital product<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.'
<br> <br>
So if I download a Kubuntu<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.iso file, I'll be taxed based on the retail price of Microsoft Windows? This is a law (not yet existing) that is just begging to be challenged (when and if it finally does exist).</htmltext>
<tokenext>'the value of the digital product ... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product .
' So if I download a Kubuntu .iso file , I 'll be taxed based on the retail price of Microsoft Windows ?
This is a law ( not yet existing ) that is just begging to be challenged ( when and if it finally does exist ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'the value of the digital product ... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.
'
 
So if I download a Kubuntu .iso file, I'll be taxed based on the retail price of Microsoft Windows?
This is a law (not yet existing) that is just begging to be challenged (when and if it finally does exist).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202431</id>
	<title>Re:How much is a similar operating system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244027580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That seems very strange to me.</p><p>If I accept some free product samples at a supermarket or whatever, I am not liable for the sales tax I would have had to pay had I bought the items.....am I?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems very strange to me.If I accept some free product samples at a supermarket or whatever , I am not liable for the sales tax I would have had to pay had I bought the items.....am I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems very strange to me.If I accept some free product samples at a supermarket or whatever, I am not liable for the sales tax I would have had to pay had I bought the items.....am I?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201971</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1244025900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?</p></div><p>For one thing, because that $10,000 would probably end up being the value that the RIAA places on it, meaning you'd pay 10\% of $10000 for one song, which is absurd.  It wouldn't be what I value it, but that's not because the RIAA is right, it's just because the RIAA spends more than I do on lobbyists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If somebody " gives " me $ 10,000 in music via bittorrent , why on earth should that be tax-exempt ? For one thing , because that $ 10,000 would probably end up being the value that the RIAA places on it , meaning you 'd pay 10 \ % of $ 10000 for one song , which is absurd .
It would n't be what I value it , but that 's not because the RIAA is right , it 's just because the RIAA spends more than I do on lobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?For one thing, because that $10,000 would probably end up being the value that the RIAA places on it, meaning you'd pay 10\% of $10000 for one song, which is absurd.
It wouldn't be what I value it, but that's not because the RIAA is right, it's just because the RIAA spends more than I do on lobbyists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203471</id>
	<title>Re:OpenOffice.org</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1244031900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'll make no money off Microsoft Office... which is similar to the outrageously priced OpenOffice.org.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll make no money off Microsoft Office... which is similar to the outrageously priced OpenOffice.org .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll make no money off Microsoft Office... which is similar to the outrageously priced OpenOffice.org.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202989</id>
	<title>Can the purchase price be zero?</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1244029800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items</p></div></blockquote><p>Is it possible to set the purchase price at zero? I declare that everyone who downloads from my torrent is buying from me at the price of $0.00.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if the download has no purchase price , then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar itemsIs it possible to set the purchase price at zero ?
I declare that everyone who downloads from my torrent is buying from me at the price of $ 0.00 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar itemsIs it possible to set the purchase price at zero?
I declare that everyone who downloads from my torrent is buying from me at the price of $0.00.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407</id>
	<title>Yes, it would be tax evasion...</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1244024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's how they got Al Capone - regardless of the legality of your income, you still need to pay taxes on it.</p><p>That being said, if the retail value of a DVD is $10, and a state has a 6\% sales tax, I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars.  No prosecutor in his right mind is going to prosecute for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how they got Al Capone - regardless of the legality of your income , you still need to pay taxes on it.That being said , if the retail value of a DVD is $ 10 , and a state has a 6 \ % sales tax , I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars .
No prosecutor in his right mind is going to prosecute for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how they got Al Capone - regardless of the legality of your income, you still need to pay taxes on it.That being said, if the retail value of a DVD is $10, and a state has a 6\% sales tax, I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars.
No prosecutor in his right mind is going to prosecute for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204983</id>
	<title>Washington State is dominated by Democrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244042520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So vote for Democrats;<br>They are really swell!<br>They'll tax your Internet,<br>And drive the economy to hell!</i></p><p><i>But you knew all that;<br>And voted for them anyway,<br>Because you hated Bush!</i></p><p>Welcome to the change that you voted for last year.  Be prepared to pay a lot more in taxes, as state after state does the same thing.</p><p><b>KA-CHING!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So vote for Democrats ; They are really swell ! They 'll tax your Internet,And drive the economy to hell ! But you knew all that ; And voted for them anyway,Because you hated Bush ! Welcome to the change that you voted for last year .
Be prepared to pay a lot more in taxes , as state after state does the same thing.KA-CHING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So vote for Democrats;They are really swell!They'll tax your Internet,And drive the economy to hell!But you knew all that;And voted for them anyway,Because you hated Bush!Welcome to the change that you voted for last year.
Be prepared to pay a lot more in taxes, as state after state does the same thing.KA-CHING!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204725</id>
	<title>Poor ole' government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure they need even more of my hard earned money to screw up with. The have their hand in my pocket far to deep already, they need to learn to live within their means, just like the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure they need even more of my hard earned money to screw up with .
The have their hand in my pocket far to deep already , they need to learn to live within their means , just like the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure they need even more of my hard earned money to screw up with.
The have their hand in my pocket far to deep already, they need to learn to live within their means, just like the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205107</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1244043600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't know what you're talking about, don't.</p></div><p>If I don't know what I'm talking about, don't... know what I'm talking about?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't know what you 're talking about , do n't.If I do n't know what I 'm talking about , do n't... know what I 'm talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't know what you're talking about, don't.If I don't know what I'm talking about, don't... know what I'm talking about?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207115</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244113500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at it this way... The average going rate for free opensource software is 0.0 $, thus the tax is also 0.0 $.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at it this way... The average going rate for free opensource software is 0.0 $ , thus the tax is also 0.0 $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at it this way... The average going rate for free opensource software is 0.0 $, thus the tax is also 0.0 $.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201855</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should it be based on the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes?</p><p>Why limited to one portal and not the average going rate of an mp3 downloaded from any site?</p><p>Maybe because the vast majority are pirated so the average price approaches 0. But that would at least be a fair tax rate...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should it be based on the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes ? Why limited to one portal and not the average going rate of an mp3 downloaded from any site ? Maybe because the vast majority are pirated so the average price approaches 0 .
But that would at least be a fair tax rate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should it be based on the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes?Why limited to one portal and not the average going rate of an mp3 downloaded from any site?Maybe because the vast majority are pirated so the average price approaches 0.
But that would at least be a fair tax rate...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203153</id>
	<title>What about a DRM free version?</title>
	<author>bikin</author>
	<datestamp>1244030520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So let's suppose I download a cracked version of Spore, removing all the locks, DRM, etc. Needless to say, there is no similar version in the market, and the version I downloaded is of significantly higher value. How will I be taxed? I can imagine the government will try to tax me even more, because it is an enhanced version</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let 's suppose I download a cracked version of Spore , removing all the locks , DRM , etc .
Needless to say , there is no similar version in the market , and the version I downloaded is of significantly higher value .
How will I be taxed ?
I can imagine the government will try to tax me even more , because it is an enhanced version</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let's suppose I download a cracked version of Spore, removing all the locks, DRM, etc.
Needless to say, there is no similar version in the market, and the version I downloaded is of significantly higher value.
How will I be taxed?
I can imagine the government will try to tax me even more, because it is an enhanced version</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202705</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>cypherwise</author>
	<datestamp>1244028660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I guess it would be a 'use tax' evasion. The number of entities who do make proper declarations is higher than you might think when consider B2B transactions. This is from a research paper I wrote last semester:<br>"Though, business-to-business compliance is estimated to be much higher (Bruce &amp; Fox, 2009). Estimated losses of revenue at the national scale as a result of non-compliance in 2007 are $7.2 billion. Losses are expected to grow by 36.3\% to $11.3 billion by 2012 (Bruce &amp; Fox, 2009). "</p><p>Bruce, D. &amp; Fox, W.F. (2009) State and Local Government Sales Tax Revenue Losses from Electronic Commerce. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/Execitive\%20Committee/Previous\_meetings/4\_13\_09/SSTP\%20e-commerce\%202009\%20REV041309.pdf" title="streamlinedsalestax.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/Execitive\%20Committee/Previous\_meetings/4\_13\_09/SSTP\%20e-commerce\%202009\%20REV041309.pdf</a> [streamlinedsalestax.org]</p><p>(there's your bloody citation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I guess it would be a 'use tax ' evasion .
The number of entities who do make proper declarations is higher than you might think when consider B2B transactions .
This is from a research paper I wrote last semester : " Though , business-to-business compliance is estimated to be much higher ( Bruce &amp; Fox , 2009 ) .
Estimated losses of revenue at the national scale as a result of non-compliance in 2007 are $ 7.2 billion .
Losses are expected to grow by 36.3 \ % to $ 11.3 billion by 2012 ( Bruce &amp; Fox , 2009 ) .
" Bruce , D. &amp; Fox , W.F .
( 2009 ) State and Local Government Sales Tax Revenue Losses from Electronic Commerce .
Retrieved from http : //www.streamlinedsalestax.org/Execitive \ % 20Committee/Previous \ _meetings/4 \ _13 \ _09/SSTP \ % 20e-commerce \ % 202009 \ % 20REV041309.pdf [ streamlinedsalestax.org ] ( there 's your bloody citation ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I guess it would be a 'use tax' evasion.
The number of entities who do make proper declarations is higher than you might think when consider B2B transactions.
This is from a research paper I wrote last semester:"Though, business-to-business compliance is estimated to be much higher (Bruce &amp; Fox, 2009).
Estimated losses of revenue at the national scale as a result of non-compliance in 2007 are $7.2 billion.
Losses are expected to grow by 36.3\% to $11.3 billion by 2012 (Bruce &amp; Fox, 2009).
"Bruce, D. &amp; Fox, W.F.
(2009) State and Local Government Sales Tax Revenue Losses from Electronic Commerce.
Retrieved from http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/Execitive\%20Committee/Previous\_meetings/4\_13\_09/SSTP\%20e-commerce\%202009\%20REV041309.pdf [streamlinedsalestax.org](there's your bloody citation ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383</id>
	<title>Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>guspasho</author>
	<datestamp>1244023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I were to download Ubuntu, would I have to pay taxes based on Windows Vista or Windows 7? Ultimate? Professional? Home starter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I were to download Ubuntu , would I have to pay taxes based on Windows Vista or Windows 7 ?
Ultimate ? Professional ?
Home starter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I were to download Ubuntu, would I have to pay taxes based on Windows Vista or Windows 7?
Ultimate? Professional?
Home starter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201393</id>
	<title>Tax evasion</title>
	<author>nomorecwrd</author>
	<datestamp>1244023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's how they finally caught Al Capone. <br>
And send him to Jail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how they finally caught Al Capone .
And send him to Jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how they finally caught Al Capone.
And send him to Jail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202547</id>
	<title>This is surprising</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1244028000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Traditionally retailers have gotten in trouble for doing anything based on the retail sales price.  First, there can only be a suggested retail price, to prevent price fixing, Second, retailers have paid settlements due to the fact that the 'retail price' or 'comparison price' was an arbitrary number used solely to make it appear that the consumer was getting a discount.  One retailer went out business based the fact that it could not longer claim to offer discount mechandise, the priced it sold for was basically the same as everyone else, and other have to put disclaimers such as 'no sales may have been made at the state retail price.'
<p>
Some might say this not retailers setting a base price, but the government, so it is ok.  I think, though, this is still in effect price fixing, a it sets, at least within a state, a fixed priced for a given product.  Though this may not result in a fixed price, which only lead to increase inflation as  retailers are forced to overcompensate when price adjustments are allowed, it is certainly still an unwarranted obstruction of the free market.
</p><p>
If this is allowed, what is next?  Minimum taxes on each transaction at the grocery store.  If I want too offer buy two, get on free, do I have to pay taxes as if I bought three items?  Do I have to pay tax on the total before the coupon?
</p><p>
I am absolutely in favor of taxes, after all the roads need to be fixed, the soldiers need a fair chance of getting a new leg when the original gets blown off, children need to be educated, but the tax must be based on real product or services.  This will be the beginning of a serious problem.  Just imagine getting advice for you computer from a professional.  No charge, buddy, but the retail value fo my time is $200, so I have to charge you fifteen bucks in tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Traditionally retailers have gotten in trouble for doing anything based on the retail sales price .
First , there can only be a suggested retail price , to prevent price fixing , Second , retailers have paid settlements due to the fact that the 'retail price ' or 'comparison price ' was an arbitrary number used solely to make it appear that the consumer was getting a discount .
One retailer went out business based the fact that it could not longer claim to offer discount mechandise , the priced it sold for was basically the same as everyone else , and other have to put disclaimers such as 'no sales may have been made at the state retail price .
' Some might say this not retailers setting a base price , but the government , so it is ok. I think , though , this is still in effect price fixing , a it sets , at least within a state , a fixed priced for a given product .
Though this may not result in a fixed price , which only lead to increase inflation as retailers are forced to overcompensate when price adjustments are allowed , it is certainly still an unwarranted obstruction of the free market .
If this is allowed , what is next ?
Minimum taxes on each transaction at the grocery store .
If I want too offer buy two , get on free , do I have to pay taxes as if I bought three items ?
Do I have to pay tax on the total before the coupon ?
I am absolutely in favor of taxes , after all the roads need to be fixed , the soldiers need a fair chance of getting a new leg when the original gets blown off , children need to be educated , but the tax must be based on real product or services .
This will be the beginning of a serious problem .
Just imagine getting advice for you computer from a professional .
No charge , buddy , but the retail value fo my time is $ 200 , so I have to charge you fifteen bucks in tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traditionally retailers have gotten in trouble for doing anything based on the retail sales price.
First, there can only be a suggested retail price, to prevent price fixing, Second, retailers have paid settlements due to the fact that the 'retail price' or 'comparison price' was an arbitrary number used solely to make it appear that the consumer was getting a discount.
One retailer went out business based the fact that it could not longer claim to offer discount mechandise, the priced it sold for was basically the same as everyone else, and other have to put disclaimers such as 'no sales may have been made at the state retail price.
'

Some might say this not retailers setting a base price, but the government, so it is ok.  I think, though, this is still in effect price fixing, a it sets, at least within a state, a fixed priced for a given product.
Though this may not result in a fixed price, which only lead to increase inflation as  retailers are forced to overcompensate when price adjustments are allowed, it is certainly still an unwarranted obstruction of the free market.
If this is allowed, what is next?
Minimum taxes on each transaction at the grocery store.
If I want too offer buy two, get on free, do I have to pay taxes as if I bought three items?
Do I have to pay tax on the total before the coupon?
I am absolutely in favor of taxes, after all the roads need to be fixed, the soldiers need a fair chance of getting a new leg when the original gets blown off, children need to be educated, but the tax must be based on real product or services.
This will be the beginning of a serious problem.
Just imagine getting advice for you computer from a professional.
No charge, buddy, but the retail value fo my time is $200, so I have to charge you fifteen bucks in tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28211207</id>
	<title>Oh No</title>
	<author>Baby Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1244136840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole tax evasion angle<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this is how they got AL CAPONE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole tax evasion angle ... this is how they got AL CAPONE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole tax evasion angle ... this is how they got AL CAPONE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208683</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1244126580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this tax is implemented, there needs to be a distinction between a gift and something that is free for anyone. If someone receives $10,000 in free iTunes music which anyone else would have to pay for, they do then have something of value. However, if iTunes gives away $10,000 of music to all comers for a week, then they set the value of that music to zero, and it should be untaxable. Similarly, an album released for free online should have no taxable value.</p><p>It is also a problem that these digital products are often not resellable. What happens if iTunes holds a contest and gives away every track in their library to one lucky person? The taxes would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the person would have no way to resell any of their music in order to afford this tax.</p><p>A tax such as this is going to be a giant mess and cost web resellers huge amounts of money to implement, so I hope it is never passed. There are easier ways to raise tax money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this tax is implemented , there needs to be a distinction between a gift and something that is free for anyone .
If someone receives $ 10,000 in free iTunes music which anyone else would have to pay for , they do then have something of value .
However , if iTunes gives away $ 10,000 of music to all comers for a week , then they set the value of that music to zero , and it should be untaxable .
Similarly , an album released for free online should have no taxable value.It is also a problem that these digital products are often not resellable .
What happens if iTunes holds a contest and gives away every track in their library to one lucky person ?
The taxes would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars , and the person would have no way to resell any of their music in order to afford this tax.A tax such as this is going to be a giant mess and cost web resellers huge amounts of money to implement , so I hope it is never passed .
There are easier ways to raise tax money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this tax is implemented, there needs to be a distinction between a gift and something that is free for anyone.
If someone receives $10,000 in free iTunes music which anyone else would have to pay for, they do then have something of value.
However, if iTunes gives away $10,000 of music to all comers for a week, then they set the value of that music to zero, and it should be untaxable.
Similarly, an album released for free online should have no taxable value.It is also a problem that these digital products are often not resellable.
What happens if iTunes holds a contest and gives away every track in their library to one lucky person?
The taxes would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the person would have no way to resell any of their music in order to afford this tax.A tax such as this is going to be a giant mess and cost web resellers huge amounts of money to implement, so I hope it is never passed.
There are easier ways to raise tax money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203263</id>
	<title>Gift Tax ??</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1244031000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone gives you money in the state of Washington, is there a gift tax ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. since file sharing is essentially someone giving something to someone else, how could you tax it ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. As to Federal, anyone can give anyone else, up to $12,000 with no tax to either party... and then when it goes beyond the 12 grand it is not the burden of the recipient to pay tax, but on the giver. (up to something like a whopping 45 percent)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone gives you money in the state of Washington , is there a gift tax ?
.. since file sharing is essentially someone giving something to someone else , how could you tax it ?
.. As to Federal , anyone can give anyone else , up to $ 12,000 with no tax to either party... and then when it goes beyond the 12 grand it is not the burden of the recipient to pay tax , but on the giver .
( up to something like a whopping 45 percent )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone gives you money in the state of Washington, is there a gift tax ?
.. since file sharing is essentially someone giving something to someone else, how could you tax it ?
.. As to Federal, anyone can give anyone else, up to $12,000 with no tax to either party... and then when it goes beyond the 12 grand it is not the burden of the recipient to pay tax, but on the giver.
(up to something like a whopping 45 percent)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204039</id>
	<title>If I remember correctly...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1244035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a gentleman here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. not long ago looking for a project to put to use 78 USB thumbdrives.</p><p>Save 'em dude. They might just be the next big thing in file-sharing. Hand-to-hand file exchanges are damn near impossible to track and even harder to tax. And with so many, no big deal if one of them doesn't make it back to you after is has completed it's mission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a gentleman here on / .
not long ago looking for a project to put to use 78 USB thumbdrives.Save 'em dude .
They might just be the next big thing in file-sharing .
Hand-to-hand file exchanges are damn near impossible to track and even harder to tax .
And with so many , no big deal if one of them does n't make it back to you after is has completed it 's mission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a gentleman here on /.
not long ago looking for a project to put to use 78 USB thumbdrives.Save 'em dude.
They might just be the next big thing in file-sharing.
Hand-to-hand file exchanges are damn near impossible to track and even harder to tax.
And with so many, no big deal if one of them doesn't make it back to you after is has completed it's mission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209613</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your claim is strong, but your evidence is weak.</p><p>Where exactly is this "clear in the law"? Which level of jurisdiction? Criminal? Civil? Is this legislation or case law? Citations?</p><p>Also, your interpretation about components vs finished products would seem to contradict current practices elsewhere, in that you can purchase the parts needed to assemble a computer off the shelf, with the intent to assemble a computer, but pay taxes on the sum of the retail value of each of the parts individually, but not the higher retail value of an entire assembled computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your claim is strong , but your evidence is weak.Where exactly is this " clear in the law " ?
Which level of jurisdiction ?
Criminal ? Civil ?
Is this legislation or case law ?
Citations ? Also , your interpretation about components vs finished products would seem to contradict current practices elsewhere , in that you can purchase the parts needed to assemble a computer off the shelf , with the intent to assemble a computer , but pay taxes on the sum of the retail value of each of the parts individually , but not the higher retail value of an entire assembled computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your claim is strong, but your evidence is weak.Where exactly is this "clear in the law"?
Which level of jurisdiction?
Criminal? Civil?
Is this legislation or case law?
Citations?Also, your interpretation about components vs finished products would seem to contradict current practices elsewhere, in that you can purchase the parts needed to assemble a computer off the shelf, with the intent to assemble a computer, but pay taxes on the sum of the retail value of each of the parts individually, but not the higher retail value of an entire assembled computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207881</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1244122200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu would not be a "digital good" under the bill, but it would be a "digital automated service" perhaps, due to the updates. I think that's how the state would look at it. That's the position state auditors have been taking when trying to tax Washington software companies currently, and this bill is essentially meant to codify the position of those auditors.</p><p>However, digital goods and services acquired for free by the end user are explicitly exempted from this bill, so Ubuntu would be safe, even if classified as a service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu would not be a " digital good " under the bill , but it would be a " digital automated service " perhaps , due to the updates .
I think that 's how the state would look at it .
That 's the position state auditors have been taking when trying to tax Washington software companies currently , and this bill is essentially meant to codify the position of those auditors.However , digital goods and services acquired for free by the end user are explicitly exempted from this bill , so Ubuntu would be safe , even if classified as a service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu would not be a "digital good" under the bill, but it would be a "digital automated service" perhaps, due to the updates.
I think that's how the state would look at it.
That's the position state auditors have been taking when trying to tax Washington software companies currently, and this bill is essentially meant to codify the position of those auditors.However, digital goods and services acquired for free by the end user are explicitly exempted from this bill, so Ubuntu would be safe, even if classified as a service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209455</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244129580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This brings up an interesting point, is 'no purchase price' different from a purchase price of $0?</p><p>If something has no listed price, then granted, the taxable cost is that of its retail brethren.<br>If however, the listed price is $0 ($0.01? $0.001?), does this then become the 'purchase price' and thus untaxable? (or taxable at less than a cent)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This brings up an interesting point , is 'no purchase price ' different from a purchase price of $ 0 ? If something has no listed price , then granted , the taxable cost is that of its retail brethren.If however , the listed price is $ 0 ( $ 0.01 ?
$ 0.001 ? ) , does this then become the 'purchase price ' and thus untaxable ?
( or taxable at less than a cent )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This brings up an interesting point, is 'no purchase price' different from a purchase price of $0?If something has no listed price, then granted, the taxable cost is that of its retail brethren.If however, the listed price is $0 ($0.01?
$0.001?), does this then become the 'purchase price' and thus untaxable?
(or taxable at less than a cent)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28206523</id>
	<title>Ubuntu, Open Office Et al, not $0.00 "Retail"</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1244148660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im in AU, so dont exactly know how the law is to be used. But assuming the law was applied in Australia I was thinking much the same way as other people "so if i've downloaded ubuntu, can they screw me".</p><p>At first I was thinking, so a "similarly priced retail product" would be Vista, XP or OSX and I was thinking "So is this a tool for Microsoft and other commercial people to take advantage of", i.e. push people even further away from OSS (or commercial alternatives). As such, Vista in AU costs about $500 for the full retail version, i.e. $50 tax. There is very little advantage in this for MS and RIAA (etc) because all that will happen is that you'll go to jail and rather then being a possible consumer of their products you'd become a non-consumer. MS could never see a cent because its government tax and I never pirated MS software.</p><p>The second thing was, "ok, lets assume the similarly priced retail version of ubuntu is a cd with ubuntu burned on it". Again, (at least in AU) there are places that sell these (for very reasonable prices, i.e. the cost of the media + case + shipping and no more than that). The point being that if you did download ubuntu and not pay tax to the govt then yes you would be committing tax evasion.</p><p>Im not sure if there are places in the US (there would have to be wouldn't there?) that do similar but there are several place in AU where you could buy many many popular OSS products burned and cased on CD for you (again, for very very fair prices, they're not doing it to make a dime out of selling "Free" software, they're doing for advocacy reasons).</p><p>People above are saying that the "price of open office for the similarly prices physical version is 0.00" (or whatever the wording was) but it is not $0.00 and hence is taxable and hence downloading it and not paying taxes would be a violation of the law.</p><p>However, it sounds like a tool of a draconian government that isnt interested in screwing average joe, he's interested in getting people the way they got Al Capone - i.e. we cant prove you broke the law by killing people, but you downloaded ubuntu and didn't pay the tax on it, off to jail you go.</p><p>Now the way this would work in AU would never be able to benefit MS, the RIAA or similar because they would take no part in the case. The RIAA might report you as a person who's not paying taxes, but they could never reap any rewards for it (ironically, if you did pay some extra tax just to cover yourself, you'd probably be safe). Once the State took on the case (if they had evidence) then the RIAA could never say "ok, pay us $5000 and the problem goes away" - this itself would also be illegal (not only for the RIAA but also the State).</p><p>MS might benefit from locking away some OSS advocates, but I doubt even MS would stoop quite that low. They're more interested in conversions and the bad publicity from such a move would probably not be worth it (especially if it was some high profile person like Linus Torvalds).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im in AU , so dont exactly know how the law is to be used .
But assuming the law was applied in Australia I was thinking much the same way as other people " so if i 've downloaded ubuntu , can they screw me " .At first I was thinking , so a " similarly priced retail product " would be Vista , XP or OSX and I was thinking " So is this a tool for Microsoft and other commercial people to take advantage of " , i.e .
push people even further away from OSS ( or commercial alternatives ) .
As such , Vista in AU costs about $ 500 for the full retail version , i.e .
$ 50 tax .
There is very little advantage in this for MS and RIAA ( etc ) because all that will happen is that you 'll go to jail and rather then being a possible consumer of their products you 'd become a non-consumer .
MS could never see a cent because its government tax and I never pirated MS software.The second thing was , " ok , lets assume the similarly priced retail version of ubuntu is a cd with ubuntu burned on it " .
Again , ( at least in AU ) there are places that sell these ( for very reasonable prices , i.e .
the cost of the media + case + shipping and no more than that ) .
The point being that if you did download ubuntu and not pay tax to the govt then yes you would be committing tax evasion.Im not sure if there are places in the US ( there would have to be would n't there ?
) that do similar but there are several place in AU where you could buy many many popular OSS products burned and cased on CD for you ( again , for very very fair prices , they 're not doing it to make a dime out of selling " Free " software , they 're doing for advocacy reasons ) .People above are saying that the " price of open office for the similarly prices physical version is 0.00 " ( or whatever the wording was ) but it is not $ 0.00 and hence is taxable and hence downloading it and not paying taxes would be a violation of the law.However , it sounds like a tool of a draconian government that isnt interested in screwing average joe , he 's interested in getting people the way they got Al Capone - i.e .
we cant prove you broke the law by killing people , but you downloaded ubuntu and did n't pay the tax on it , off to jail you go.Now the way this would work in AU would never be able to benefit MS , the RIAA or similar because they would take no part in the case .
The RIAA might report you as a person who 's not paying taxes , but they could never reap any rewards for it ( ironically , if you did pay some extra tax just to cover yourself , you 'd probably be safe ) .
Once the State took on the case ( if they had evidence ) then the RIAA could never say " ok , pay us $ 5000 and the problem goes away " - this itself would also be illegal ( not only for the RIAA but also the State ) .MS might benefit from locking away some OSS advocates , but I doubt even MS would stoop quite that low .
They 're more interested in conversions and the bad publicity from such a move would probably not be worth it ( especially if it was some high profile person like Linus Torvalds ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im in AU, so dont exactly know how the law is to be used.
But assuming the law was applied in Australia I was thinking much the same way as other people "so if i've downloaded ubuntu, can they screw me".At first I was thinking, so a "similarly priced retail product" would be Vista, XP or OSX and I was thinking "So is this a tool for Microsoft and other commercial people to take advantage of", i.e.
push people even further away from OSS (or commercial alternatives).
As such, Vista in AU costs about $500 for the full retail version, i.e.
$50 tax.
There is very little advantage in this for MS and RIAA (etc) because all that will happen is that you'll go to jail and rather then being a possible consumer of their products you'd become a non-consumer.
MS could never see a cent because its government tax and I never pirated MS software.The second thing was, "ok, lets assume the similarly priced retail version of ubuntu is a cd with ubuntu burned on it".
Again, (at least in AU) there are places that sell these (for very reasonable prices, i.e.
the cost of the media + case + shipping and no more than that).
The point being that if you did download ubuntu and not pay tax to the govt then yes you would be committing tax evasion.Im not sure if there are places in the US (there would have to be wouldn't there?
) that do similar but there are several place in AU where you could buy many many popular OSS products burned and cased on CD for you (again, for very very fair prices, they're not doing it to make a dime out of selling "Free" software, they're doing for advocacy reasons).People above are saying that the "price of open office for the similarly prices physical version is 0.00" (or whatever the wording was) but it is not $0.00 and hence is taxable and hence downloading it and not paying taxes would be a violation of the law.However, it sounds like a tool of a draconian government that isnt interested in screwing average joe, he's interested in getting people the way they got Al Capone - i.e.
we cant prove you broke the law by killing people, but you downloaded ubuntu and didn't pay the tax on it, off to jail you go.Now the way this would work in AU would never be able to benefit MS, the RIAA or similar because they would take no part in the case.
The RIAA might report you as a person who's not paying taxes, but they could never reap any rewards for it (ironically, if you did pay some extra tax just to cover yourself, you'd probably be safe).
Once the State took on the case (if they had evidence) then the RIAA could never say "ok, pay us $5000 and the problem goes away" - this itself would also be illegal (not only for the RIAA but also the State).MS might benefit from locking away some OSS advocates, but I doubt even MS would stoop quite that low.
They're more interested in conversions and the bad publicity from such a move would probably not be worth it (especially if it was some high profile person like Linus Torvalds).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201543</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1244024580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the deal here is that they were supposed to be taxing those sales already, this measure would just even the playing field between those that sell physical discs and those that just sell downloads. They're both supposed to be taxed in the same way, it's just that at present they aren't.<br> <br>

And you are right, the moratorium is on collecting sales tax, not on paying it. But then again, we're supposed to be able to deduct it and it took a really long time for that mess to get fixed.<br> <br>


As for tax evasion, it's not like there's an easy tool provided for handling that aspect and everybody including the state legislature knows that people don't pay it. That's the main source of tax leakage, it's just that nobody's been able to get the federal government to side with income tax utilizing states.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the deal here is that they were supposed to be taxing those sales already , this measure would just even the playing field between those that sell physical discs and those that just sell downloads .
They 're both supposed to be taxed in the same way , it 's just that at present they are n't .
And you are right , the moratorium is on collecting sales tax , not on paying it .
But then again , we 're supposed to be able to deduct it and it took a really long time for that mess to get fixed .
As for tax evasion , it 's not like there 's an easy tool provided for handling that aspect and everybody including the state legislature knows that people do n't pay it .
That 's the main source of tax leakage , it 's just that nobody 's been able to get the federal government to side with income tax utilizing states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the deal here is that they were supposed to be taxing those sales already, this measure would just even the playing field between those that sell physical discs and those that just sell downloads.
They're both supposed to be taxed in the same way, it's just that at present they aren't.
And you are right, the moratorium is on collecting sales tax, not on paying it.
But then again, we're supposed to be able to deduct it and it took a really long time for that mess to get fixed.
As for tax evasion, it's not like there's an easy tool provided for handling that aspect and everybody including the state legislature knows that people don't pay it.
That's the main source of tax leakage, it's just that nobody's been able to get the federal government to side with income tax utilizing states.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202891</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>hofmny</author>
	<datestamp>1244029440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't believe your car analogy is 100\% correct, at least with most states. You are free to buy a car wherever you like and you only pay tax to one state. When I lived in NJ, and bought my car from a PA dealership (closest Honda dealership) with good prices.
I only paid taxes, I think to PA, and then I got my car registered in NJ.
<br> <br>
NJ might have gotten something from it (doubt it thought) but I only paid taxes once.
<br> <br>
There are laws against double taxation.
<br> <br>
This why many people go to Delaware to buy big ticket items to avoid sales tax. Delaware does it on purpose so people from other states go their to prop up their economy, since their state is so small...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe your car analogy is 100 \ % correct , at least with most states .
You are free to buy a car wherever you like and you only pay tax to one state .
When I lived in NJ , and bought my car from a PA dealership ( closest Honda dealership ) with good prices .
I only paid taxes , I think to PA , and then I got my car registered in NJ .
NJ might have gotten something from it ( doubt it thought ) but I only paid taxes once .
There are laws against double taxation .
This why many people go to Delaware to buy big ticket items to avoid sales tax .
Delaware does it on purpose so people from other states go their to prop up their economy , since their state is so small.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe your car analogy is 100\% correct, at least with most states.
You are free to buy a car wherever you like and you only pay tax to one state.
When I lived in NJ, and bought my car from a PA dealership (closest Honda dealership) with good prices.
I only paid taxes, I think to PA, and then I got my car registered in NJ.
NJ might have gotten something from it (doubt it thought) but I only paid taxes once.
There are laws against double taxation.
This why many people go to Delaware to buy big ticket items to avoid sales tax.
Delaware does it on purpose so people from other states go their to prop up their economy, since their state is so small...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201369</id>
	<title>How much is a similar operating system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244023920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if I were to download an operating system, like Linux, or an IDE, like Eclipse, would I be liable for taxes on the price of similar offerings from Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if I were to download an operating system , like Linux , or an IDE , like Eclipse , would I be liable for taxes on the price of similar offerings from Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if I were to download an operating system, like Linux, or an IDE, like Eclipse, would I be liable for taxes on the price of similar offerings from Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208061</id>
	<title>Here's my check</title>
	<author>Gnaythan1</author>
	<datestamp>1244123400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we should start mailing checks for 8 1/2 cents....</p><p>LOTS of checks.... no particular reason we need to combine them all into one big check, it doesn't cost us anything to mail separate checks.</p><p>How much does it cost them to process a check nowadays? 10 cents?</p><p>No reason we should have to spend anything on postage either....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we should start mailing checks for 8 1/2 cents....LOTS of checks.... no particular reason we need to combine them all into one big check , it does n't cost us anything to mail separate checks.How much does it cost them to process a check nowadays ?
10 cents ? No reason we should have to spend anything on postage either... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we should start mailing checks for 8 1/2 cents....LOTS of checks.... no particular reason we need to combine them all into one big check, it doesn't cost us anything to mail separate checks.How much does it cost them to process a check nowadays?
10 cents?No reason we should have to spend anything on postage either....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202519</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, it would be tax evasion...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244027880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now from the US: the lates news in the ongoing war on imaginary crime!
<br> <br>
"This year, a stupid texas kid downloaded the same song over and over again for five months. Authorities jailed both of his parents for evading a gazillion dollars in unpaid taxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now from the US : the lates news in the ongoing war on imaginary crime !
" This year , a stupid texas kid downloaded the same song over and over again for five months .
Authorities jailed both of his parents for evading a gazillion dollars in unpaid taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now from the US: the lates news in the ongoing war on imaginary crime!
"This year, a stupid texas kid downloaded the same song over and over again for five months.
Authorities jailed both of his parents for evading a gazillion dollars in unpaid taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202029</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1244026140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would suggest that they mislabeled what they are taxing then, this is a media download tax, media apparently being audio, vidio, text, photos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would suggest that they mislabeled what they are taxing then , this is a media download tax , media apparently being audio , vidio , text , photos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would suggest that they mislabeled what they are taxing then, this is a media download tax, media apparently being audio, vidio, text, photos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208163</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>Wovel</author>
	<datestamp>1244123820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps they will expect you to pay tax on the perceived value of the little chunks of encrypted data that can be assembled into a song, but only those chunks that were downloaded within the borders of Washington state.

Perhaps they will next Tax girls who receive Mix tapes (or cds or flash drives) from their boyfriends..

Good luck Washington State.  We love you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they will expect you to pay tax on the perceived value of the little chunks of encrypted data that can be assembled into a song , but only those chunks that were downloaded within the borders of Washington state .
Perhaps they will next Tax girls who receive Mix tapes ( or cds or flash drives ) from their boyfriends. . Good luck Washington State .
We love you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they will expect you to pay tax on the perceived value of the little chunks of encrypted data that can be assembled into a song, but only those chunks that were downloaded within the borders of Washington state.
Perhaps they will next Tax girls who receive Mix tapes (or cds or flash drives) from their boyfriends..

Good luck Washington State.
We love you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201307</id>
	<title>Does this cover VOD PPV as well?</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1244023740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this cover VOD PPV as well?</p><p>or is tax part of the price?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this cover VOD PPV as well ? or is tax part of the price ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this cover VOD PPV as well?or is tax part of the price?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201399</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, not sales tax-- you would owe use tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not sales tax-- you would owe use tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not sales tax-- you would owe use tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28206643</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244106960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taxes are part of life. Deal.</p></div><p>I barely tolerate regular sales tax because I know why it exists: to pay for the infrastructure that the government built in order for us to have these goods. The government builds roads, those roads are used to transport goods, and I buy those goods, paying both for the good and for the cost of the roads. This makes <em>no sense</em> when it comes to digital goods. Taxing digital goods is nothing more than the government taking money from its citizens because the people in charge believe that they have some inalienable right to take citizens' money. You know what that is? Theft. Plain and simple. And they get away with it because people like you who have not thought about these things simple accept that "taxes are a part of life", and let the government do whatever the Hell it wants. Government-based robbery is a part of life, and so are idiots who stand idly by and allow it to happen. I don't blame the government. As Jefferson said, it is government's nature to get bigger. I blame idiots like you who ignorantly support it. And you tell me to "deal"? Go to Hell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxes are part of life .
Deal.I barely tolerate regular sales tax because I know why it exists : to pay for the infrastructure that the government built in order for us to have these goods .
The government builds roads , those roads are used to transport goods , and I buy those goods , paying both for the good and for the cost of the roads .
This makes no sense when it comes to digital goods .
Taxing digital goods is nothing more than the government taking money from its citizens because the people in charge believe that they have some inalienable right to take citizens ' money .
You know what that is ?
Theft. Plain and simple .
And they get away with it because people like you who have not thought about these things simple accept that " taxes are a part of life " , and let the government do whatever the Hell it wants .
Government-based robbery is a part of life , and so are idiots who stand idly by and allow it to happen .
I do n't blame the government .
As Jefferson said , it is government 's nature to get bigger .
I blame idiots like you who ignorantly support it .
And you tell me to " deal " ?
Go to Hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxes are part of life.
Deal.I barely tolerate regular sales tax because I know why it exists: to pay for the infrastructure that the government built in order for us to have these goods.
The government builds roads, those roads are used to transport goods, and I buy those goods, paying both for the good and for the cost of the roads.
This makes no sense when it comes to digital goods.
Taxing digital goods is nothing more than the government taking money from its citizens because the people in charge believe that they have some inalienable right to take citizens' money.
You know what that is?
Theft. Plain and simple.
And they get away with it because people like you who have not thought about these things simple accept that "taxes are a part of life", and let the government do whatever the Hell it wants.
Government-based robbery is a part of life, and so are idiots who stand idly by and allow it to happen.
I don't blame the government.
As Jefferson said, it is government's nature to get bigger.
I blame idiots like you who ignorantly support it.
And you tell me to "deal"?
Go to Hell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779</id>
	<title>OpenOffice.org</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1244025360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'the value of the digital product<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.'</p></div></blockquote><p>They'll make a lot of money off downloads of OpenOffice.org... which is similar to the outrageously priced Microsoft Office.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'the value of the digital product ... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product .
'They 'll make a lot of money off downloads of OpenOffice.org... which is similar to the outrageously priced Microsoft Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'the value of the digital product ... determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.
'They'll make a lot of money off downloads of OpenOffice.org... which is similar to the outrageously priced Microsoft Office.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204643</id>
	<title>Cars...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A while back there was an article here on how someone with a homemade electric car was charged for tax evasion on account of the gas tax he wasn't paying.  Is Open Source going to become tax evasion because you aren't buying something much more expensive?  What will the minimum "non-fraud" price be for an OS, for a word processor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back there was an article here on how someone with a homemade electric car was charged for tax evasion on account of the gas tax he was n't paying .
Is Open Source going to become tax evasion because you are n't buying something much more expensive ?
What will the minimum " non-fraud " price be for an OS , for a word processor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back there was an article here on how someone with a homemade electric car was charged for tax evasion on account of the gas tax he wasn't paying.
Is Open Source going to become tax evasion because you aren't buying something much more expensive?
What will the minimum "non-fraud" price be for an OS, for a word processor?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201489</id>
	<title>Ever download anything from steam or itunes in WA?</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1244024340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already make you pay taxes on it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already make you pay taxes on it ; ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already make you pay taxes on it ;).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203099</id>
	<title>Re:Seeding is Charity</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1244030280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Start a Church: Our Lady of the Eternal File Share.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start a Church : Our Lady of the Eternal File Share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start a Church: Our Lady of the Eternal File Share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202999</id>
	<title>They wouldn't know if I downloaded it.</title>
	<author>iVasto</author>
	<datestamp>1244029860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How would they know if you downloaded an item illegally? If they knew someone downloaded movies, then why wouldn't the FBI already be on their front step because of those FBI warnings? To me this seems about as practical as the war on drugs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would they know if you downloaded an item illegally ?
If they knew someone downloaded movies , then why would n't the FBI already be on their front step because of those FBI warnings ?
To me this seems about as practical as the war on drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would they know if you downloaded an item illegally?
If they knew someone downloaded movies, then why wouldn't the FBI already be on their front step because of those FBI warnings?
To me this seems about as practical as the war on drugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202877</id>
	<title>Re:Could be an interesting precedent ...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244029320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It occurs to me that if this happens, it has the potential to be applied to anything else that's covered by copyright. Consider the results."</p><p>I don't know if you intended it so, but that is a perfect example of the Strawman argument. Learn it well so you will never use it.</p><p>"If you check a book out from your local library and read it, you'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book (at a book seller of the prosecution's choice)."</p><p>Only if you keep it. There isn't a tax on lent items. Even if you do keep it, you would be taxed on the value of a USED book.</p><p>"If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be (sitting at a table in a restaurant, using an elevator, walking by on the sidewalk), you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard."</p><p>Now you are starting to sound plain stupid.</p><p>"they customarily just charge them with tax evasion. "</p><p>And now you ahve confirmed it.<br>No one 'just charges them with tax evasion. The go to the IRS and ask if that person has reported taxes. If the IRS says no, then the IRS begins proceeding for tax evasion. If the IRS says yes, then they need to lleave and fins something else.<br>If Al Capone had actually paid taxes, he never would ahve gone to Jail.</p><p>"Since everything is by default copyrighted as soon as it's "published" "<br>As soon as you create it, published is irrelevant. You are thinking of the difference between trade secret and patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It occurs to me that if this happens , it has the potential to be applied to anything else that 's covered by copyright .
Consider the results .
" I do n't know if you intended it so , but that is a perfect example of the Strawman argument .
Learn it well so you will never use it .
" If you check a book out from your local library and read it , you 'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book ( at a book seller of the prosecution 's choice ) .
" Only if you keep it .
There is n't a tax on lent items .
Even if you do keep it , you would be taxed on the value of a USED book .
" If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be ( sitting at a table in a restaurant , using an elevator , walking by on the sidewalk ) , you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard .
" Now you are starting to sound plain stupid .
" they customarily just charge them with tax evasion .
" And now you ahve confirmed it.No one 'just charges them with tax evasion .
The go to the IRS and ask if that person has reported taxes .
If the IRS says no , then the IRS begins proceeding for tax evasion .
If the IRS says yes , then they need to lleave and fins something else.If Al Capone had actually paid taxes , he never would ahve gone to Jail .
" Since everything is by default copyrighted as soon as it 's " published " " As soon as you create it , published is irrelevant .
You are thinking of the difference between trade secret and patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It occurs to me that if this happens, it has the potential to be applied to anything else that's covered by copyright.
Consider the results.
"I don't know if you intended it so, but that is a perfect example of the Strawman argument.
Learn it well so you will never use it.
"If you check a book out from your local library and read it, you'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book (at a book seller of the prosecution's choice).
"Only if you keep it.
There isn't a tax on lent items.
Even if you do keep it, you would be taxed on the value of a USED book.
"If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be (sitting at a table in a restaurant, using an elevator, walking by on the sidewalk), you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard.
"Now you are starting to sound plain stupid.
"they customarily just charge them with tax evasion.
"And now you ahve confirmed it.No one 'just charges them with tax evasion.
The go to the IRS and ask if that person has reported taxes.
If the IRS says no, then the IRS begins proceeding for tax evasion.
If the IRS says yes, then they need to lleave and fins something else.If Al Capone had actually paid taxes, he never would ahve gone to Jail.
"Since everything is by default copyrighted as soon as it's "published" "As soon as you create it, published is irrelevant.
You are thinking of the difference between trade secret and patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201629</id>
	<title>Seeding is Charity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Charities and other non-profit organizations are tax free in the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Charities and other non-profit organizations are tax free in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charities and other non-profit organizations are tax free in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201593</id>
	<title>taxes charged by amazon.com and the like</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1244024760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>work because you have a large centralized company easily lassoed into the arrangement</p><p>but noncorporate entities?</p><p>outside the country?</p><p>dispersed and distributed?</p><p>ok, so you can go after the downloaders</p><p>so the downloaders download the free client that obfuscates the traffic as http requests and the like</p><p>basically: good luck mr. tax man, you're going to need it to get a dime</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>work because you have a large centralized company easily lassoed into the arrangementbut noncorporate entities ? outside the country ? dispersed and distributed ? ok , so you can go after the downloadersso the downloaders download the free client that obfuscates the traffic as http requests and the likebasically : good luck mr. tax man , you 're going to need it to get a dime</tokentext>
<sentencetext>work because you have a large centralized company easily lassoed into the arrangementbut noncorporate entities?outside the country?dispersed and distributed?ok, so you can go after the downloadersso the downloaders download the free client that obfuscates the traffic as http requests and the likebasically: good luck mr. tax man, you're going to need it to get a dime</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201525</id>
	<title>I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll pay you 20 percent of the "market value" of the songs, which, since supply is, for all purposes, infinite, now equals zero dollars.  In the meantime, I'll be going over to I2P and Freenet, and I recommend the rest of you join me.  The internet is being whored out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll pay you 20 percent of the " market value " of the songs , which , since supply is , for all purposes , infinite , now equals zero dollars .
In the meantime , I 'll be going over to I2P and Freenet , and I recommend the rest of you join me .
The internet is being whored out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll pay you 20 percent of the "market value" of the songs, which, since supply is, for all purposes, infinite, now equals zero dollars.
In the meantime, I'll be going over to I2P and Freenet, and I recommend the rest of you join me.
The internet is being whored out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201403</id>
	<title>What about free software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article "If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase, the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product."</p><p>Does this mean that if you download Ubuntu you would have to pay taxes on the retail value of Windows or OS X since they are similar digital products?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article " If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase , the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product .
" Does this mean that if you download Ubuntu you would have to pay taxes on the retail value of Windows or OS X since they are similar digital products ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article "If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase, the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.
"Does this mean that if you download Ubuntu you would have to pay taxes on the retail value of Windows or OS X since they are similar digital products?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204429</id>
	<title>Re:Could be an interesting precedent ...</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1244037840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>f you leave a newspaper (hey, remember them?) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it, they'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper, but for a subscription to the newspaper.</i></p><p>Are newspaper purchases subject to sales tax? I never get charged for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>f you leave a newspaper ( hey , remember them ?
) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it , they 'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper , but for a subscription to the newspaper.Are newspaper purchases subject to sales tax ?
I never get charged for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>f you leave a newspaper (hey, remember them?
) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it, they'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper, but for a subscription to the newspaper.Are newspaper purchases subject to sales tax?
I never get charged for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201549</id>
	<title>PDF for sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm selling copies of the bill for $10,000.00
<br>
If you live in Washington, think twice before you download</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm selling copies of the bill for $ 10,000.00 If you live in Washington , think twice before you download</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm selling copies of the bill for $10,000.00

If you live in Washington, think twice before you download</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201889</id>
	<title>Re:Could be an interesting precedent ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slippery slope fallacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slippery slope fallacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slippery slope fallacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209537</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1244129880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wrong. You need to pay taxes on illegally gotten money. This is clear in the law, and there is no issue at all.</p></div><p>Sweet.  Where do I download some money then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
You need to pay taxes on illegally gotten money .
This is clear in the law , and there is no issue at all.Sweet .
Where do I download some money then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
You need to pay taxes on illegally gotten money.
This is clear in the law, and there is no issue at all.Sweet.
Where do I download some money then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>Magic5Ball</author>
	<datestamp>1244024700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you didn't download the song. You downloaded several chunks of random (encrypted) data which could be assembled into a song. The chunks didn't even all come from the same place.</p><p>Also, if these downloads are illegal or part of illegal activity, there's a conceptual issue of being able to tax them in the first place, and secondly, an issue with the state using funds derived from the proceeds of crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you did n't download the song .
You downloaded several chunks of random ( encrypted ) data which could be assembled into a song .
The chunks did n't even all come from the same place.Also , if these downloads are illegal or part of illegal activity , there 's a conceptual issue of being able to tax them in the first place , and secondly , an issue with the state using funds derived from the proceeds of crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you didn't download the song.
You downloaded several chunks of random (encrypted) data which could be assembled into a song.
The chunks didn't even all come from the same place.Also, if these downloads are illegal or part of illegal activity, there's a conceptual issue of being able to tax them in the first place, and secondly, an issue with the state using funds derived from the proceeds of crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201635</id>
	<title>Pay Sales Tax on Gimp at Photoshop Value?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming I download a copy of Gimp (gpl and free software), does that mean that I now need to pay a tax equal to what I would have to pay if I bought a copy of Photoshop?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming I download a copy of Gimp ( gpl and free software ) , does that mean that I now need to pay a tax equal to what I would have to pay if I bought a copy of Photoshop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming I download a copy of Gimp (gpl and free software), does that mean that I now need to pay a tax equal to what I would have to pay if I bought a copy of Photoshop?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201621</id>
	<title>Maybe maybe not</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1244024880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the state wants to go that route it should FIRST attempt to charge someone with failure to pay "sales or use tax" on stolen physical merchandise.</p><p>If that doesn't get shot down then maybe, just maybe, this will fly.</p><p>If you attempt this first a judge will just say "if taxes aren't owed on stolen physical goods, what makes you think they apply to information goods?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the state wants to go that route it should FIRST attempt to charge someone with failure to pay " sales or use tax " on stolen physical merchandise.If that does n't get shot down then maybe , just maybe , this will fly.If you attempt this first a judge will just say " if taxes are n't owed on stolen physical goods , what makes you think they apply to information goods ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the state wants to go that route it should FIRST attempt to charge someone with failure to pay "sales or use tax" on stolen physical merchandise.If that doesn't get shot down then maybe, just maybe, this will fly.If you attempt this first a judge will just say "if taxes aren't owed on stolen physical goods, what makes you think they apply to information goods?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28206379</id>
	<title>Following the money</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1244146560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim?</p></div><p>I wouldn't bet a penny on that, I think. I must admit I haven't been able overcome my nausea enough to study what the RIAA actually do in detail, but as far as I can see they earn money on bullying alleged "pirates", right? As tax is something that is paid to the state, RIAA wouldn't make money from it, and I doubt they are actually all that keen on stopping their source of income.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim ? I would n't bet a penny on that , I think .
I must admit I have n't been able overcome my nausea enough to study what the RIAA actually do in detail , but as far as I can see they earn money on bullying alleged " pirates " , right ?
As tax is something that is paid to the state , RIAA would n't make money from it , and I doubt they are actually all that keen on stopping their source of income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim?I wouldn't bet a penny on that, I think.
I must admit I haven't been able overcome my nausea enough to study what the RIAA actually do in detail, but as far as I can see they earn money on bullying alleged "pirates", right?
As tax is something that is paid to the state, RIAA wouldn't make money from it, and I doubt they are actually all that keen on stopping their source of income.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28210259</id>
	<title>Bad summary!  Sit in the corner!</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1244132940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFS appears to want to make this sound official, so refers to "an examination of the law".  Well, if you read TFA, some guy read a section of the law and in his opinion it could mean<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... blah, blah, blah.  "Some guy" is identified as "Nate" in TFA; since I don't read techdirt I can only guess that regular readers do know who that is; but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't appear any lawyers were involved in this discussion.</p><p>And while certainly IANAL, it is plain to my eyes that few if any lawyers are involved in the discussion here on slashdot as well.  All this "Al Capone" bs, and the back-and-forth "I can come up with a more coy interpretation than you can" nonsense, mean nothing.  It doesn't matter what is or isn't income, or what is or isn't an inocme tax deduction.  It doesn't matter what is or isn't traditionally sales tax.  We're talking about a specific state law that either does, or dosen't, assign value to files downloaded illegally and tax that value.</p><p>I've only just started reading the law in question, and won't have time to finish it until tonight at the earliest, but the part I found most interesting so far was the definition of "Electronically Transfer":</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(8) "Electronically transferred" or "transferred electronically" means obtained by the purchaser by means other than tangible storage media. It is not necessary that a copy of the product be physically transferred to the purchaser. <b>So long as the purchaser may access the product, it will be considered to have been electronically transferred to the purchaser.</b></p> </div><p>I don't know how this act intends to define 'purchaser', but it's certainly playing fast and loose with "obtained".  Maybe they mean to avoid letting streaming media be exempt; maybe they want to apply the tax at the moment of sale even if the actual download occurs later... but in a non-sale context like a p2p server, at what point is it first the case that I "may access the product"?  It seems to me that anyone may access the entire catalogue... so is every freely-available file on the Internet deemed to have been transferred to every Internet-connected citizen of Washington?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS appears to want to make this sound official , so refers to " an examination of the law " .
Well , if you read TFA , some guy read a section of the law and in his opinion it could mean ... blah , blah , blah .
" Some guy " is identified as " Nate " in TFA ; since I do n't read techdirt I can only guess that regular readers do know who that is ; but as far as I 'm concerned , it does n't appear any lawyers were involved in this discussion.And while certainly IANAL , it is plain to my eyes that few if any lawyers are involved in the discussion here on slashdot as well .
All this " Al Capone " bs , and the back-and-forth " I can come up with a more coy interpretation than you can " nonsense , mean nothing .
It does n't matter what is or is n't income , or what is or is n't an inocme tax deduction .
It does n't matter what is or is n't traditionally sales tax .
We 're talking about a specific state law that either does , or dose n't , assign value to files downloaded illegally and tax that value.I 've only just started reading the law in question , and wo n't have time to finish it until tonight at the earliest , but the part I found most interesting so far was the definition of " Electronically Transfer " : ( 8 ) " Electronically transferred " or " transferred electronically " means obtained by the purchaser by means other than tangible storage media .
It is not necessary that a copy of the product be physically transferred to the purchaser .
So long as the purchaser may access the product , it will be considered to have been electronically transferred to the purchaser .
I do n't know how this act intends to define 'purchaser ' , but it 's certainly playing fast and loose with " obtained " .
Maybe they mean to avoid letting streaming media be exempt ; maybe they want to apply the tax at the moment of sale even if the actual download occurs later... but in a non-sale context like a p2p server , at what point is it first the case that I " may access the product " ?
It seems to me that anyone may access the entire catalogue... so is every freely-available file on the Internet deemed to have been transferred to every Internet-connected citizen of Washington ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS appears to want to make this sound official, so refers to "an examination of the law".
Well, if you read TFA, some guy read a section of the law and in his opinion it could mean ... blah, blah, blah.
"Some guy" is identified as "Nate" in TFA; since I don't read techdirt I can only guess that regular readers do know who that is; but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't appear any lawyers were involved in this discussion.And while certainly IANAL, it is plain to my eyes that few if any lawyers are involved in the discussion here on slashdot as well.
All this "Al Capone" bs, and the back-and-forth "I can come up with a more coy interpretation than you can" nonsense, mean nothing.
It doesn't matter what is or isn't income, or what is or isn't an inocme tax deduction.
It doesn't matter what is or isn't traditionally sales tax.
We're talking about a specific state law that either does, or dosen't, assign value to files downloaded illegally and tax that value.I've only just started reading the law in question, and won't have time to finish it until tonight at the earliest, but the part I found most interesting so far was the definition of "Electronically Transfer":(8) "Electronically transferred" or "transferred electronically" means obtained by the purchaser by means other than tangible storage media.
It is not necessary that a copy of the product be physically transferred to the purchaser.
So long as the purchaser may access the product, it will be considered to have been electronically transferred to the purchaser.
I don't know how this act intends to define 'purchaser', but it's certainly playing fast and loose with "obtained".
Maybe they mean to avoid letting streaming media be exempt; maybe they want to apply the tax at the moment of sale even if the actual download occurs later... but in a non-sale context like a p2p server, at what point is it first the case that I "may access the product"?
It seems to me that anyone may access the entire catalogue... so is every freely-available file on the Internet deemed to have been transferred to every Internet-connected citizen of Washington?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201659</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its as unreasonable as our tax system as a whole...</p><p>To earn money:<br>Pay federal income tax<br>Pay state income tax<br>pay medicare tax<br>pay social security tax</p><p>To buy/own a car:<br>pay taxes and fees on the purchase<br>pay property tax on the vehicle for as long as you own it</p><p>To drive that car somewhere to spend whats left of your income:<br>pay federal gas/diesel tax<br>pay state gas/diesel tax</p><p>To spend your money:<br>Pay state sales tax<br>Pay local sales tax (if applicable)<br>According to Rahm Emmanuel its also a great idea for us all to pay a federal 10\% VAT</p><p>To die:<br>Give half your life savings back to the government instead of to your surviving relatives</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its as unreasonable as our tax system as a whole...To earn money : Pay federal income taxPay state income taxpay medicare taxpay social security taxTo buy/own a car : pay taxes and fees on the purchasepay property tax on the vehicle for as long as you own itTo drive that car somewhere to spend whats left of your income : pay federal gas/diesel taxpay state gas/diesel taxTo spend your money : Pay state sales taxPay local sales tax ( if applicable ) According to Rahm Emmanuel its also a great idea for us all to pay a federal 10 \ % VATTo die : Give half your life savings back to the government instead of to your surviving relatives</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its as unreasonable as our tax system as a whole...To earn money:Pay federal income taxPay state income taxpay medicare taxpay social security taxTo buy/own a car:pay taxes and fees on the purchasepay property tax on the vehicle for as long as you own itTo drive that car somewhere to spend whats left of your income:pay federal gas/diesel taxpay state gas/diesel taxTo spend your money:Pay state sales taxPay local sales tax (if applicable)According to Rahm Emmanuel its also a great idea for us all to pay a federal 10\% VATTo die:Give half your life savings back to the government instead of to your surviving relatives</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205423</id>
	<title>Winning Bet Tax?</title>
	<author>francisstp</author>
	<datestamp>1244046720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim?</p></div><p>If I take the bet and you win, make sure to report the gain on your tax return.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim ? If I take the bet and you win , make sure to report the gain on your tax return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How much do you want to bet the RIAA will push exactly that claim?If I take the bet and you win, make sure to report the gain on your tax return.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208895</id>
	<title>Tivo?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1244127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the Tivo'd/taped shows you have should be taxed as if you had purchased the shows on DVD?<br>
The fish you caught (with a fishing license) should be taxed as if you bought it at the market?<br>
OpenSolaris should be taxed as if you bought Solaris?<br>
Linux should be taxed as if you bought SCO UNIX?  Okay, that last one was a joke, but the others seem to be logical extensions of this "plan".</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the Tivo 'd/taped shows you have should be taxed as if you had purchased the shows on DVD ?
The fish you caught ( with a fishing license ) should be taxed as if you bought it at the market ?
OpenSolaris should be taxed as if you bought Solaris ?
Linux should be taxed as if you bought SCO UNIX ?
Okay , that last one was a joke , but the others seem to be logical extensions of this " plan " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the Tivo'd/taped shows you have should be taxed as if you had purchased the shows on DVD?
The fish you caught (with a fishing license) should be taxed as if you bought it at the market?
OpenSolaris should be taxed as if you bought Solaris?
Linux should be taxed as if you bought SCO UNIX?
Okay, that last one was a joke, but the others seem to be logical extensions of this "plan".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202427</id>
	<title>The door to criminal code</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244027580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this is how they can get it in. So far, they have to go and "hunt" the filesharers themselves. That way, they can hand over that burden (and the cost) to the country (i.e. you and me) to deal with their problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is how they can get it in .
So far , they have to go and " hunt " the filesharers themselves .
That way , they can hand over that burden ( and the cost ) to the country ( i.e .
you and me ) to deal with their problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is how they can get it in.
So far, they have to go and "hunt" the filesharers themselves.
That way, they can hand over that burden (and the cost) to the country (i.e.
you and me) to deal with their problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205329</id>
	<title>Connect motion sensors</title>
	<author>M0b1u5</author>
	<datestamp>1244045700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Connect motion sensors and wire them into your alarm system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Connect motion sensors and wire them into your alarm system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Connect motion sensors and wire them into your alarm system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202413</id>
	<title>Re:OpenOffice.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244027460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or perhaps they will lose the tax revenue from Microsoft Office... which is similar to the free Open Office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps they will lose the tax revenue from Microsoft Office... which is similar to the free Open Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps they will lose the tax revenue from Microsoft Office... which is similar to the free Open Office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203579</id>
	<title>Like the IRS?</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1244032440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if.....I don't see it even remotely enforceable. How about if I download something from China owned by someone in Washington and I live in Alaska. (Alaskans are exempt from paying sales taxes in Washington state with proof of residency). How many man hours would be spent figuring that out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if.....I do n't see it even remotely enforceable .
How about if I download something from China owned by someone in Washington and I live in Alaska .
( Alaskans are exempt from paying sales taxes in Washington state with proof of residency ) .
How many man hours would be spent figuring that out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if.....I don't see it even remotely enforceable.
How about if I download something from China owned by someone in Washington and I live in Alaska.
(Alaskans are exempt from paying sales taxes in Washington state with proof of residency).
How many man hours would be spent figuring that out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203375</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1244031480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you define $10,000 worth of music via bittorrent?  Go with Apple's value, 99 cents?  That's cheaper than buying a CD...so which do you use?  I value music at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0000000001 cents per song.  There you go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you define $ 10,000 worth of music via bittorrent ?
Go with Apple 's value , 99 cents ?
That 's cheaper than buying a CD...so which do you use ?
I value music at .0000000001 cents per song .
There you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you define $10,000 worth of music via bittorrent?
Go with Apple's value, 99 cents?
That's cheaper than buying a CD...so which do you use?
I value music at .0000000001 cents per song.
There you go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28211499</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>nasor</author>
	<datestamp>1244137980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hell, suppose a band that normally charges $50/ticket at their concerts decides to do a free concert. Are all those hundreds or thousands of people who get to see the show for free now liable for the taxes on their "gift"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , suppose a band that normally charges $ 50/ticket at their concerts decides to do a free concert .
Are all those hundreds or thousands of people who get to see the show for free now liable for the taxes on their " gift " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, suppose a band that normally charges $50/ticket at their concerts decides to do a free concert.
Are all those hundreds or thousands of people who get to see the show for free now liable for the taxes on their "gift"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201669</id>
	<title>It Doesn't Matter if the RIAA Pushes This Claim</title>
	<author>astarf</author>
	<datestamp>1244025000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't matter if the RIAA pushes this claim, it matters if the Washington state equivalent of the IRS pushes this claim.  The RIAA doesn't engage in criminal prosecutions -- it files civil suits, and you can't sue someone the grounds they they owe a third party money.

If if your local tax board takes this approach, it doesn't seem to change the equation:  there are already significant legal sanctions in place for illegal fire sharing and this doesn't seem to add much to the balance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter if the RIAA pushes this claim , it matters if the Washington state equivalent of the IRS pushes this claim .
The RIAA does n't engage in criminal prosecutions -- it files civil suits , and you ca n't sue someone the grounds they they owe a third party money .
If if your local tax board takes this approach , it does n't seem to change the equation : there are already significant legal sanctions in place for illegal fire sharing and this does n't seem to add much to the balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter if the RIAA pushes this claim, it matters if the Washington state equivalent of the IRS pushes this claim.
The RIAA doesn't engage in criminal prosecutions -- it files civil suits, and you can't sue someone the grounds they they owe a third party money.
If if your local tax board takes this approach, it doesn't seem to change the equation:  there are already significant legal sanctions in place for illegal fire sharing and this doesn't seem to add much to the balance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202667</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244028540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Minor correction, you are required to pay USE tax, not sales tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Minor correction , you are required to pay USE tax , not sales tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minor correction, you are required to pay USE tax, not sales tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207447</id>
	<title>real fun with this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real fun is by double jeopardy, all you'd have to do is pay tax to make the download legal.  They can't go after you for both copyright infringement and tax evasion for the same act.  Sooooo, offer to pay the taxes, and boom cheaper media.  Paying "just the tax" on movies and what not is still a lot better than retail.</p><p>Specially since even the older movies sitting on shelves these days cost a lot more than they used to.  I remember just a year or two ago being able to find a whole bunch of random movies [new no less] for $9 or so.  Now the same type of movies go for $16 or more.  It's not like "Red Dawn" or whatever got any better over the last year.  They're [the retailer, MPAA, etc] just more greedy.  I've gone to the local media warehouse store three times now this year, and every single time I walked out without buying anything.  It's such a disappointment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real fun is by double jeopardy , all you 'd have to do is pay tax to make the download legal .
They ca n't go after you for both copyright infringement and tax evasion for the same act .
Sooooo , offer to pay the taxes , and boom cheaper media .
Paying " just the tax " on movies and what not is still a lot better than retail.Specially since even the older movies sitting on shelves these days cost a lot more than they used to .
I remember just a year or two ago being able to find a whole bunch of random movies [ new no less ] for $ 9 or so .
Now the same type of movies go for $ 16 or more .
It 's not like " Red Dawn " or whatever got any better over the last year .
They 're [ the retailer , MPAA , etc ] just more greedy .
I 've gone to the local media warehouse store three times now this year , and every single time I walked out without buying anything .
It 's such a disappointment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real fun is by double jeopardy, all you'd have to do is pay tax to make the download legal.
They can't go after you for both copyright infringement and tax evasion for the same act.
Sooooo, offer to pay the taxes, and boom cheaper media.
Paying "just the tax" on movies and what not is still a lot better than retail.Specially since even the older movies sitting on shelves these days cost a lot more than they used to.
I remember just a year or two ago being able to find a whole bunch of random movies [new no less] for $9 or so.
Now the same type of movies go for $16 or more.
It's not like "Red Dawn" or whatever got any better over the last year.
They're [the retailer, MPAA, etc] just more greedy.
I've gone to the local media warehouse store three times now this year, and every single time I walked out without buying anything.
It's such a disappointment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203631</id>
	<title>Friends, there is a solution.</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1244032620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it's a pretty good one: get <a href="http://oneswarm.cs.washington.edu/" title="washington.edu">OneSwarm</a> [washington.edu] and use it. Once it become popular, it will be very nice.
<br> <br>
If they don't know you have it, they can't tax you on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's a pretty good one : get OneSwarm [ washington.edu ] and use it .
Once it become popular , it will be very nice .
If they do n't know you have it , they ca n't tax you on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's a pretty good one: get OneSwarm [washington.edu] and use it.
Once it become popular, it will be very nice.
If they don't know you have it, they can't tax you on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28206533</id>
	<title>Taxes for Downloads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244148720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They just forgot the fact, that the internets are god.<br>You will always get it for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They just forgot the fact , that the internets are god.You will always get it for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just forgot the fact, that the internets are god.You will always get it for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201747</id>
	<title>Not similar...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue that Windows cannot be made comparable to Linux, therefore a more similar product to Ubuntu would be FreeBSD.</p><p>And from the opposite perspective, the law specifically mentions that only "if the purchase price doesn't reflect the true value" do we get to the "value of similar products".   Since it's difficult to see how the price of Windows has any relation to "value", does that mean that if I purchase Windows for $299, I should only pay the tax based on say a retail version of Slackware ($45 @ the local Fryes)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that Windows can not be made comparable to Linux , therefore a more similar product to Ubuntu would be FreeBSD.And from the opposite perspective , the law specifically mentions that only " if the purchase price does n't reflect the true value " do we get to the " value of similar products " .
Since it 's difficult to see how the price of Windows has any relation to " value " , does that mean that if I purchase Windows for $ 299 , I should only pay the tax based on say a retail version of Slackware ( $ 45 @ the local Fryes ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that Windows cannot be made comparable to Linux, therefore a more similar product to Ubuntu would be FreeBSD.And from the opposite perspective, the law specifically mentions that only "if the purchase price doesn't reflect the true value" do we get to the "value of similar products".
Since it's difficult to see how the price of Windows has any relation to "value", does that mean that if I purchase Windows for $299, I should only pay the tax based on say a retail version of Slackware ($45 @ the local Fryes)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201963</id>
	<title>It's your country</title>
	<author>OutSourcingIsTreason</author>
	<datestamp>1244025900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's your country.</p><p>It's your national defense.</p><p>It's your crumbling infrastructure.</p><p>It's your overcrowded classrooms.</p><p>It's your national debt.</p><p>Do your citizenly duty and pay your taxes or else leave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's your country.It 's your national defense.It 's your crumbling infrastructure.It 's your overcrowded classrooms.It 's your national debt.Do your citizenly duty and pay your taxes or else leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's your country.It's your national defense.It's your crumbling infrastructure.It's your overcrowded classrooms.It's your national debt.Do your citizenly duty and pay your taxes or else leave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201733</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>Rude Turnip</author>
	<datestamp>1244025240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under fair value accounting standards, you would first look toward a "level 1 observation," which is a transaction in the same item.  So, probably $0.  But, given that this is another government cash grab, WINDOWS 7 SUPER DUPER ULTRA DELUXE EDITION: $499.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under fair value accounting standards , you would first look toward a " level 1 observation , " which is a transaction in the same item .
So , probably $ 0 .
But , given that this is another government cash grab , WINDOWS 7 SUPER DUPER ULTRA DELUXE EDITION : $ 499 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under fair value accounting standards, you would first look toward a "level 1 observation," which is a transaction in the same item.
So, probably $0.
But, given that this is another government cash grab, WINDOWS 7 SUPER DUPER ULTRA DELUXE EDITION: $499.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202263</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1244026980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason it's unreasonable is this:</p><p>Who's tax code is applied? The place where the person lives? The place where the server that processed the transaction is? The place where the store's server is? The location of the head office of the company? A branch of the company?</p><p>If I paid taxes on it when I purchased it, and the taxes went to where the item originated, am I liable for the taxes in my home state? I prefer the system of self-reporting mentioned elsewhere in the comments: on your tax form, you state how much you spent on sites like amazon or newegg, and pay taxes based on that. That's about as far as it should go. Money that was actually spent, on physical products or on services. Assigning arbitrary value to something for the purposes of taxation is a strange idea.</p><p>If we go with just the iTunes model, there's songs for $.69, $.99, and $1.29. I download some free music, which I'm now expected to pay taxes on. Which tier does it fall in to? Obviously, I'd prefer $.69, the government wants $1.29. It says "comparable" products will be used to set the price. How can you compare music? I might have purposefully downloaded something I hate for a specific purpose (thematic soundtrack for a party, perhaps), but it's a popular song for the general population. So the price goes up. But it's an old song. So does the price go down? No name recognition, price up or down?</p><p>In any case where there isn't a direct equivalent product like a CD, then there's no fair way to set the price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it 's unreasonable is this : Who 's tax code is applied ?
The place where the person lives ?
The place where the server that processed the transaction is ?
The place where the store 's server is ?
The location of the head office of the company ?
A branch of the company ? If I paid taxes on it when I purchased it , and the taxes went to where the item originated , am I liable for the taxes in my home state ?
I prefer the system of self-reporting mentioned elsewhere in the comments : on your tax form , you state how much you spent on sites like amazon or newegg , and pay taxes based on that .
That 's about as far as it should go .
Money that was actually spent , on physical products or on services .
Assigning arbitrary value to something for the purposes of taxation is a strange idea.If we go with just the iTunes model , there 's songs for $ .69 , $ .99 , and $ 1.29 .
I download some free music , which I 'm now expected to pay taxes on .
Which tier does it fall in to ?
Obviously , I 'd prefer $ .69 , the government wants $ 1.29 .
It says " comparable " products will be used to set the price .
How can you compare music ?
I might have purposefully downloaded something I hate for a specific purpose ( thematic soundtrack for a party , perhaps ) , but it 's a popular song for the general population .
So the price goes up .
But it 's an old song .
So does the price go down ?
No name recognition , price up or down ? In any case where there is n't a direct equivalent product like a CD , then there 's no fair way to set the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason it's unreasonable is this:Who's tax code is applied?
The place where the person lives?
The place where the server that processed the transaction is?
The place where the store's server is?
The location of the head office of the company?
A branch of the company?If I paid taxes on it when I purchased it, and the taxes went to where the item originated, am I liable for the taxes in my home state?
I prefer the system of self-reporting mentioned elsewhere in the comments: on your tax form, you state how much you spent on sites like amazon or newegg, and pay taxes based on that.
That's about as far as it should go.
Money that was actually spent, on physical products or on services.
Assigning arbitrary value to something for the purposes of taxation is a strange idea.If we go with just the iTunes model, there's songs for $.69, $.99, and $1.29.
I download some free music, which I'm now expected to pay taxes on.
Which tier does it fall in to?
Obviously, I'd prefer $.69, the government wants $1.29.
It says "comparable" products will be used to set the price.
How can you compare music?
I might have purposefully downloaded something I hate for a specific purpose (thematic soundtrack for a party, perhaps), but it's a popular song for the general population.
So the price goes up.
But it's an old song.
So does the price go down?
No name recognition, price up or down?In any case where there isn't a direct equivalent product like a CD, then there's no fair way to set the price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201517</id>
	<title>Send someone to debtors prison</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244024460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I see a person or corporate entity using a spider/URL reference to some copyright material I can log the action and report them. great.</p><p>So I create a 6Gb data file. Size of movie, link it from my home page. If I see a google spider hit it I report the download to the IRS.<br>Fun times.</p><p>Time to create some tiny URL's and seed them in appropriate places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I see a person or corporate entity using a spider/URL reference to some copyright material I can log the action and report them .
great.So I create a 6Gb data file .
Size of movie , link it from my home page .
If I see a google spider hit it I report the download to the IRS.Fun times.Time to create some tiny URL 's and seed them in appropriate places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I see a person or corporate entity using a spider/URL reference to some copyright material I can log the action and report them.
great.So I create a 6Gb data file.
Size of movie, link it from my home page.
If I see a google spider hit it I report the download to the IRS.Fun times.Time to create some tiny URL's and seed them in appropriate places.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201607</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>OwnedByTwoCats</author>
	<datestamp>1244024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the USA, as of around 10 years ago, gifts to family members of $10,000 or less did not have to be reported and were not taxable income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the USA , as of around 10 years ago , gifts to family members of $ 10,000 or less did not have to be reported and were not taxable income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the USA, as of around 10 years ago, gifts to family members of $10,000 or less did not have to be reported and were not taxable income.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201707</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>JoeRandomHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1244025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No.  According to line 33 of page 4 in <a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House\%20Passed\%20Legislature/2075-S.PL.pdf" title="wa.gov" rel="nofollow">the bill</a> [wa.gov], computer software is not a digital good.  Perhaps not the reason you were hoping for, but it does answer your question.</p></div><p>No problem, then. Just distribute music in self-extracting zip files. It is an EXE, which is clearly a program, which simply has the side-effect of creating a music file for you. You could do the same on Linux with shar archives, which are just shell scripts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
According to line 33 of page 4 in the bill [ wa.gov ] , computer software is not a digital good .
Perhaps not the reason you were hoping for , but it does answer your question.No problem , then .
Just distribute music in self-extracting zip files .
It is an EXE , which is clearly a program , which simply has the side-effect of creating a music file for you .
You could do the same on Linux with shar archives , which are just shell scripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
According to line 33 of page 4 in the bill [wa.gov], computer software is not a digital good.
Perhaps not the reason you were hoping for, but it does answer your question.No problem, then.
Just distribute music in self-extracting zip files.
It is an EXE, which is clearly a program, which simply has the side-effect of creating a music file for you.
You could do the same on Linux with shar archives, which are just shell scripts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204473</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244038320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many states claim this, some going so far as revamp their code to include "use taxes" in attempts to circumvent the constitutional proscription. They are wrong. They don't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the SC pretty firmly established that taxation is regulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many states claim this , some going so far as revamp their code to include " use taxes " in attempts to circumvent the constitutional proscription .
They are wrong .
They do n't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce , the SC pretty firmly established that taxation is regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many states claim this, some going so far as revamp their code to include "use taxes" in attempts to circumvent the constitutional proscription.
They are wrong.
They don't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the SC pretty firmly established that taxation is regulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205419</id>
	<title>Malware Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1244046660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I download malware, with a negative value, do I get money from the state?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I download malware , with a negative value , do I get money from the state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I download malware, with a negative value, do I get money from the state?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207657</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>bentcd</author>
	<datestamp>1244120760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>TFA says if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items. So if you download a track from an indie artist or public domain for free you still owe a tax as if you had purchased it for the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes...</p></div><p>Is $0 a price of zero dollars or is it "no purchase price"?<br>magnatune.com offers "similar items" at zero dollars for non-commercial use so the tax would presumably be 7.5\% (or whatever) of zero dollars. Unless this is "no purchase price", in which case magnatune.com would be doing us all a favour by also offering the same items at $0.01 for non-commercial use?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says if the download has no purchase price , then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items .
So if you download a track from an indie artist or public domain for free you still owe a tax as if you had purchased it for the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes...Is $ 0 a price of zero dollars or is it " no purchase price " ? magnatune.com offers " similar items " at zero dollars for non-commercial use so the tax would presumably be 7.5 \ % ( or whatever ) of zero dollars .
Unless this is " no purchase price " , in which case magnatune.com would be doing us all a favour by also offering the same items at $ 0.01 for non-commercial use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items.
So if you download a track from an indie artist or public domain for free you still owe a tax as if you had purchased it for the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes...Is $0 a price of zero dollars or is it "no purchase price"?magnatune.com offers "similar items" at zero dollars for non-commercial use so the tax would presumably be 7.5\% (or whatever) of zero dollars.
Unless this is "no purchase price", in which case magnatune.com would be doing us all a favour by also offering the same items at $0.01 for non-commercial use?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>gartogg</author>
	<datestamp>1244025060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong. You need to pay taxes on illegally gotten money. This is clear in the law, and there is no issue at all. Al Capone was nabbed for tax evasion on the money he earned illegally. And you downloaded a song, possibly in an encrypted format. If the data you got is intended to be re-assembled into a product with a value, you acquired it.</p><p>If you don't know what you're talking about, don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
You need to pay taxes on illegally gotten money .
This is clear in the law , and there is no issue at all .
Al Capone was nabbed for tax evasion on the money he earned illegally .
And you downloaded a song , possibly in an encrypted format .
If the data you got is intended to be re-assembled into a product with a value , you acquired it.If you do n't know what you 're talking about , do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
You need to pay taxes on illegally gotten money.
This is clear in the law, and there is no issue at all.
Al Capone was nabbed for tax evasion on the money he earned illegally.
And you downloaded a song, possibly in an encrypted format.
If the data you got is intended to be re-assembled into a product with a value, you acquired it.If you don't know what you're talking about, don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28210467</id>
	<title>If you RTFA and its links, what happens to Linux?</title>
	<author>DusterBar</author>
	<datestamp>1244133840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens when you download Linux or FreeBSD?  If you look at the article and related links, the Q&amp;A states:</p><ul><li><p><i>What is the value of the digital product for use tax purposes?</i></p><p>
The value is the purchase price of the digital product. If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase, the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.</p></li> </ul><p>To me, that means one could download an Operating System (legally) and owe taxes on the value of similar Operating Systems.</p><p>See section 304 subsection 5 of the actual bill for this text:</p><ul><li><p><i>(5) "Value of the digital good or digital code used" means the
purchase price for the digital good or digital code, the use of which
is taxable under this chapter. If the digital good or digital code is
acquired other than by purchase, the value of the digital good or
digital code must be determined as nearly as possible according to the
retail selling price at place of use of similar digital goods or
digital codes of like quality and character under rules the department
may prescribe;</i>
</p></li> </ul><p>...which to me is very open ended.  But not that the official document even has that section underlined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when you download Linux or FreeBSD ?
If you look at the article and related links , the Q&amp;A states : What is the value of the digital product for use tax purposes ?
The value is the purchase price of the digital product .
If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase , the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product .
To me , that means one could download an Operating System ( legally ) and owe taxes on the value of similar Operating Systems.See section 304 subsection 5 of the actual bill for this text : ( 5 ) " Value of the digital good or digital code used " means the purchase price for the digital good or digital code , the use of which is taxable under this chapter .
If the digital good or digital code is acquired other than by purchase , the value of the digital good or digital code must be determined as nearly as possible according to the retail selling price at place of use of similar digital goods or digital codes of like quality and character under rules the department may prescribe ; ...which to me is very open ended .
But not that the official document even has that section underlined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when you download Linux or FreeBSD?
If you look at the article and related links, the Q&amp;A states:What is the value of the digital product for use tax purposes?
The value is the purchase price of the digital product.
If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase, the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.
To me, that means one could download an Operating System (legally) and owe taxes on the value of similar Operating Systems.See section 304 subsection 5 of the actual bill for this text:(5) "Value of the digital good or digital code used" means the
purchase price for the digital good or digital code, the use of which
is taxable under this chapter.
If the digital good or digital code is
acquired other than by purchase, the value of the digital good or
digital code must be determined as nearly as possible according to the
retail selling price at place of use of similar digital goods or
digital codes of like quality and character under rules the department
may prescribe;
 ...which to me is very open ended.
But not that the official document even has that section underlined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208283</id>
	<title>What about IDISK, MOZY, NFS ? oops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just read the law pdf. I would guess the worst part of this<br>would be for services like 'mozy' or 'IDISK' or any other remote network file system. There are no exemptions for any type of private or public off site file storage systems. Anytime you pull a file from a networked disk - you technically have to pay the tax all over again for it.</p><p>Once again, people with no clue about how technology works mucking up the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read the law pdf .
I would guess the worst part of thiswould be for services like 'mozy ' or 'IDISK ' or any other remote network file system .
There are no exemptions for any type of private or public off site file storage systems .
Anytime you pull a file from a networked disk - you technically have to pay the tax all over again for it.Once again , people with no clue about how technology works mucking up the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read the law pdf.
I would guess the worst part of thiswould be for services like 'mozy' or 'IDISK' or any other remote network file system.
There are no exemptions for any type of private or public off site file storage systems.
Anytime you pull a file from a networked disk - you technically have to pay the tax all over again for it.Once again, people with no clue about how technology works mucking up the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201495</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, it would be tax evasion...</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1244024400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. They worry about the RIAA using this as a new tactic? That might actually be a worry if they'd actually ever gotten someone arrested, rather than just suing them in civil court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
They worry about the RIAA using this as a new tactic ?
That might actually be a worry if they 'd actually ever gotten someone arrested , rather than just suing them in civil court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
They worry about the RIAA using this as a new tactic?
That might actually be a worry if they'd actually ever gotten someone arrested, rather than just suing them in civil court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202419</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>Amouth</author>
	<datestamp>1244027520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does this mean all we have to do is package movies and music inside their own little player application to get around this&gt;?</p><p>hit this is exactly what happened to fonts - as by law a font face can't be copyrighted - so they came up with the ttf and other methods and make the execution of each fontface displaying program under copyright.  when you licence a font you are licencing the right to use the ttf not the font face it's self.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does this mean all we have to do is package movies and music inside their own little player application to get around this &gt; ? hit this is exactly what happened to fonts - as by law a font face ca n't be copyrighted - so they came up with the ttf and other methods and make the execution of each fontface displaying program under copyright .
when you licence a font you are licencing the right to use the ttf not the font face it 's self .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does this mean all we have to do is package movies and music inside their own little player application to get around this&gt;?hit this is exactly what happened to fonts - as by law a font face can't be copyrighted - so they came up with the ttf and other methods and make the execution of each fontface displaying program under copyright.
when you licence a font you are licencing the right to use the ttf not the font face it's self.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202499</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1244027820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they would need to prove that<br>a) I didn't rip it from my CD (and then the CD was lost/broke/destroyed so I no longer own it).<br>b) I didn't record it off of the radio.<br>c) I didn't record it off of my cable music channels.<br>d) I didn't record it off of an internet radio station.<br>e) I wasn't given the song by someone else who owned it legally and gave me their only copy.</p><p>Still- it's a novel concept and it motivates the government to do RIAA's enforcement for them.  Once again externalizing corporate costs.<br>Given the hell that is coming in the economy, I wonder if it will be worth it.</p><p>e) Provides the most interesting possibilities for creating extremely long chains of custody between various people who each legally owned the song and gave it to each other.  For example, you could give your only copy of a song (not retaining anything) and take another song from a library.  You can do this now legally.  We check out DVD's for tv series and movies and CD's for songs from our library.  You listen to it for a while and then return it.</p><p>---</p><p>Something that people always trip up on (in TV shows and in real life) is that lying or conspiring is often a separate crime.  So they fail to get you on the original charge but can show that you lied or conspired to break the law and so you are tagged for that.  Basically, so much is illegal now that if the government really wants to put you in prison it probably can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they would need to prove thata ) I did n't rip it from my CD ( and then the CD was lost/broke/destroyed so I no longer own it ) .b ) I did n't record it off of the radio.c ) I did n't record it off of my cable music channels.d ) I did n't record it off of an internet radio station.e ) I was n't given the song by someone else who owned it legally and gave me their only copy.Still- it 's a novel concept and it motivates the government to do RIAA 's enforcement for them .
Once again externalizing corporate costs.Given the hell that is coming in the economy , I wonder if it will be worth it.e ) Provides the most interesting possibilities for creating extremely long chains of custody between various people who each legally owned the song and gave it to each other .
For example , you could give your only copy of a song ( not retaining anything ) and take another song from a library .
You can do this now legally .
We check out DVD 's for tv series and movies and CD 's for songs from our library .
You listen to it for a while and then return it.---Something that people always trip up on ( in TV shows and in real life ) is that lying or conspiring is often a separate crime .
So they fail to get you on the original charge but can show that you lied or conspired to break the law and so you are tagged for that .
Basically , so much is illegal now that if the government really wants to put you in prison it probably can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they would need to prove thata) I didn't rip it from my CD (and then the CD was lost/broke/destroyed so I no longer own it).b) I didn't record it off of the radio.c) I didn't record it off of my cable music channels.d) I didn't record it off of an internet radio station.e) I wasn't given the song by someone else who owned it legally and gave me their only copy.Still- it's a novel concept and it motivates the government to do RIAA's enforcement for them.
Once again externalizing corporate costs.Given the hell that is coming in the economy, I wonder if it will be worth it.e) Provides the most interesting possibilities for creating extremely long chains of custody between various people who each legally owned the song and gave it to each other.
For example, you could give your only copy of a song (not retaining anything) and take another song from a library.
You can do this now legally.
We check out DVD's for tv series and movies and CD's for songs from our library.
You listen to it for a while and then return it.---Something that people always trip up on (in TV shows and in real life) is that lying or conspiring is often a separate crime.
So they fail to get you on the original charge but can show that you lied or conspired to break the law and so you are tagged for that.
Basically, so much is illegal now that if the government really wants to put you in prison it probably can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>internerdj</author>
	<datestamp>1244024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA says if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items.  So if you download a track from an indie artist or public domain for free you still owe a tax as if you had purchased it for the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes...</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says if the download has no purchase price , then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items .
So if you download a track from an indie artist or public domain for free you still owe a tax as if you had purchased it for the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items.
So if you download a track from an indie artist or public domain for free you still owe a tax as if you had purchased it for the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28213261</id>
	<title>What after NASCAR?</title>
	<author>eKahuna</author>
	<datestamp>1244145480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the same tactic that the gubmint takes with those who illegally distill their own spirits.  They are charged with not paying taxes on liquor.  That's why all the old moonshiners ran from the "Revenewers" and we got NASCAR.

I wonder what new sport we'll get when the Revenewers start chasing them downloaders?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same tactic that the gubmint takes with those who illegally distill their own spirits .
They are charged with not paying taxes on liquor .
That 's why all the old moonshiners ran from the " Revenewers " and we got NASCAR .
I wonder what new sport we 'll get when the Revenewers start chasing them downloaders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same tactic that the gubmint takes with those who illegally distill their own spirits.
They are charged with not paying taxes on liquor.
That's why all the old moonshiners ran from the "Revenewers" and we got NASCAR.
I wonder what new sport we'll get when the Revenewers start chasing them downloaders?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208787</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>fredcai</author>
	<datestamp>1244127000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with your gift analogy, but technically speaking, you're recieving a gift from hundreds of people. I'm not a tax expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't tax gifts worth very little (e.g. less than a dollar). Bittorrent isn't the gift-giver, its just the envelope that the money is in, the gift givers are the hundreds of seeders and leachers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your gift analogy , but technically speaking , you 're recieving a gift from hundreds of people .
I 'm not a tax expert , but I 'm pretty sure they do n't tax gifts worth very little ( e.g .
less than a dollar ) .
Bittorrent is n't the gift-giver , its just the envelope that the money is in , the gift givers are the hundreds of seeders and leachers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your gift analogy, but technically speaking, you're recieving a gift from hundreds of people.
I'm not a tax expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't tax gifts worth very little (e.g.
less than a dollar).
Bittorrent isn't the gift-giver, its just the envelope that the money is in, the gift givers are the hundreds of seeders and leachers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201715</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1244025180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not paying tax on bits that move around any more than I'm paying tax on the air I breathe. The taxing authority can go suck it, and come try to collect on data I've pushed through a VPN.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not paying tax on bits that move around any more than I 'm paying tax on the air I breathe .
The taxing authority can go suck it , and come try to collect on data I 've pushed through a VPN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not paying tax on bits that move around any more than I'm paying tax on the air I breathe.
The taxing authority can go suck it, and come try to collect on data I've pushed through a VPN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203431</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244031720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought you did actually have to pay taxes on barter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought you did actually have to pay taxes on barter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought you did actually have to pay taxes on barter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202829</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1244029140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but the money I paid was all for shipping, the item itself was free</htmltext>
<tokenext>but the money I paid was all for shipping , the item itself was free</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the money I paid was all for shipping, the item itself was free</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201885</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1244025660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you buy used CDs for $1 each, do you pay taxes on the $1 price or on the original retail value?<br>If you record FM radio on a cassette player, do you pay taxes based on how much the songs would have cost to buy on a casette tape?<br>If you record a song from Internet radio on your computer, do you pay tax based on the cost for the radio service to license that song and transmit it to you?<br>If you download the 30 second sample of a 3 minute song, do you pay tax on 1/6th of the purchase price?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you buy used CDs for $ 1 each , do you pay taxes on the $ 1 price or on the original retail value ? If you record FM radio on a cassette player , do you pay taxes based on how much the songs would have cost to buy on a casette tape ? If you record a song from Internet radio on your computer , do you pay tax based on the cost for the radio service to license that song and transmit it to you ? If you download the 30 second sample of a 3 minute song , do you pay tax on 1/6th of the purchase price ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you buy used CDs for $1 each, do you pay taxes on the $1 price or on the original retail value?If you record FM radio on a cassette player, do you pay taxes based on how much the songs would have cost to buy on a casette tape?If you record a song from Internet radio on your computer, do you pay tax based on the cost for the radio service to license that song and transmit it to you?If you download the 30 second sample of a 3 minute song, do you pay tax on 1/6th of the purchase price?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201347</id>
	<title>Al Capone</title>
	<author>Capt.DrumkenBum</author>
	<datestamp>1244023860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tax evasion is what put Al Capone away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tax evasion is what put Al Capone away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tax evasion is what put Al Capone away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202313</id>
	<title>Nobody does this?  O RLY?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1244027100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody does this</p></div><p>[citation needed]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody does this [ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody does this[citation needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203647</id>
	<title>Re:"file sharing"</title>
	<author>kat\_skan</author>
	<datestamp>1244032740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do they plan to tax that too?</p></div></blockquote><p>Just for future reference, the answer to this question is always "yes".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they plan to tax that too ? Just for future reference , the answer to this question is always " yes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they plan to tax that too?Just for future reference, the answer to this question is always "yes".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204789</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1244040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, so much is illegal now that if the government really wants to put you in prison it probably can.</p></div><p>Yep.  But if you call the US a police state people call you crazy just because we still have free speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , so much is illegal now that if the government really wants to put you in prison it probably can.Yep .
But if you call the US a police state people call you crazy just because we still have free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, so much is illegal now that if the government really wants to put you in prison it probably can.Yep.
But if you call the US a police state people call you crazy just because we still have free speech.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207515</id>
	<title>Taxes aren't the real weapon</title>
	<author>georgenh16</author>
	<datestamp>1244119260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do they do when you don't pay your taxes?
<br> <br>
They come to your house with <i>guns</i> and take away your stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do they do when you do n't pay your taxes ?
They come to your house with guns and take away your stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do they do when you don't pay your taxes?
They come to your house with guns and take away your stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201631</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>Goldberg's Pants</author>
	<datestamp>1244024880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conceptual issues are irrelevant. The RIAA has big, high paid lawyers who will bend you over a barrel and rape your virgin ass all while telling the judge how you downloaded a song and are now guilty of tax evasion.</p><p>If they got Capone on tax evasion, they can sure as hell get you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conceptual issues are irrelevant .
The RIAA has big , high paid lawyers who will bend you over a barrel and rape your virgin ass all while telling the judge how you downloaded a song and are now guilty of tax evasion.If they got Capone on tax evasion , they can sure as hell get you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conceptual issues are irrelevant.
The RIAA has big, high paid lawyers who will bend you over a barrel and rape your virgin ass all while telling the judge how you downloaded a song and are now guilty of tax evasion.If they got Capone on tax evasion, they can sure as hell get you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209909</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1244131440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I won a $10,000 iTunes gift card, I'd have to pay taxes on that.  (Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)</p></div><p>This is unfortunately true--and completely unfair.  I bought a $100 gift certificate for a friend who helped me move.  After taxes, it cost me $108.  My friend then bought $100 worth of stuff, and guess what--he paid $108.  Double-taxation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I won a $ 10,000 iTunes gift card , I 'd have to pay taxes on that .
( Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used ) This is unfortunately true--and completely unfair .
I bought a $ 100 gift certificate for a friend who helped me move .
After taxes , it cost me $ 108 .
My friend then bought $ 100 worth of stuff , and guess what--he paid $ 108 .
Double-taxation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I won a $10,000 iTunes gift card, I'd have to pay taxes on that.
(Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)This is unfortunately true--and completely unfair.
I bought a $100 gift certificate for a friend who helped me move.
After taxes, it cost me $108.
My friend then bought $100 worth of stuff, and guess what--he paid $108.
Double-taxation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203551</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1244032320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No... there is no price on "similar items", since they are also being given away for free.
<br> <br>
It does make provision for things that are intentionally being given away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No... there is no price on " similar items " , since they are also being given away for free .
It does make provision for things that are intentionally being given away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No... there is no price on "similar items", since they are also being given away for free.
It does make provision for things that are intentionally being given away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201457</id>
	<title>"file sharing"</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1244024280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do they plan to handle legitimate file sharing, e.g. content released without a fee or supported by voluntary sponsorship?</p><p>Do they plan to tax that too?</p><p>If they plan to handle it differently, how will they assess the legal status of the bits being shared?<br>If they plan to handle it the same, that seems grossly unfair to the artists and independent producers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do they plan to handle legitimate file sharing , e.g .
content released without a fee or supported by voluntary sponsorship ? Do they plan to tax that too ? If they plan to handle it differently , how will they assess the legal status of the bits being shared ? If they plan to handle it the same , that seems grossly unfair to the artists and independent producers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do they plan to handle legitimate file sharing, e.g.
content released without a fee or supported by voluntary sponsorship?Do they plan to tax that too?If they plan to handle it differently, how will they assess the legal status of the bits being shared?If they plan to handle it the same, that seems grossly unfair to the artists and independent producers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201641</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1244024940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I noticed this on my CT state tax return this year. You're supposed to tally up all your purchases from Amazon and Newegg and pay sales tax on that. Needless to say, I purchased nothing from Amazon or Newegg last year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I noticed this on my CT state tax return this year .
You 're supposed to tally up all your purchases from Amazon and Newegg and pay sales tax on that .
Needless to say , I purchased nothing from Amazon or Newegg last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I noticed this on my CT state tax return this year.
You're supposed to tally up all your purchases from Amazon and Newegg and pay sales tax on that.
Needless to say, I purchased nothing from Amazon or Newegg last year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204069</id>
	<title>Re:It's my money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244035200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's not "your money."  Money is a "service" the government provides so that we don't have to live in a barter society.  Every dollar you ever earn will eventually find its way back to the government in the form of taxes - that's simply how our economy functions.  You do not own money - you own physical property and your time and labour.  And all this bitching about how high taxes are is simply delusional - US taxes are some of the lowest in the world.  Yeah there is a lot of waste, but stuff costs money.  I don't know about you, but I like roads, schools, parks, laws, etc, and that stuff is not free.</p><p>That aside, the tax code is pretty messed up.  An earlier poster mentioned that the IRS requires you to claim stolen property and drug money on your 1040.  I'm not even sure how they can enforce such a thing.  These kinds of new little rules only serve to make things even more complicated when what we should be doing is stripping it down to something more manageable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's not " your money .
" Money is a " service " the government provides so that we do n't have to live in a barter society .
Every dollar you ever earn will eventually find its way back to the government in the form of taxes - that 's simply how our economy functions .
You do not own money - you own physical property and your time and labour .
And all this bitching about how high taxes are is simply delusional - US taxes are some of the lowest in the world .
Yeah there is a lot of waste , but stuff costs money .
I do n't know about you , but I like roads , schools , parks , laws , etc , and that stuff is not free.That aside , the tax code is pretty messed up .
An earlier poster mentioned that the IRS requires you to claim stolen property and drug money on your 1040 .
I 'm not even sure how they can enforce such a thing .
These kinds of new little rules only serve to make things even more complicated when what we should be doing is stripping it down to something more manageable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's not "your money.
"  Money is a "service" the government provides so that we don't have to live in a barter society.
Every dollar you ever earn will eventually find its way back to the government in the form of taxes - that's simply how our economy functions.
You do not own money - you own physical property and your time and labour.
And all this bitching about how high taxes are is simply delusional - US taxes are some of the lowest in the world.
Yeah there is a lot of waste, but stuff costs money.
I don't know about you, but I like roads, schools, parks, laws, etc, and that stuff is not free.That aside, the tax code is pretty messed up.
An earlier poster mentioned that the IRS requires you to claim stolen property and drug money on your 1040.
I'm not even sure how they can enforce such a thing.
These kinds of new little rules only serve to make things even more complicated when what we should be doing is stripping it down to something more manageable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309</id>
	<title>Sounds good...</title>
	<author>wirelessbuzzers</author>
	<datestamp>1244023800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll pay them 8.25\% of what I paid for the song.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll pay them 8.25 \ % of what I paid for the song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll pay them 8.25\% of what I paid for the song.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202037</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1244026140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crap.  I replied to the wrong comment when I went hunting for it again.....</p><p>See here:</p><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255929&amp;cid=28202013" title="slashdot.org">http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255929&amp;cid=28202013</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap .
I replied to the wrong comment when I went hunting for it again.....See here : http : //news.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1255929&amp;cid = 28202013 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap.
I replied to the wrong comment when I went hunting for it again.....See here:http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255929&amp;cid=28202013 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201665</id>
	<title>More taxes?</title>
	<author>spiffydudex</author>
	<datestamp>1244025000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We wouldn't need more taxes on trivial things if the current US government would stop spending money like candy.
<br> <br>
As far as tax evasion is concerned. Al Capone has actual $$ income. The thing that is being muddled is that a download of an item from illegal methods constitutes direct income. When in fact there is no $$ income at all. Politicians would like for us to view it as money that comes out of thin air, just like the US government and printing money it doesn't have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We would n't need more taxes on trivial things if the current US government would stop spending money like candy .
As far as tax evasion is concerned .
Al Capone has actual $ $ income .
The thing that is being muddled is that a download of an item from illegal methods constitutes direct income .
When in fact there is no $ $ income at all .
Politicians would like for us to view it as money that comes out of thin air , just like the US government and printing money it does n't have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We wouldn't need more taxes on trivial things if the current US government would stop spending money like candy.
As far as tax evasion is concerned.
Al Capone has actual $$ income.
The thing that is being muddled is that a download of an item from illegal methods constitutes direct income.
When in fact there is no $$ income at all.
Politicians would like for us to view it as money that comes out of thin air, just like the US government and printing money it doesn't have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201757</id>
	<title>Could be an interesting precedent ...</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1244025300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It occurs to me that if this happens, it has the potential to be applied to anything else that's covered by copyright. Consider the results.</p><p>If you check a book out from your local library and read it, you'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book (at a book seller of the prosecution's choice).</p><p>If you leave a newspaper (hey, remember them?) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it, they'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper, but for a subscription to the newspaper.</p><p>If your local school has textbooks that they let students study from, those students (or their parents) will be liable for the sales tax on the price of the books.</p><p>If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be (sitting at a table in a restaurant, using an elevator, walking by on the sidewalk), you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard.</p><p>Since everything is by default copyrighted as soon as it's "published" (whatever that actually means), any time you read anything from any source or hear anything that was recorded, you will be required to learn the retail price for the copyrighted work, and pay the sales tax on it.</p><p>We've been in the habit of being a bit bemused by the fact that, when the authorities don't have any evidence against some supposed criminal, they customarily just charge them with tax evasion.  But this is no longer just something that big-time Mafia capos and politicians have to worry about.  Now we can all be tax evaders, by merely reading something somewhere and neglecting to determine its retail sales price so we can pay the sales tax.</p><p>And I can make you a criminal by merely putting copyrighted text somewhere that you read it, or by putting recorded sound somewhere that you hear it.</p><p>It can be fun to think of what might be the ultimate motive for passing laws like this.  Look up the phrase "nuisance law" for further explanation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It occurs to me that if this happens , it has the potential to be applied to anything else that 's covered by copyright .
Consider the results.If you check a book out from your local library and read it , you 'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book ( at a book seller of the prosecution 's choice ) .If you leave a newspaper ( hey , remember them ?
) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it , they 'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper , but for a subscription to the newspaper.If your local school has textbooks that they let students study from , those students ( or their parents ) will be liable for the sales tax on the price of the books.If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be ( sitting at a table in a restaurant , using an elevator , walking by on the sidewalk ) , you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard.Since everything is by default copyrighted as soon as it 's " published " ( whatever that actually means ) , any time you read anything from any source or hear anything that was recorded , you will be required to learn the retail price for the copyrighted work , and pay the sales tax on it.We 've been in the habit of being a bit bemused by the fact that , when the authorities do n't have any evidence against some supposed criminal , they customarily just charge them with tax evasion .
But this is no longer just something that big-time Mafia capos and politicians have to worry about .
Now we can all be tax evaders , by merely reading something somewhere and neglecting to determine its retail sales price so we can pay the sales tax.And I can make you a criminal by merely putting copyrighted text somewhere that you read it , or by putting recorded sound somewhere that you hear it.It can be fun to think of what might be the ultimate motive for passing laws like this .
Look up the phrase " nuisance law " for further explanation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It occurs to me that if this happens, it has the potential to be applied to anything else that's covered by copyright.
Consider the results.If you check a book out from your local library and read it, you'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book (at a book seller of the prosecution's choice).If you leave a newspaper (hey, remember them?
) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it, they'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper, but for a subscription to the newspaper.If your local school has textbooks that they let students study from, those students (or their parents) will be liable for the sales tax on the price of the books.If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be (sitting at a table in a restaurant, using an elevator, walking by on the sidewalk), you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard.Since everything is by default copyrighted as soon as it's "published" (whatever that actually means), any time you read anything from any source or hear anything that was recorded, you will be required to learn the retail price for the copyrighted work, and pay the sales tax on it.We've been in the habit of being a bit bemused by the fact that, when the authorities don't have any evidence against some supposed criminal, they customarily just charge them with tax evasion.
But this is no longer just something that big-time Mafia capos and politicians have to worry about.
Now we can all be tax evaders, by merely reading something somewhere and neglecting to determine its retail sales price so we can pay the sales tax.And I can make you a criminal by merely putting copyrighted text somewhere that you read it, or by putting recorded sound somewhere that you hear it.It can be fun to think of what might be the ultimate motive for passing laws like this.
Look up the phrase "nuisance law" for further explanation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204621</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?</p></div><p>If it's available on bittorrent, it's not $10,000 of music now, is it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If somebody " gives " me $ 10,000 in music via bittorrent , why on earth should that be tax-exempt ? If it 's available on bittorrent , it 's not $ 10,000 of music now , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?If it's available on bittorrent, it's not $10,000 of music now, is it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201585</id>
	<title>It's my money</title>
	<author>Haxzaw</author>
	<datestamp>1244024700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the Government would like to decide how much I need to live on, and keep the rest.  Seems to be where they're going.  Our Government is OUT OF CONTROL!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the Government would like to decide how much I need to live on , and keep the rest .
Seems to be where they 're going .
Our Government is OUT OF CONTROL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the Government would like to decide how much I need to live on, and keep the rest.
Seems to be where they're going.
Our Government is OUT OF CONTROL!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203417</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Sales Tax on Gimp at Photoshop Value?</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244031660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course not because, as everyone keeps saying, GIMP is no replacement for Photoshop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course not because , as everyone keeps saying , GIMP is no replacement for Photoshop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course not because, as everyone keeps saying, GIMP is no replacement for Photoshop!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203063</id>
	<title>Al Capone</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1244030160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its how they finally nailed him. Couldn't catch him actually doing anything wrong so they crafted this backdoor way to nab him.</p><p>Of course one thing the RIAA will not think of is that if there are convictions/fines via this route, they wont get a dime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its how they finally nailed him .
Could n't catch him actually doing anything wrong so they crafted this backdoor way to nab him.Of course one thing the RIAA will not think of is that if there are convictions/fines via this route , they wont get a dime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its how they finally nailed him.
Couldn't catch him actually doing anything wrong so they crafted this backdoor way to nab him.Of course one thing the RIAA will not think of is that if there are convictions/fines via this route, they wont get a dime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201503</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, it would be tax evasion...</title>
	<author>cwiegmann24</author>
	<datestamp>1244024400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's how they got Al Capone - regardless of the legality of your income, you still need to pay taxes on it.</p><p>That being said, if the retail value of a DVD is $10, and a state has a 6\% sales tax, I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars.  No prosecutor in his right mind is going to prosecute for that.</p></div><p>
Um, check your math. You'd owe $60. It'd be 60 cents for each movie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how they got Al Capone - regardless of the legality of your income , you still need to pay taxes on it.That being said , if the retail value of a DVD is $ 10 , and a state has a 6 \ % sales tax , I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars .
No prosecutor in his right mind is going to prosecute for that .
Um , check your math .
You 'd owe $ 60 .
It 'd be 60 cents for each movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how they got Al Capone - regardless of the legality of your income, you still need to pay taxes on it.That being said, if the retail value of a DVD is $10, and a state has a 6\% sales tax, I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars.
No prosecutor in his right mind is going to prosecute for that.
Um, check your math.
You'd owe $60.
It'd be 60 cents for each movie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207219</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1244115060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That value of an mp3 is $0</p><p>Unless your going to count the file size, that's still well under a dollar per GB of storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That value of an mp3 is $ 0Unless your going to count the file size , that 's still well under a dollar per GB of storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That value of an mp3 is $0Unless your going to count the file size, that's still well under a dollar per GB of storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201983</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>allometry</author>
	<datestamp>1244025960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, taxes are part of life. But, I'm not happy about any additional taxes, especially when I already feel like I'm over-taxed.</p><p>The federal government takes a considerable share of my money when I'm paid. In addition, when I'm given a bonus, or when my risk pays off in the stock market. There are plenty more taxes to mention, but my point is this: it's never enough for the state or federal government!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , taxes are part of life .
But , I 'm not happy about any additional taxes , especially when I already feel like I 'm over-taxed.The federal government takes a considerable share of my money when I 'm paid .
In addition , when I 'm given a bonus , or when my risk pays off in the stock market .
There are plenty more taxes to mention , but my point is this : it 's never enough for the state or federal government !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, taxes are part of life.
But, I'm not happy about any additional taxes, especially when I already feel like I'm over-taxed.The federal government takes a considerable share of my money when I'm paid.
In addition, when I'm given a bonus, or when my risk pays off in the stock market.
There are plenty more taxes to mention, but my point is this: it's never enough for the state or federal government!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208853</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was *worth* 10,000 to you, you would have *purchased* it.</p><p>Clearly, it wasn't worth 10,000 to you, so clearly, you don't pay taxes on $10,000.</p><p>You only pay taxes on what you paid for something (sales tax), or what you received (income tax) - there is NO perceived value tax, and if any government tries to create one, there will be outcries, wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the legislators who create them, as they will become victims of their own laws.</p><p>All the freebies that the state/federal governments give them will be taxed on *perceived* values.  All the free trips, hotels, meals, postage (franking), healthcare, etc will have to be taxed on *perceived* values, amounting to millions of dollars per year - think they can afford to pay that 8/9/10\% tax on that?</p><p>Oh - and if they try to write in an exemption for themselves, anarchy will probably ensue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was * worth * 10,000 to you , you would have * purchased * it.Clearly , it was n't worth 10,000 to you , so clearly , you do n't pay taxes on $ 10,000.You only pay taxes on what you paid for something ( sales tax ) , or what you received ( income tax ) - there is NO perceived value tax , and if any government tries to create one , there will be outcries , wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the legislators who create them , as they will become victims of their own laws.All the freebies that the state/federal governments give them will be taxed on * perceived * values .
All the free trips , hotels , meals , postage ( franking ) , healthcare , etc will have to be taxed on * perceived * values , amounting to millions of dollars per year - think they can afford to pay that 8/9/10 \ % tax on that ? Oh - and if they try to write in an exemption for themselves , anarchy will probably ensue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was *worth* 10,000 to you, you would have *purchased* it.Clearly, it wasn't worth 10,000 to you, so clearly, you don't pay taxes on $10,000.You only pay taxes on what you paid for something (sales tax), or what you received (income tax) - there is NO perceived value tax, and if any government tries to create one, there will be outcries, wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the legislators who create them, as they will become victims of their own laws.All the freebies that the state/federal governments give them will be taxed on *perceived* values.
All the free trips, hotels, meals, postage (franking), healthcare, etc will have to be taxed on *perceived* values, amounting to millions of dollars per year - think they can afford to pay that 8/9/10\% tax on that?Oh - and if they try to write in an exemption for themselves, anarchy will probably ensue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201527</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, it would be tax evasion...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That being said, if the retail value of a DVD is $10, and a state has a 6\% sales tax, I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars.</p></div><p>I take it that arithmetic isn't your strong point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That being said , if the retail value of a DVD is $ 10 , and a state has a 6 \ % sales tax , I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars.I take it that arithmetic is n't your strong point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That being said, if the retail value of a DVD is $10, and a state has a 6\% sales tax, I could download a hundred movies and owe...six whole dollars.I take it that arithmetic isn't your strong point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201405</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in Seattle and do all my shopping on Amazon, so I'm evading nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in Seattle and do all my shopping on Amazon , so I 'm evading nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in Seattle and do all my shopping on Amazon, so I'm evading nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202729</id>
	<title>Re:OpenOffice.org</title>
	<author>antirelic</author>
	<datestamp>1244028720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone marked this funny. It should be fairly frightening, especially if you are an advocate or beneficiary of open source software. This can be a very quick and effective way of shutting down open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone marked this funny .
It should be fairly frightening , especially if you are an advocate or beneficiary of open source software .
This can be a very quick and effective way of shutting down open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone marked this funny.
It should be fairly frightening, especially if you are an advocate or beneficiary of open source software.
This can be a very quick and effective way of shutting down open source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>KPU</author>
	<datestamp>1244024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  According to line 33 of page 4 in <a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House\%20Passed\%20Legislature/2075-S.PL.pdf" title="wa.gov">the bill</a> [wa.gov], computer software is not a digital good.  Perhaps not the reason you were hoping for, but it does answer your question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
According to line 33 of page 4 in the bill [ wa.gov ] , computer software is not a digital good .
Perhaps not the reason you were hoping for , but it does answer your question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
According to line 33 of page 4 in the bill [wa.gov], computer software is not a digital good.
Perhaps not the reason you were hoping for, but it does answer your question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202565</id>
	<title>The value of Postgresql</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1244028120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I need to look up the retail price of Oracle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I need to look up the retail price of Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I need to look up the retail price of Oracle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28206775</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1244108520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Traditionally retailers have gotten in trouble for doing anything based on the retail sales price. First, there can only be a suggested retail price, to prevent price fixing,</p></div><p>Yeah, that's not true.  Talk to your local Apple or guitar retailer, they've been dealing with minimum retail prices for ages.
<br> <br>
<i>If a manufacturer, on its own, adopts a policy regarding a desired level of prices, the law allows the manufacturer to deal only with retailers who agree to that policy. A manufacturer also may stop dealing with a retailer that does not follow its resale price policy. That is, a manufacturer can implement a dealer policy on a "take it or leave it" basis.</i>
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/manufacturer\_requirements.shtm" title="ftc.gov">http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/manufacturer\_requirements.shtm</a> [ftc.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Traditionally retailers have gotten in trouble for doing anything based on the retail sales price .
First , there can only be a suggested retail price , to prevent price fixing,Yeah , that 's not true .
Talk to your local Apple or guitar retailer , they 've been dealing with minimum retail prices for ages .
If a manufacturer , on its own , adopts a policy regarding a desired level of prices , the law allows the manufacturer to deal only with retailers who agree to that policy .
A manufacturer also may stop dealing with a retailer that does not follow its resale price policy .
That is , a manufacturer can implement a dealer policy on a " take it or leave it " basis .
http : //www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/manufacturer \ _requirements.shtm [ ftc.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traditionally retailers have gotten in trouble for doing anything based on the retail sales price.
First, there can only be a suggested retail price, to prevent price fixing,Yeah, that's not true.
Talk to your local Apple or guitar retailer, they've been dealing with minimum retail prices for ages.
If a manufacturer, on its own, adopts a policy regarding a desired level of prices, the law allows the manufacturer to deal only with retailers who agree to that policy.
A manufacturer also may stop dealing with a retailer that does not follow its resale price policy.
That is, a manufacturer can implement a dealer policy on a "take it or leave it" basis.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/manufacturer\_requirements.shtm [ftc.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208849</id>
	<title>just antoher try to tax opensource software</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1244127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>boy times are tough eh that ya know go and try to value free software and then tax it too , SCREW YOU im gonna then pirate EVERYTHING<br>regardless of law frak politicians DON'T EVER VOTE AGAIN one day when more people don't vote then do we should all march down there and turf the buggers out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>boy times are tough eh that ya know go and try to value free software and then tax it too , SCREW YOU im gon na then pirate EVERYTHINGregardless of law frak politicians DO N'T EVER VOTE AGAIN one day when more people do n't vote then do we should all march down there and turf the buggers out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>boy times are tough eh that ya know go and try to value free software and then tax it too , SCREW YOU im gonna then pirate EVERYTHINGregardless of law frak politicians DON'T EVER VOTE AGAIN one day when more people don't vote then do we should all march down there and turf the buggers out</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204695</id>
	<title>Speak for yourself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They got the money and the will to make it happen and all <b>I</b> can do is bend over.</i></p><p>There, fixed that for you..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They got the money and the will to make it happen and all I can do is bend over.There , fixed that for you. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got the money and the will to make it happen and all I can do is bend over.There, fixed that for you..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201881</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Chabo</author>
	<datestamp>1244025660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody does this -- so technically nearly everyone is guilty of this kind of tax evasion.</p></div><p>Not if you live in New Hampshire!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody does this -- so technically nearly everyone is guilty of this kind of tax evasion.Not if you live in New Hampshire !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody does this -- so technically nearly everyone is guilty of this kind of tax evasion.Not if you live in New Hampshire!
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205789</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244050980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Illegality to be made illegal, news at 11</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Illegality to be made illegal , news at 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Illegality to be made illegal, news at 11</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201927</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1244025840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>TFA says if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items. So if you download a track from an indie artist or public domain for free you still owe a tax as if you had purchased it for the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes...</p></div><p>No, TFA says "acquired by means other than a purchase".<br>Even if you were right, that's still an idiotic interpretation of the law.<br>The equivalent cost of free or public domain is zero, not iTunes.<br>Further, the actual bill declares that purchase price = sales price.<br>So zero = zero.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says if the download has no purchase price , then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items .
So if you download a track from an indie artist or public domain for free you still owe a tax as if you had purchased it for the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes...No , TFA says " acquired by means other than a purchase " .Even if you were right , that 's still an idiotic interpretation of the law.The equivalent cost of free or public domain is zero , not iTunes.Further , the actual bill declares that purchase price = sales price.So zero = zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items.
So if you download a track from an indie artist or public domain for free you still owe a tax as if you had purchased it for the average going rate of an mp3 on iTunes...No, TFA says "acquired by means other than a purchase".Even if you were right, that's still an idiotic interpretation of the law.The equivalent cost of free or public domain is zero, not iTunes.Further, the actual bill declares that purchase price = sales price.So zero = zero.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202941</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>cbs4385</author>
	<datestamp>1244029620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, you'd never make a legislator.  they do such convoluted mental gymnastics all the time, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937\_Marijuana\_Tax\_Act" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , you 'd never make a legislator .
they do such convoluted mental gymnastics all the time , see the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, you'd never make a legislator.
they do such convoluted mental gymnastics all the time, see the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209497</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1244129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But you didn't download the song. You downloaded several chunks of random (encrypted) data which could be assembled into a song. The chunks didn't even all come from the same place.</p></div><p>Might I introduce you to the "letter" of the law vs. the "intent" of the law argument?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you did n't download the song .
You downloaded several chunks of random ( encrypted ) data which could be assembled into a song .
The chunks did n't even all come from the same place.Might I introduce you to the " letter " of the law vs. the " intent " of the law argument ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you didn't download the song.
You downloaded several chunks of random (encrypted) data which could be assembled into a song.
The chunks didn't even all come from the same place.Might I introduce you to the "letter" of the law vs. the "intent" of the law argument?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203609</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1244032560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I buy a TV on sale for $30 at the pawn shop, I should be paying sales tax based on the price of a brand new TV? Ok, so that's not exactly the same thing. Then how about when you buy a used DVD from eBay - do you ask for the original invoice proving this was acquired legally?</p><p>I bet the value of a "legally" or otherwise downloaded song is almost zero. Put an add on Craigslist or Kijiji for MP3 songs and see how much you get. An that's the price you should be taxed on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I buy a TV on sale for $ 30 at the pawn shop , I should be paying sales tax based on the price of a brand new TV ?
Ok , so that 's not exactly the same thing .
Then how about when you buy a used DVD from eBay - do you ask for the original invoice proving this was acquired legally ? I bet the value of a " legally " or otherwise downloaded song is almost zero .
Put an add on Craigslist or Kijiji for MP3 songs and see how much you get .
An that 's the price you should be taxed on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I buy a TV on sale for $30 at the pawn shop, I should be paying sales tax based on the price of a brand new TV?
Ok, so that's not exactly the same thing.
Then how about when you buy a used DVD from eBay - do you ask for the original invoice proving this was acquired legally?I bet the value of a "legally" or otherwise downloaded song is almost zero.
Put an add on Craigslist or Kijiji for MP3 songs and see how much you get.
An that's the price you should be taxed on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202013</id>
	<title>Re:How much is a similar operating system</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1244026020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's like saying I should be able to get a Peterbilt 18 wheeler for the same price as a Yugo, because they can both be used to drive to the grocery store.....</p><p>Microsoft has no similar offering to Linux.  Similarly, they have no similar offering to Eclipse.</p><p>"Similar" does not mean "something that the general public possibly could use in place of."  In reality, it means the two items have to be virtually identical.</p><p>Linux is free as in freedom, open source, and unix-like.<br>Windows is expensive, closed source, and decidedly not unix like.</p><p>They are not similar.  They're pretty much polar opposites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like saying I should be able to get a Peterbilt 18 wheeler for the same price as a Yugo , because they can both be used to drive to the grocery store.....Microsoft has no similar offering to Linux .
Similarly , they have no similar offering to Eclipse .
" Similar " does not mean " something that the general public possibly could use in place of .
" In reality , it means the two items have to be virtually identical.Linux is free as in freedom , open source , and unix-like.Windows is expensive , closed source , and decidedly not unix like.They are not similar .
They 're pretty much polar opposites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like saying I should be able to get a Peterbilt 18 wheeler for the same price as a Yugo, because they can both be used to drive to the grocery store.....Microsoft has no similar offering to Linux.
Similarly, they have no similar offering to Eclipse.
"Similar" does not mean "something that the general public possibly could use in place of.
"  In reality, it means the two items have to be virtually identical.Linux is free as in freedom, open source, and unix-like.Windows is expensive, closed source, and decidedly not unix like.They are not similar.
They're pretty much polar opposites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204065</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244035140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But you didn't download the song. You downloaded several chunks of random (encrypted) data which could be assembled into a song.</p></div><p>You try that stunt in a court, then tell us how well did the judge like your word games.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you did n't download the song .
You downloaded several chunks of random ( encrypted ) data which could be assembled into a song.You try that stunt in a court , then tell us how well did the judge like your word games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you didn't download the song.
You downloaded several chunks of random (encrypted) data which could be assembled into a song.You try that stunt in a court, then tell us how well did the judge like your word games.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203585</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising</title>
	<author>caladine</author>
	<datestamp>1244032440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I want too offer buy two, get on free, do I have to pay taxes as if I bought three items? Do I have to pay tax on the total before the coupon?</p></div> </blockquote><p>You already do - check your receipts.</p><p>Take a look at the "win under the cap" soda pop promotions, where you can win a free one. You're still liable for the sales tax on it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want too offer buy two , get on free , do I have to pay taxes as if I bought three items ?
Do I have to pay tax on the total before the coupon ?
You already do - check your receipts.Take a look at the " win under the cap " soda pop promotions , where you can win a free one .
You 're still liable for the sales tax on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want too offer buy two, get on free, do I have to pay taxes as if I bought three items?
Do I have to pay tax on the total before the coupon?
You already do - check your receipts.Take a look at the "win under the cap" soda pop promotions, where you can win a free one.
You're still liable for the sales tax on it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207635</id>
	<title>More of the same</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1244120580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Again, they try to hit pirates hard by bludgeoning the legit customers. That's like Wal-Mart curbing shoplifting by having a couple of employees stand by the exits to beat everybody holding shopping bags with baseball bats, hoping that the pain will trickle down to the thieves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again , they try to hit pirates hard by bludgeoning the legit customers .
That 's like Wal-Mart curbing shoplifting by having a couple of employees stand by the exits to beat everybody holding shopping bags with baseball bats , hoping that the pain will trickle down to the thieves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again, they try to hit pirates hard by bludgeoning the legit customers.
That's like Wal-Mart curbing shoplifting by having a couple of employees stand by the exits to beat everybody holding shopping bags with baseball bats, hoping that the pain will trickle down to the thieves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</id>
	<title>How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>paeanblack</author>
	<datestamp>1244024340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I won a $10,000 iTunes gift card, I'd have to pay taxes on that.  (Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)<br>If somebody gave me $10,000 as a gift, I'd have to pay taxes on that. (Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)<br>If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?</p><p>In almost every state, items purchased out-of-state must be declared and a "use tax" is due when imported.  There is a reasonable exemption limit so you don't have to declare that bag of Cheetos you bought driving home from trip, but if you purchase a car in New Hampshire to avoid Massachusetts sales tax, you still owe money to Massachusetts, and they will collect it.</p><p>Just because you downloaded it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay gift/sale taxes. Taxes are part of life.  Deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I won a $ 10,000 iTunes gift card , I 'd have to pay taxes on that .
( Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used ) If somebody gave me $ 10,000 as a gift , I 'd have to pay taxes on that .
( Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used ) If somebody " gives " me $ 10,000 in music via bittorrent , why on earth should that be tax-exempt ? In almost every state , items purchased out-of-state must be declared and a " use tax " is due when imported .
There is a reasonable exemption limit so you do n't have to declare that bag of Cheetos you bought driving home from trip , but if you purchase a car in New Hampshire to avoid Massachusetts sales tax , you still owe money to Massachusetts , and they will collect it.Just because you downloaded it does n't mean you should n't pay gift/sale taxes .
Taxes are part of life .
Deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I won a $10,000 iTunes gift card, I'd have to pay taxes on that.
(Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)If somebody gave me $10,000 as a gift, I'd have to pay taxes on that.
(Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?In almost every state, items purchased out-of-state must be declared and a "use tax" is due when imported.
There is a reasonable exemption limit so you don't have to declare that bag of Cheetos you bought driving home from trip, but if you purchase a car in New Hampshire to avoid Massachusetts sales tax, you still owe money to Massachusetts, and they will collect it.Just because you downloaded it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay gift/sale taxes.
Taxes are part of life.
Deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203243</id>
	<title>Re:taxes charged by amazon.com and the like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244030940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon??? I haven't paid taxes or shipping on anything from them in years.</p><p>They don't charge tax on anything shipped to me. If I order over $25, they eat the shipping as well.</p><p>I guess my state would like me to pay the sales tax. They might also like me to pay sales tax on the forgiven shipping cost, too. Well, my state can blow me dry.</p><p>I usually keep a list of cheap books in the "hold for later" part of my Amazon shopping cart. Then, if I want a $19 book, I add one of the cheapies to the order to bring it to slightly over $25. Since It was a book I wanted anyway, the forgiven shipping usually pays for half of it.</p><p>One of the reasons both businesses and the government love rebates is that they both win on rebates. Businesses know that rebates (the mail-in ones, at least) very often go unredeemed, hence directly to the bottom line. Government is happy because tax is computed on the full price. The exact amount of the rebate is then subtracted from the fully-taxed total, without the corresponding tax being subtracted. On a straight sale, tax would be computed on the sale price, not the full pre-sale price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon ? ? ?
I have n't paid taxes or shipping on anything from them in years.They do n't charge tax on anything shipped to me .
If I order over $ 25 , they eat the shipping as well.I guess my state would like me to pay the sales tax .
They might also like me to pay sales tax on the forgiven shipping cost , too .
Well , my state can blow me dry.I usually keep a list of cheap books in the " hold for later " part of my Amazon shopping cart .
Then , if I want a $ 19 book , I add one of the cheapies to the order to bring it to slightly over $ 25 .
Since It was a book I wanted anyway , the forgiven shipping usually pays for half of it.One of the reasons both businesses and the government love rebates is that they both win on rebates .
Businesses know that rebates ( the mail-in ones , at least ) very often go unredeemed , hence directly to the bottom line .
Government is happy because tax is computed on the full price .
The exact amount of the rebate is then subtracted from the fully-taxed total , without the corresponding tax being subtracted .
On a straight sale , tax would be computed on the sale price , not the full pre-sale price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon???
I haven't paid taxes or shipping on anything from them in years.They don't charge tax on anything shipped to me.
If I order over $25, they eat the shipping as well.I guess my state would like me to pay the sales tax.
They might also like me to pay sales tax on the forgiven shipping cost, too.
Well, my state can blow me dry.I usually keep a list of cheap books in the "hold for later" part of my Amazon shopping cart.
Then, if I want a $19 book, I add one of the cheapies to the order to bring it to slightly over $25.
Since It was a book I wanted anyway, the forgiven shipping usually pays for half of it.One of the reasons both businesses and the government love rebates is that they both win on rebates.
Businesses know that rebates (the mail-in ones, at least) very often go unredeemed, hence directly to the bottom line.
Government is happy because tax is computed on the full price.
The exact amount of the rebate is then subtracted from the fully-taxed total, without the corresponding tax being subtracted.
On a straight sale, tax would be computed on the sale price, not the full pre-sale price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203913</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1244034180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>TFA says if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items.</i> <br> <br>The way I hear it, most music is obtained with a purchase price of $0.  Therefore, if we operate on the median cost, the value is $0.  I'll operate under that assumption until I'm audited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says if the download has no purchase price , then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items .
The way I hear it , most music is obtained with a purchase price of $ 0 .
Therefore , if we operate on the median cost , the value is $ 0 .
I 'll operate under that assumption until I 'm audited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says if the download has no purchase price, then it is taxed based on the purchase price of similar items.
The way I hear it, most music is obtained with a purchase price of $0.
Therefore, if we operate on the median cost, the value is $0.
I'll operate under that assumption until I'm audited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202865</id>
	<title>They can only tax on what you paid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244029320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They cannot tax on value, only on price paid.</p><p>If they taxed on value, then all of those as seen on tv ads would be horrendously tax expensive...</p><p>"For only 2 payments of 19.95, a 500.00 value"....</p><p>Wow - taxes on 500.00, when only spent 19.99 (plus separate processing)...</p><p>Since a song, when downloaded is only worth $1.00 (maybe $2.00) in some circles (if downloaded legally) - then the taxable rate is on $1.00 or $2.00..</p><p>If they try to tax it based on their 10,000 times value damages - then it's overtaxation....</p><p>If you paid nothing to download, then there is no tax - if you don't get caught, otherwise their may be penalties (other than taxes) applied (if you share it back out).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can not tax on value , only on price paid.If they taxed on value , then all of those as seen on tv ads would be horrendously tax expensive... " For only 2 payments of 19.95 , a 500.00 value " ....Wow - taxes on 500.00 , when only spent 19.99 ( plus separate processing ) ...Since a song , when downloaded is only worth $ 1.00 ( maybe $ 2.00 ) in some circles ( if downloaded legally ) - then the taxable rate is on $ 1.00 or $ 2.00..If they try to tax it based on their 10,000 times value damages - then it 's overtaxation....If you paid nothing to download , then there is no tax - if you do n't get caught , otherwise their may be penalties ( other than taxes ) applied ( if you share it back out ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They cannot tax on value, only on price paid.If they taxed on value, then all of those as seen on tv ads would be horrendously tax expensive..."For only 2 payments of 19.95, a 500.00 value"....Wow - taxes on 500.00, when only spent 19.99 (plus separate processing)...Since a song, when downloaded is only worth $1.00 (maybe $2.00) in some circles (if downloaded legally) - then the taxable rate is on $1.00 or $2.00..If they try to tax it based on their 10,000 times value damages - then it's overtaxation....If you paid nothing to download, then there is no tax - if you don't get caught, otherwise their may be penalties (other than taxes) applied (if you share it back out).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202057</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1244026200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you guys got the short end of the stick. We pay the blank media levy in Canada, but it makes an environment where it'd be bitch-hard for the RIAA-equivilent to sue someone, since those levies are supposed to replace any "lost" revenues from sharing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you guys got the short end of the stick .
We pay the blank media levy in Canada , but it makes an environment where it 'd be bitch-hard for the RIAA-equivilent to sue someone , since those levies are supposed to replace any " lost " revenues from sharing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you guys got the short end of the stick.
We pay the blank media levy in Canada, but it makes an environment where it'd be bitch-hard for the RIAA-equivilent to sue someone, since those levies are supposed to replace any "lost" revenues from sharing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205369</id>
	<title>Fun law</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1244046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, there are a million reasons why this law is silly.<p>
Please keep in mind in Maine it is still illegal to ride a bicycle underwater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , there are a million reasons why this law is silly .
Please keep in mind in Maine it is still illegal to ride a bicycle underwater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, there are a million reasons why this law is silly.
Please keep in mind in Maine it is still illegal to ride a bicycle underwater.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201497</id>
	<title>Cheesy application of laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to prosecute unwanted behavior for which the laws were never meant to be.</p><p>That's actually not that uncommon.</p><p>This stuff happens a lot in places like Burma (or whatever it's named now), Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and China.</p><p>Again the US is in lustre company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to prosecute unwanted behavior for which the laws were never meant to be.That 's actually not that uncommon.This stuff happens a lot in places like Burma ( or whatever it 's named now ) , Syria , Egypt , Saudi Arabia , Iran , North Korea and China.Again the US is in lustre company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to prosecute unwanted behavior for which the laws were never meant to be.That's actually not that uncommon.This stuff happens a lot in places like Burma (or whatever it's named now), Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and China.Again the US is in lustre company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202889</id>
	<title>Re:OpenOffice.org</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244029380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, they'll compare with what the retail price of OO is...which is free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , they 'll compare with what the retail price of OO is...which is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, they'll compare with what the retail price of OO is...which is free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204665</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244039760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I won a $10,000 iTunes gift card, I'd have to pay taxes on that.  (Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)<br>If somebody gave me $10,000 as a gift, I'd have to pay taxes on that. (Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)<br>If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?</p><p>In almost every state, items purchased out-of-state must be declared and a "use tax" is due when imported.  There is a reasonable exemption limit so you don't have to declare that bag of Cheetos you bought driving home from trip, but if you purchase a car in New Hampshire to avoid Massachusetts sales tax, you still owe money to Massachusetts, and they will collect it.</p><p>Just because you downloaded it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay gift/sale taxes. Taxes are part of life.  Deal.</p></div><p>If I collected $2,000 dollars of solar energy falling on my roof, why would this be any different?</p><p>If I collected $200 worth of rain water, why would this be any different?</p><p>If I breathed $50 worth of second hand smoke, why would this be any different?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I won a $ 10,000 iTunes gift card , I 'd have to pay taxes on that .
( Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used ) If somebody gave me $ 10,000 as a gift , I 'd have to pay taxes on that .
( Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used ) If somebody " gives " me $ 10,000 in music via bittorrent , why on earth should that be tax-exempt ? In almost every state , items purchased out-of-state must be declared and a " use tax " is due when imported .
There is a reasonable exemption limit so you do n't have to declare that bag of Cheetos you bought driving home from trip , but if you purchase a car in New Hampshire to avoid Massachusetts sales tax , you still owe money to Massachusetts , and they will collect it.Just because you downloaded it does n't mean you should n't pay gift/sale taxes .
Taxes are part of life .
Deal.If I collected $ 2,000 dollars of solar energy falling on my roof , why would this be any different ? If I collected $ 200 worth of rain water , why would this be any different ? If I breathed $ 50 worth of second hand smoke , why would this be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I won a $10,000 iTunes gift card, I'd have to pay taxes on that.
(Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)If somebody gave me $10,000 as a gift, I'd have to pay taxes on that.
(Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?In almost every state, items purchased out-of-state must be declared and a "use tax" is due when imported.
There is a reasonable exemption limit so you don't have to declare that bag of Cheetos you bought driving home from trip, but if you purchase a car in New Hampshire to avoid Massachusetts sales tax, you still owe money to Massachusetts, and they will collect it.Just because you downloaded it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay gift/sale taxes.
Taxes are part of life.
Deal.If I collected $2,000 dollars of solar energy falling on my roof, why would this be any different?If I collected $200 worth of rain water, why would this be any different?If I breathed $50 worth of second hand smoke, why would this be any different?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202805</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>jyx</author>
	<datestamp>1244029020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If computer software is not a digital good, what the hell is it? Do legislators live on a planet even remotely similar to ours?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If computer software is not a digital good , what the hell is it ?
Do legislators live on a planet even remotely similar to ours ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If computer software is not a digital good, what the hell is it?
Do legislators live on a planet even remotely similar to ours?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203013</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>hurfy</author>
	<datestamp>1244029920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that but WA must have the poorest collection rate on this possible. I would bet that no one that does not run a business has ever seen the form to use to submit use tax! Some states have a spot on their income tax forms for people to report this, WA has no income tax, thus no form. One would have to hunt down the correct form for individuals and fill it out with absolutely zero encouragement from the state...good luck with THAT!</p><p>I fill out the forms at work and have never looked for the personal version much less filled one out. I would bet the vast majority of the state has no clue it even exists. I suppose the state could ask every ebay/amazon/craigslist/etc seller in the world if they shipped anything to my address and audit from there.....except it would cost em $10 or more for every $1 they collect.</p><p>Maybe a little easier to check for digital, but then you would need to separate the truly free stuff from the pirated stuff and well that is probably not worth the $.09</p><p>They could send everyone a letter informing them of this requirement and the proceeds might cover the postage.....</p><p>Better idea for WA state at least<nobr> <wbr></nobr>................. STOP EXEMPTING MCDONALD'S FROM THE LITTER TAX<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... invoice for consulting is in the mail....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that but WA must have the poorest collection rate on this possible .
I would bet that no one that does not run a business has ever seen the form to use to submit use tax !
Some states have a spot on their income tax forms for people to report this , WA has no income tax , thus no form .
One would have to hunt down the correct form for individuals and fill it out with absolutely zero encouragement from the state...good luck with THAT ! I fill out the forms at work and have never looked for the personal version much less filled one out .
I would bet the vast majority of the state has no clue it even exists .
I suppose the state could ask every ebay/amazon/craigslist/etc seller in the world if they shipped anything to my address and audit from there.....except it would cost em $ 10 or more for every $ 1 they collect.Maybe a little easier to check for digital , but then you would need to separate the truly free stuff from the pirated stuff and well that is probably not worth the $ .09They could send everyone a letter informing them of this requirement and the proceeds might cover the postage.....Better idea for WA state at least ................. STOP EXEMPTING MCDONALD 'S FROM THE LITTER TAX .... invoice for consulting is in the mail... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that but WA must have the poorest collection rate on this possible.
I would bet that no one that does not run a business has ever seen the form to use to submit use tax!
Some states have a spot on their income tax forms for people to report this, WA has no income tax, thus no form.
One would have to hunt down the correct form for individuals and fill it out with absolutely zero encouragement from the state...good luck with THAT!I fill out the forms at work and have never looked for the personal version much less filled one out.
I would bet the vast majority of the state has no clue it even exists.
I suppose the state could ask every ebay/amazon/craigslist/etc seller in the world if they shipped anything to my address and audit from there.....except it would cost em $10 or more for every $1 they collect.Maybe a little easier to check for digital, but then you would need to separate the truly free stuff from the pirated stuff and well that is probably not worth the $.09They could send everyone a letter informing them of this requirement and the proceeds might cover the postage.....Better idea for WA state at least ................. STOP EXEMPTING MCDONALD'S FROM THE LITTER TAX .... invoice for consulting is in the mail....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205679</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244049660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool.  It turns out that this data is software, which according to the statute represent a set of coded instructions designed to cause a computer to perform the task of producing a particular sound.  Who knew?
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(2) "Computer software" means a set of coded instructions designed to cause a computer or automatic data processing equipment to perform a task. All software is classified as either prewritten or custom. Consistent with this definition "computer software" includes only those sets of coded instructions intended for use by an end user and specifically excludes retained rights in software and master copies of software.</p></div><p>/Unless you represent your data <a href="http://www.totem-pole.net/photos.html" title="totem-pole.net">in this format</a> [totem-pole.net] that is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool .
It turns out that this data is software , which according to the statute represent a set of coded instructions designed to cause a computer to perform the task of producing a particular sound .
Who knew ?
( 2 ) " Computer software " means a set of coded instructions designed to cause a computer or automatic data processing equipment to perform a task .
All software is classified as either prewritten or custom .
Consistent with this definition " computer software " includes only those sets of coded instructions intended for use by an end user and specifically excludes retained rights in software and master copies of software./Unless you represent your data in this format [ totem-pole.net ] that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool.
It turns out that this data is software, which according to the statute represent a set of coded instructions designed to cause a computer to perform the task of producing a particular sound.
Who knew?
(2) "Computer software" means a set of coded instructions designed to cause a computer or automatic data processing equipment to perform a task.
All software is classified as either prewritten or custom.
Consistent with this definition "computer software" includes only those sets of coded instructions intended for use by an end user and specifically excludes retained rights in software and master copies of software./Unless you represent your data in this format [totem-pole.net] that is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202781</id>
	<title>The government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244028960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government is <b>not entitled</b> to my money/possessions in a free society. Taxes should be used <b>solely</b> for things that <b>I</b> benefit from that the government does <b>with my permission</b>. Anything else is <b>unjust</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government is not entitled to my money/possessions in a free society .
Taxes should be used solely for things that I benefit from that the government does with my permission .
Anything else is unjust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government is not entitled to my money/possessions in a free society.
Taxes should be used solely for things that I benefit from that the government does with my permission.
Anything else is unjust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201957</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1244025900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I think the submitter is misinterpreting the bill (or at least the intent). By his/her thinking, all data that moves between private parties online would have to be priced.</p><p>But I get the impression that the bill is trying to give the state a handle on sales tax like it has with 'brick and morter' merchants.</p><p>I would say the submitter was being paranoid... that is if the **AA media gangs didn't have such a record of abusing the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I think the submitter is misinterpreting the bill ( or at least the intent ) .
By his/her thinking , all data that moves between private parties online would have to be priced.But I get the impression that the bill is trying to give the state a handle on sales tax like it has with 'brick and morter ' merchants.I would say the submitter was being paranoid... that is if the * * AA media gangs did n't have such a record of abusing the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I think the submitter is misinterpreting the bill (or at least the intent).
By his/her thinking, all data that moves between private parties online would have to be priced.But I get the impression that the bill is trying to give the state a handle on sales tax like it has with 'brick and morter' merchants.I would say the submitter was being paranoid... that is if the **AA media gangs didn't have such a record of abusing the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201533</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1244024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doubtful. This is only one more step toward getting the government to enforce copyright criminally rather than letting the *AA's continue (increasingly unsucessfully) to enforce it civilly.<br> <br>

They'll have to catch you in the act and prove that you did it, but now the FBI or even homeland security will be legally able to gather ISP data or even hack your box to gather evidence. Still very chilling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubtful .
This is only one more step toward getting the government to enforce copyright criminally rather than letting the * AA 's continue ( increasingly unsucessfully ) to enforce it civilly .
They 'll have to catch you in the act and prove that you did it , but now the FBI or even homeland security will be legally able to gather ISP data or even hack your box to gather evidence .
Still very chilling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubtful.
This is only one more step toward getting the government to enforce copyright criminally rather than letting the *AA's continue (increasingly unsucessfully) to enforce it civilly.
They'll have to catch you in the act and prove that you did it, but now the FBI or even homeland security will be legally able to gather ISP data or even hack your box to gather evidence.
Still very chilling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28215077</id>
	<title>Re:Could be an interesting precedent ...</title>
	<author>DelShalDar</author>
	<datestamp>1244110560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the argument is sound, if slightly off in that the examples given are analog and/or temporary in nature.  The real argument is where all of these incidents and instances are conveyed in a digital format:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you check a book out from your local library and read it, you'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book (at a book seller of the prosecution's choice).</p></div><p>There are people writing novels and making them available online at no cost these days (Webcomics, like Megatokyo, that have published hardcopy books, or a novel called "John Dies at the End" come easily to mind).  Add in things like fanfiction and you get even more potential issues of copyright ownership and assignment that get added to the mix.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you leave a newspaper (hey, remember them?) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it, they'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper, but for a subscription to the newspaper.</p></div><p>Instead, use a group of news articles that come from a newspaper's main webpage that they didn't charge for.  The New York Times does this, as do many others, while they still offer subscriptions and hard-copies at a cost.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If your local school has textbooks that they let students study from, those students (or their parents) will be liable for the sales tax on the price of the books.</p></div><p>Some instructors and researchers write their own texts and provide them for students to use at no cost in an electronic form.  Heck, some full-fledged book companies do this as well (ever hear of Microsoft Press?).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be (sitting at a table in a restaurant, using an elevator, walking by on the sidewalk), you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard.</p></div><p>A home-made youtube video with a song playing in the background.  A sound file embedded in a webpage and played on page-load, or How 'bout a picture that you need to download to view the page properly.  It all still counts as incidental and non-intentional for the viewer.</p><p>All of these could be considered non-temporary since bits and bytes are not "lent items."  There is nothing that forces the downloaded bits to go away as soon as you close the browser window, or the media player, or any other means that the content is accessed.  And since <b>all</b> data is effectively copyrighted by default, it is <i>automatically</i> assumed that someone created it and holds a copyright for it, and if it can be downloaded then it becomes subject to this law.</p><p>The issue is not that the law attempts to tax a sold item, but more that a tax is levied on an item with no dollar amount directly associated with it.  For example, say you charge a fee for content you provide, this law obligates me to pay a tax on similar content I download from another person that <i>doesn't charge</i> for their content, and that tax will be for the same amount that you set for your content.  This is not so much a tax at that point, but a <b>fine</b> for <i>not being charged anything</i> for that other user's content.</p><p>If I make a movie, and it looks like a professional job, and I make it available for download to anyone who wants it, does that mean everyone who downloads it should be made to pay taxes on "a similar item of equivalent quality" that costs $50?  If I went and made my own talk show and provided the sessions for free download because I only do it for fun, does that mean that my listeners have to pay the taxes equivalent to, say, Rush Limbaugh's radio show and it's subscription fees for downloaded content?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the argument is sound , if slightly off in that the examples given are analog and/or temporary in nature .
The real argument is where all of these incidents and instances are conveyed in a digital format : If you check a book out from your local library and read it , you 'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book ( at a book seller of the prosecution 's choice ) .There are people writing novels and making them available online at no cost these days ( Webcomics , like Megatokyo , that have published hardcopy books , or a novel called " John Dies at the End " come easily to mind ) .
Add in things like fanfiction and you get even more potential issues of copyright ownership and assignment that get added to the mix.If you leave a newspaper ( hey , remember them ?
) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it , they 'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper , but for a subscription to the newspaper.Instead , use a group of news articles that come from a newspaper 's main webpage that they did n't charge for .
The New York Times does this , as do many others , while they still offer subscriptions and hard-copies at a cost.If your local school has textbooks that they let students study from , those students ( or their parents ) will be liable for the sales tax on the price of the books.Some instructors and researchers write their own texts and provide them for students to use at no cost in an electronic form .
Heck , some full-fledged book companies do this as well ( ever hear of Microsoft Press ?
) .If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be ( sitting at a table in a restaurant , using an elevator , walking by on the sidewalk ) , you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard.A home-made youtube video with a song playing in the background .
A sound file embedded in a webpage and played on page-load , or How 'bout a picture that you need to download to view the page properly .
It all still counts as incidental and non-intentional for the viewer.All of these could be considered non-temporary since bits and bytes are not " lent items .
" There is nothing that forces the downloaded bits to go away as soon as you close the browser window , or the media player , or any other means that the content is accessed .
And since all data is effectively copyrighted by default , it is automatically assumed that someone created it and holds a copyright for it , and if it can be downloaded then it becomes subject to this law.The issue is not that the law attempts to tax a sold item , but more that a tax is levied on an item with no dollar amount directly associated with it .
For example , say you charge a fee for content you provide , this law obligates me to pay a tax on similar content I download from another person that does n't charge for their content , and that tax will be for the same amount that you set for your content .
This is not so much a tax at that point , but a fine for not being charged anything for that other user 's content.If I make a movie , and it looks like a professional job , and I make it available for download to anyone who wants it , does that mean everyone who downloads it should be made to pay taxes on " a similar item of equivalent quality " that costs $ 50 ?
If I went and made my own talk show and provided the sessions for free download because I only do it for fun , does that mean that my listeners have to pay the taxes equivalent to , say , Rush Limbaugh 's radio show and it 's subscription fees for downloaded content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the argument is sound, if slightly off in that the examples given are analog and/or temporary in nature.
The real argument is where all of these incidents and instances are conveyed in a digital format:If you check a book out from your local library and read it, you'll be liable for the sales tax on the retail price of the same book (at a book seller of the prosecution's choice).There are people writing novels and making them available online at no cost these days (Webcomics, like Megatokyo, that have published hardcopy books, or a novel called "John Dies at the End" come easily to mind).
Add in things like fanfiction and you get even more potential issues of copyright ownership and assignment that get added to the mix.If you leave a newspaper (hey, remember them?
) lying around in your house and a visitor reads it, they'll be liable for the sales tax on not just that paper, but for a subscription to the newspaper.Instead, use a group of news articles that come from a newspaper's main webpage that they didn't charge for.
The New York Times does this, as do many others, while they still offer subscriptions and hard-copies at a cost.If your local school has textbooks that they let students study from, those students (or their parents) will be liable for the sales tax on the price of the books.Some instructors and researchers write their own texts and provide them for students to use at no cost in an electronic form.
Heck, some full-fledged book companies do this as well (ever hear of Microsoft Press?
).If a store is playing music audible from wherever you may be (sitting at a table in a restaurant, using an elevator, walking by on the sidewalk), you are liable for the sales tax on the album that contains the music that you heard.A home-made youtube video with a song playing in the background.
A sound file embedded in a webpage and played on page-load, or How 'bout a picture that you need to download to view the page properly.
It all still counts as incidental and non-intentional for the viewer.All of these could be considered non-temporary since bits and bytes are not "lent items.
"  There is nothing that forces the downloaded bits to go away as soon as you close the browser window, or the media player, or any other means that the content is accessed.
And since all data is effectively copyrighted by default, it is automatically assumed that someone created it and holds a copyright for it, and if it can be downloaded then it becomes subject to this law.The issue is not that the law attempts to tax a sold item, but more that a tax is levied on an item with no dollar amount directly associated with it.
For example, say you charge a fee for content you provide, this law obligates me to pay a tax on similar content I download from another person that doesn't charge for their content, and that tax will be for the same amount that you set for your content.
This is not so much a tax at that point, but a fine for not being charged anything for that other user's content.If I make a movie, and it looks like a professional job, and I make it available for download to anyone who wants it, does that mean everyone who downloads it should be made to pay taxes on "a similar item of equivalent quality" that costs $50?
If I went and made my own talk show and provided the sessions for free download because I only do it for fun, does that mean that my listeners have to pay the taxes equivalent to, say, Rush Limbaugh's radio show and it's subscription fees for downloaded content?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28217089</id>
	<title>Re:How is this unreasonable</title>
	<author>merreborn</author>
	<datestamp>1244122200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I won a $10,000 iTunes gift card, I'd have to pay taxes on that. (Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)<br>If somebody gave me $10,000 as a gift, I'd have to pay taxes on that. (Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)<br>If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?</p></div></blockquote><p>And if you copy that "$10,000 worth" of music on to your iPod, and two other computers in your home, do you now owe taxes on $40,000 worth of music?</p><p>Copying a digital file, either locally or via P2P, is not the same as receiving physical goods.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I won a $ 10,000 iTunes gift card , I 'd have to pay taxes on that .
( Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used ) If somebody gave me $ 10,000 as a gift , I 'd have to pay taxes on that .
( Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used ) If somebody " gives " me $ 10,000 in music via bittorrent , why on earth should that be tax-exempt ? And if you copy that " $ 10,000 worth " of music on to your iPod , and two other computers in your home , do you now owe taxes on $ 40,000 worth of music ? Copying a digital file , either locally or via P2P , is not the same as receiving physical goods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I won a $10,000 iTunes gift card, I'd have to pay taxes on that.
(Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)If somebody gave me $10,000 as a gift, I'd have to pay taxes on that.
(Assuming deductions/exemptions were unavailable/already used)If somebody "gives" me $10,000 in music via bittorrent, why on earth should that be tax-exempt?And if you copy that "$10,000 worth" of music on to your iPod, and two other computers in your home, do you now owe taxes on $40,000 worth of music?Copying a digital file, either locally or via P2P, is not the same as receiving physical goods.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331</id>
	<title>No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>Yossarian45793</author>
	<datestamp>1244023800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technically whenever you order a product from another state and the seller doesn't withhold sales tax on the purchase, you're required to pay that sales tax in your state. Nobody does this -- so technically nearly everyone is guilty of this kind of tax evasion. How is this any different?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically whenever you order a product from another state and the seller does n't withhold sales tax on the purchase , you 're required to pay that sales tax in your state .
Nobody does this -- so technically nearly everyone is guilty of this kind of tax evasion .
How is this any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically whenever you order a product from another state and the seller doesn't withhold sales tax on the purchase, you're required to pay that sales tax in your state.
Nobody does this -- so technically nearly everyone is guilty of this kind of tax evasion.
How is this any different?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207741</id>
	<title>Re:No different from sales tax evasion</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1244121240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA is wrong. TFB (the fucking bill) says there is no tax on digital goods an end user receives for free</p><blockquote><div><p>The provisions of this chapter do not apply in respect to the use of digital products or digital codes obtained by the end user free of charge.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is wrong .
TFB ( the fucking bill ) says there is no tax on digital goods an end user receives for freeThe provisions of this chapter do not apply in respect to the use of digital products or digital codes obtained by the end user free of charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is wrong.
TFB (the fucking bill) says there is no tax on digital goods an end user receives for freeThe provisions of this chapter do not apply in respect to the use of digital products or digital codes obtained by the end user free of charge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201459</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to enforce</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think again.<br><br>I don't know about US, but here in the EU you have to pay an "artist" tax on every media storage you buy. They got the money and the will to make it happen and all we can do is band over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think again.I do n't know about US , but here in the EU you have to pay an " artist " tax on every media storage you buy .
They got the money and the will to make it happen and all we can do is band over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think again.I don't know about US, but here in the EU you have to pay an "artist" tax on every media storage you buy.
They got the money and the will to make it happen and all we can do is band over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28206643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28211499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28206775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28215077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28217089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_2050231_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28217089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28211499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28206643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28206775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201683
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28208231
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209613
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28207219
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28205107
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202499
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204789
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203609
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28209537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28215077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28204429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28203579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_2050231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28201527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_2050231.28202519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
