<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_18_227219</id>
	<title>In Round 2, Jammie Thomas Jury Awards RIAA $1,920,000</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245321300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"Well the price went up from $9250 per song file to $80,000 per song file, as the jury <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#1573024392128294747">awarded the RIAA statutory damages of $1,920,000.00</a> for infringement of 24 MP3s, in <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Virgin\_v\_Thomas">Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset</a>. In this trial, although the defendant had an expert witness of her own, she never called him to testify, and her attorneys never challenged the technical evidence offered by the RIAA's MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson. Also, neither the <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#7357256688574176340">special verdict form</a> nor the <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#997538270954533061">jury instructions</a> spelled out what the elements of a 'distribution' are, or what needed to be established by the plaintiffs in order to recover statutory &mdash; as opposed to actual &mdash; damages. No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional."</i> <b>Update: 06/19 01:39 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://www.monkey.org/~timothy/">T</a> </b>: Lots <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars">more detail at Ars Technica</a>, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " Well the price went up from $ 9250 per song file to $ 80,000 per song file , as the jury awarded the RIAA statutory damages of $ 1,920,000.00 for infringement of 24 MP3s , in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. In this trial , although the defendant had an expert witness of her own , she never called him to testify , and her attorneys never challenged the technical evidence offered by the RIAA 's MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson .
Also , neither the special verdict form nor the jury instructions spelled out what the elements of a 'distribution ' are , or what needed to be established by the plaintiffs in order to recover statutory    as opposed to actual    damages .
No doubt there will now have to be a third trial , and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA 's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional .
" Update : 06/19 01 : 39 GMT by T : Lots more detail at Ars Technica , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Well the price went up from $9250 per song file to $80,000 per song file, as the jury awarded the RIAA statutory damages of $1,920,000.00 for infringement of 24 MP3s, in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. In this trial, although the defendant had an expert witness of her own, she never called him to testify, and her attorneys never challenged the technical evidence offered by the RIAA's MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson.
Also, neither the special verdict form nor the jury instructions spelled out what the elements of a 'distribution' are, or what needed to be established by the plaintiffs in order to recover statutory — as opposed to actual — damages.
No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional.
" Update: 06/19 01:39 GMT by  T : Lots more detail at Ars Technica, too.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28393283</id>
	<title>Re:Something has gone seriously wrong when...</title>
	<author>darthflo</author>
	<datestamp>1245440340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you hire a construction worker to build you some drywall, he'll charge you by the hour. He might spend eight hours at your construction site, do whatever it is construction workers do to drywall, then charge you, say, $30/hr for $240.</p><p>If you buy some software from an independant programmer, he might have spent two months developing it. Two months could be about 43 working days (60 / 7 * 5). At 8 hours per working day, that's about 344 hours of work done. If that programmer were to charge $30 per hour, he'd get paid $10k for that program now. Except the program probably isn't custom-built for you, but could be interesting to 500 others, too. Thanks to this little detail, he's getting paid his $10k while you only need to pay $20 for his two months of work.</p><p>The same basic idea works for musicians except they're mixing both models. Playing live they will do some work, then get paid some money and are done with it (the venue acting like the company a construction worker might be employed by); selling albums they'll do just like the indie programmer.</p><p>The problem is, the indie programmer/album selling model needs to make people greedy. The indie programmer could, after 500 copies sold, just call it a day and hand out all further copies for free. Then again, there was risk. His new project, which he spent half a year on, may not sell the 1000 copies at $30 to pay his "salary", so he may need to get some more money from the first one to finance number three. Also, what about the 500 guys who paid $20 for a product that everyone else can get for free now. D'you think he'd be selling lots of copies after doing that a few times? If his software isn't extremely time-sensitive, most people would just wait for 500 morons to buy it so they can get it for free.</p><p>Let's not abolish copyrights or patents; instead make them shorter. Five, maybe ten years. Add property tax for intellectual property; setting their value by auction. That way, creators of copyable works can still make money while the public domain prospers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you hire a construction worker to build you some drywall , he 'll charge you by the hour .
He might spend eight hours at your construction site , do whatever it is construction workers do to drywall , then charge you , say , $ 30/hr for $ 240.If you buy some software from an independant programmer , he might have spent two months developing it .
Two months could be about 43 working days ( 60 / 7 * 5 ) .
At 8 hours per working day , that 's about 344 hours of work done .
If that programmer were to charge $ 30 per hour , he 'd get paid $ 10k for that program now .
Except the program probably is n't custom-built for you , but could be interesting to 500 others , too .
Thanks to this little detail , he 's getting paid his $ 10k while you only need to pay $ 20 for his two months of work.The same basic idea works for musicians except they 're mixing both models .
Playing live they will do some work , then get paid some money and are done with it ( the venue acting like the company a construction worker might be employed by ) ; selling albums they 'll do just like the indie programmer.The problem is , the indie programmer/album selling model needs to make people greedy .
The indie programmer could , after 500 copies sold , just call it a day and hand out all further copies for free .
Then again , there was risk .
His new project , which he spent half a year on , may not sell the 1000 copies at $ 30 to pay his " salary " , so he may need to get some more money from the first one to finance number three .
Also , what about the 500 guys who paid $ 20 for a product that everyone else can get for free now .
D'you think he 'd be selling lots of copies after doing that a few times ?
If his software is n't extremely time-sensitive , most people would just wait for 500 morons to buy it so they can get it for free.Let 's not abolish copyrights or patents ; instead make them shorter .
Five , maybe ten years .
Add property tax for intellectual property ; setting their value by auction .
That way , creators of copyable works can still make money while the public domain prospers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you hire a construction worker to build you some drywall, he'll charge you by the hour.
He might spend eight hours at your construction site, do whatever it is construction workers do to drywall, then charge you, say, $30/hr for $240.If you buy some software from an independant programmer, he might have spent two months developing it.
Two months could be about 43 working days (60 / 7 * 5).
At 8 hours per working day, that's about 344 hours of work done.
If that programmer were to charge $30 per hour, he'd get paid $10k for that program now.
Except the program probably isn't custom-built for you, but could be interesting to 500 others, too.
Thanks to this little detail, he's getting paid his $10k while you only need to pay $20 for his two months of work.The same basic idea works for musicians except they're mixing both models.
Playing live they will do some work, then get paid some money and are done with it (the venue acting like the company a construction worker might be employed by); selling albums they'll do just like the indie programmer.The problem is, the indie programmer/album selling model needs to make people greedy.
The indie programmer could, after 500 copies sold, just call it a day and hand out all further copies for free.
Then again, there was risk.
His new project, which he spent half a year on, may not sell the 1000 copies at $30 to pay his "salary", so he may need to get some more money from the first one to finance number three.
Also, what about the 500 guys who paid $20 for a product that everyone else can get for free now.
D'you think he'd be selling lots of copies after doing that a few times?
If his software isn't extremely time-sensitive, most people would just wait for 500 morons to buy it so they can get it for free.Let's not abolish copyrights or patents; instead make them shorter.
Five, maybe ten years.
Add property tax for intellectual property; setting their value by auction.
That way, creators of copyable works can still make money while the public domain prospers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383171</id>
	<title>Re:$2M?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245330180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should 'tamper' with then for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should 'tamper ' with then for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should 'tamper' with then for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385563</id>
	<title>Re:should they have JUST talked about money?</title>
	<author>pitterpatter</author>
	<datestamp>1245348720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IANAL.  I don't even want to be one.</p></div><p>Ha Ha.</p><p>. </p><p>Something about the way that line scans reminds me of Ogden Nash's little ditty about a purple cow.  I'd quote it, but am afraid of overloading my irony meter by getting sued for copyright infringement.</p><p>.</p><p>Well, OK. I got off my lazy butt and Googled it.  Maybe it wasn't Ogden Nash after all. Maybe it was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple\_Cow" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> this guy.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL .
I do n't even want to be one.Ha Ha.. Something about the way that line scans reminds me of Ogden Nash 's little ditty about a purple cow .
I 'd quote it , but am afraid of overloading my irony meter by getting sued for copyright infringement..Well , OK. I got off my lazy butt and Googled it .
Maybe it was n't Ogden Nash after all .
Maybe it was this guy .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL.
I don't even want to be one.Ha Ha.. Something about the way that line scans reminds me of Ogden Nash's little ditty about a purple cow.
I'd quote it, but am afraid of overloading my irony meter by getting sued for copyright infringement..Well, OK. I got off my lazy butt and Googled it.
Maybe it wasn't Ogden Nash after all.
Maybe it was  this guy.
[wikipedia.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385063</id>
	<title>She's nobody == she's screwed</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1245343080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My classics prof said the Inquisition only paradigm-shifted when the church started trying to torture and burn the kids of the nobles.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My classics prof said the Inquisition only paradigm-shifted when the church started trying to torture and burn the kids of the nobles .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>My classics prof said the Inquisition only paradigm-shifted when the church started trying to torture and burn the kids of the nobles.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382145</id>
	<title>She made it easy for them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it seems absolutely insane that an individual can be sued for so much for something so inconsequential, I have to say that she really made it easy to side with the RIAA.</p><p>If it weren't for her destruction of evidence and blatant perjury, the courts might be likely to have some sympathy for her.  Instead, she insulted the courts in a way that made Hans Reiser look well grounded.  It was obvious to anyone following the trial that she was the one sharing the files, and while she didn't need to volunteer that information necessarily, the deliberate obfuscation (returned hard drives, etc.) put her on the wrong side of the line.</p><p>I think this is a terrible precedent that was set, but really, I'm not surprised.  The RIAA, of course, will never see their money, but then Jammie Thomas will never own a material possession again, either, so I guess it's even.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it seems absolutely insane that an individual can be sued for so much for something so inconsequential , I have to say that she really made it easy to side with the RIAA.If it were n't for her destruction of evidence and blatant perjury , the courts might be likely to have some sympathy for her .
Instead , she insulted the courts in a way that made Hans Reiser look well grounded .
It was obvious to anyone following the trial that she was the one sharing the files , and while she did n't need to volunteer that information necessarily , the deliberate obfuscation ( returned hard drives , etc .
) put her on the wrong side of the line.I think this is a terrible precedent that was set , but really , I 'm not surprised .
The RIAA , of course , will never see their money , but then Jammie Thomas will never own a material possession again , either , so I guess it 's even .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it seems absolutely insane that an individual can be sued for so much for something so inconsequential, I have to say that she really made it easy to side with the RIAA.If it weren't for her destruction of evidence and blatant perjury, the courts might be likely to have some sympathy for her.
Instead, she insulted the courts in a way that made Hans Reiser look well grounded.
It was obvious to anyone following the trial that she was the one sharing the files, and while she didn't need to volunteer that information necessarily, the deliberate obfuscation (returned hard drives, etc.
) put her on the wrong side of the line.I think this is a terrible precedent that was set, but really, I'm not surprised.
The RIAA, of course, will never see their money, but then Jammie Thomas will never own a material possession again, either, so I guess it's even.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131</id>
	<title>Let's think about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to some wikipedia article the median American individual makes about $32,000/year (never mind the fact that women make $27K).  Multiply that by a career lifespan of 45 years and you get $1.4 million.<br> <br>

They have just judged that she should pay <i>1/3 more than a typical American will make in their life.</i> <br> <br>

What's wrong with this picture?  Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to some wikipedia article the median American individual makes about $ 32,000/year ( never mind the fact that women make $ 27K ) .
Multiply that by a career lifespan of 45 years and you get $ 1.4 million .
They have just judged that she should pay 1/3 more than a typical American will make in their life .
What 's wrong with this picture ?
Clearly she would have never spent that much on music.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to some wikipedia article the median American individual makes about $32,000/year (never mind the fact that women make $27K).
Multiply that by a career lifespan of 45 years and you get $1.4 million.
They have just judged that she should pay 1/3 more than a typical American will make in their life.
What's wrong with this picture?
Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28392919</id>
	<title>Flaw in the group-think I</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245439020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny how people that are so ready to believe that the RIAA can buy whatever laws it needs to support it's flawed business model can't conceive of the notion that it might also pay someone to "throw" a court case in order to set a favorable legal precedent. I'm pretty sure file sharers are a lot easier to bribe than congressmen. Unlike congress-critters there are a lot more of them, and most of them don't already have a lot of money. If I had a plan for profiting from copyright, I would make buying a patsy to argue badly and lose all the way up to the supreme court to set a legal precedent #2 on my list:<br> <br>
1. Buy draconian laws protecting my "intellectual property".<br>
2. People people to fight those new laws and lose badly, thus establishing legal precedent.<br>
3. Sue everyone.<br>
4. Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how people that are so ready to believe that the RIAA can buy whatever laws it needs to support it 's flawed business model ca n't conceive of the notion that it might also pay someone to " throw " a court case in order to set a favorable legal precedent .
I 'm pretty sure file sharers are a lot easier to bribe than congressmen .
Unlike congress-critters there are a lot more of them , and most of them do n't already have a lot of money .
If I had a plan for profiting from copyright , I would make buying a patsy to argue badly and lose all the way up to the supreme court to set a legal precedent # 2 on my list : 1 .
Buy draconian laws protecting my " intellectual property " .
2. People people to fight those new laws and lose badly , thus establishing legal precedent .
3. Sue everyone .
4. Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how people that are so ready to believe that the RIAA can buy whatever laws it needs to support it's flawed business model can't conceive of the notion that it might also pay someone to "throw" a court case in order to set a favorable legal precedent.
I'm pretty sure file sharers are a lot easier to bribe than congressmen.
Unlike congress-critters there are a lot more of them, and most of them don't already have a lot of money.
If I had a plan for profiting from copyright, I would make buying a patsy to argue badly and lose all the way up to the supreme court to set a legal precedent #2 on my list: 
1.
Buy draconian laws protecting my "intellectual property".
2. People people to fight those new laws and lose badly, thus establishing legal precedent.
3. Sue everyone.
4. Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383567</id>
	<title>What we learn is....</title>
	<author>speedlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1245332280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As instructed, my children know....swap hard drives of music.  Rip discs to your heart's content.  Don't upload to the internet, ever, ever, ever.

Then they told me that they could swap songs via Chat.  I went back to my Victrola and listened to some Perry Como.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As instructed , my children know....swap hard drives of music .
Rip discs to your heart 's content .
Do n't upload to the internet , ever , ever , ever .
Then they told me that they could swap songs via Chat .
I went back to my Victrola and listened to some Perry Como .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As instructed, my children know....swap hard drives of music.
Rip discs to your heart's content.
Don't upload to the internet, ever, ever, ever.
Then they told me that they could swap songs via Chat.
I went back to my Victrola and listened to some Perry Como.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383065</id>
	<title>Re:Let's think about this</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1245329880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's wrong with this picture? Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...</p></div><p>I don't at all agree with the $80k per song thing, of course.  But I have to object to your logic.  You're basically saying that the only damages an artist, record label, publisher, etc., can have from pirating - whether actual pirating or not - is loss of sales to the pirate.</p><p>Let's put it in software terms, it's easier.  I pirate a computer game.  I copy it for all my friends that, for purpose of argument, would have bought it.  I have 100 friends.  Damage to publisher of said computer game would be 101xCostOfGame (all).  Not 1xCostOfGame (mine).</p><p>Just because I wouldn't have spent that much doesn't mean I can't give it away enough to damage a publisher more than than what I would have spent.</p><p>Of course, we can argue all we want about who is really making money and that it's not fair to the artist either and boo on DRM and all that, but that's not the point of my post anyways<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with this picture ?
Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...I do n't at all agree with the $ 80k per song thing , of course .
But I have to object to your logic .
You 're basically saying that the only damages an artist , record label , publisher , etc. , can have from pirating - whether actual pirating or not - is loss of sales to the pirate.Let 's put it in software terms , it 's easier .
I pirate a computer game .
I copy it for all my friends that , for purpose of argument , would have bought it .
I have 100 friends .
Damage to publisher of said computer game would be 101xCostOfGame ( all ) .
Not 1xCostOfGame ( mine ) .Just because I would n't have spent that much does n't mean I ca n't give it away enough to damage a publisher more than than what I would have spent.Of course , we can argue all we want about who is really making money and that it 's not fair to the artist either and boo on DRM and all that , but that 's not the point of my post anyways : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with this picture?
Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...I don't at all agree with the $80k per song thing, of course.
But I have to object to your logic.
You're basically saying that the only damages an artist, record label, publisher, etc., can have from pirating - whether actual pirating or not - is loss of sales to the pirate.Let's put it in software terms, it's easier.
I pirate a computer game.
I copy it for all my friends that, for purpose of argument, would have bought it.
I have 100 friends.
Damage to publisher of said computer game would be 101xCostOfGame (all).
Not 1xCostOfGame (mine).Just because I wouldn't have spent that much doesn't mean I can't give it away enough to damage a publisher more than than what I would have spent.Of course, we can argue all we want about who is really making money and that it's not fair to the artist either and boo on DRM and all that, but that's not the point of my post anyways :) 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383281</id>
	<title>Re:right verdict, wrong result</title>
	<author>SpockLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1245330660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was hoping that if the result was "Guilty" that the jury would award a penny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was hoping that if the result was " Guilty " that the jury would award a penny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was hoping that if the result was "Guilty" that the jury would award a penny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383607</id>
	<title>Re:Something has gone seriously wrong when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245332520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The founding fathers disagreed with you:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Clause" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Unfortunately, that innocuous clause has been warped in the extreme in relatively recent years.  I am in favor of restoring it to its original condition.  Failing that, I am in favor of following the spirit of the original clause rather than the current guidelines.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Act\_of\_1790" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">If 14 years was good enough then, it's good enough now</a> [wikipedia.org].  I think this is a more reasonable approach than complete abandonment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The founding fathers disagreed with you : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries .
[ wikipedia.org ] Unfortunately , that innocuous clause has been warped in the extreme in relatively recent years .
I am in favor of restoring it to its original condition .
Failing that , I am in favor of following the spirit of the original clause rather than the current guidelines .
If 14 years was good enough then , it 's good enough now [ wikipedia.org ] .
I think this is a more reasonable approach than complete abandonment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The founding fathers disagreed with you:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
[wikipedia.org]Unfortunately, that innocuous clause has been warped in the extreme in relatively recent years.
I am in favor of restoring it to its original condition.
Failing that, I am in favor of following the spirit of the original clause rather than the current guidelines.
If 14 years was good enough then, it's good enough now [wikipedia.org].
I think this is a more reasonable approach than complete abandonment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382389</id>
	<title>Re:She made it easy for them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245327060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why?  She can just file for bankruptcy and start fresh.  There's no debtors prison anymore, you know?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
She can just file for bankruptcy and start fresh .
There 's no debtors prison anymore , you know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
She can just file for bankruptcy and start fresh.
There's no debtors prison anymore, you know?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389479</id>
	<title>i guess my hard drive is worth $2 billion</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1245424380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i have been downloading mp3s for free since 1999. i have never spent a single dime on music since 1999. i currently have about 20,000 songs. poorly sorted and duplicates (which actually is an argument for buying songs: good organization), but i guess that means my hard drive has a greater value than the GNP of some smaller countries</p><p>or maybe NOT, and this whole notion of economic damage is BULLSHIT. maybe its time to rethink your business model, you assholes, or better yet: GO OUT OF FUCKING BUSINESS. artists distribute directly to fans, making their money from concerts, advertising, etc. NO MIDDLE MAN NEEDED. NO MORE FUCKING DISTRIBUTORS. the motherfucking INTERNET is the distributor. you are an expensive redundant alternative. UNDERSTAND YOU ASSHOLES?</p><p>just DIE already you useless pieces of shit, your entire reason for existing HAS BEEN RENDERED EXTINCT</p><p>fucking deal with it and die already, like the blacksmiths, chimney sweeps, and manual scribes that have been rendered extinct due to technological progress as well</p><p>HISTORY HAS SPOKEN. YOUR BUSINESS MODEL IS DEAD. RETAIN SOME DIGNITY AND FUCKING DIE ALREADY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i have been downloading mp3s for free since 1999. i have never spent a single dime on music since 1999. i currently have about 20,000 songs .
poorly sorted and duplicates ( which actually is an argument for buying songs : good organization ) , but i guess that means my hard drive has a greater value than the GNP of some smaller countriesor maybe NOT , and this whole notion of economic damage is BULLSHIT .
maybe its time to rethink your business model , you assholes , or better yet : GO OUT OF FUCKING BUSINESS .
artists distribute directly to fans , making their money from concerts , advertising , etc .
NO MIDDLE MAN NEEDED .
NO MORE FUCKING DISTRIBUTORS .
the motherfucking INTERNET is the distributor .
you are an expensive redundant alternative .
UNDERSTAND YOU ASSHOLES ? just DIE already you useless pieces of shit , your entire reason for existing HAS BEEN RENDERED EXTINCTfucking deal with it and die already , like the blacksmiths , chimney sweeps , and manual scribes that have been rendered extinct due to technological progress as wellHISTORY HAS SPOKEN .
YOUR BUSINESS MODEL IS DEAD .
RETAIN SOME DIGNITY AND FUCKING DIE ALREADY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i have been downloading mp3s for free since 1999. i have never spent a single dime on music since 1999. i currently have about 20,000 songs.
poorly sorted and duplicates (which actually is an argument for buying songs: good organization), but i guess that means my hard drive has a greater value than the GNP of some smaller countriesor maybe NOT, and this whole notion of economic damage is BULLSHIT.
maybe its time to rethink your business model, you assholes, or better yet: GO OUT OF FUCKING BUSINESS.
artists distribute directly to fans, making their money from concerts, advertising, etc.
NO MIDDLE MAN NEEDED.
NO MORE FUCKING DISTRIBUTORS.
the motherfucking INTERNET is the distributor.
you are an expensive redundant alternative.
UNDERSTAND YOU ASSHOLES?just DIE already you useless pieces of shit, your entire reason for existing HAS BEEN RENDERED EXTINCTfucking deal with it and die already, like the blacksmiths, chimney sweeps, and manual scribes that have been rendered extinct due to technological progress as wellHISTORY HAS SPOKEN.
YOUR BUSINESS MODEL IS DEAD.
RETAIN SOME DIGNITY AND FUCKING DIE ALREADY</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389919</id>
	<title>Explain it to me again?</title>
	<author>pugugly</author>
	<datestamp>1245426120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How Scotus determined it's a Constitutional infraction for a person to receive punitive damages from a company in excess of 10 times actual damages, but thousands of dollars per song is hunky dory?</p><p>Oh, sorry, I forgot, those original meaning purists in the Supreme Court know that the original meaning of the Constitution was equal rights to the wealthy. God save us from jurists that complain about citing the logic in a foreign court case while citing Blackstone.</p><p>Pug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How Scotus determined it 's a Constitutional infraction for a person to receive punitive damages from a company in excess of 10 times actual damages , but thousands of dollars per song is hunky dory ? Oh , sorry , I forgot , those original meaning purists in the Supreme Court know that the original meaning of the Constitution was equal rights to the wealthy .
God save us from jurists that complain about citing the logic in a foreign court case while citing Blackstone.Pug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How Scotus determined it's a Constitutional infraction for a person to receive punitive damages from a company in excess of 10 times actual damages, but thousands of dollars per song is hunky dory?Oh, sorry, I forgot, those original meaning purists in the Supreme Court know that the original meaning of the Constitution was equal rights to the wealthy.
God save us from jurists that complain about citing the logic in a foreign court case while citing Blackstone.Pug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1245327480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where are they finding these jurors at? Where is the constitution on this one? I just recently served as a juror and I was told to look at the evidence and testimony presented then come to a conclusion based on this without bias. How could anyone come to a verdict like this given the evidence from both sides? Do these people not realize at any time they could be a victim just as the defendant, open Wi-Fi anyone? This has to be a blatant violation of her 8th Amendment rights, this is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.</p></div><p>On the bright side, sometimes when something so stupid happens, it forces a change in the law. And certainly, this verdict (a) will itself be set aside, and (b) gives added ammunition to the lawyers like myself who are arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are they finding these jurors at ?
Where is the constitution on this one ?
I just recently served as a juror and I was told to look at the evidence and testimony presented then come to a conclusion based on this without bias .
How could anyone come to a verdict like this given the evidence from both sides ?
Do these people not realize at any time they could be a victim just as the defendant , open Wi-Fi anyone ?
This has to be a blatant violation of her 8th Amendment rights , this is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.On the bright side , sometimes when something so stupid happens , it forces a change in the law .
And certainly , this verdict ( a ) will itself be set aside , and ( b ) gives added ammunition to the lawyers like myself who are arguing that the RIAA 's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are they finding these jurors at?
Where is the constitution on this one?
I just recently served as a juror and I was told to look at the evidence and testimony presented then come to a conclusion based on this without bias.
How could anyone come to a verdict like this given the evidence from both sides?
Do these people not realize at any time they could be a victim just as the defendant, open Wi-Fi anyone?
This has to be a blatant violation of her 8th Amendment rights, this is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.On the bright side, sometimes when something so stupid happens, it forces a change in the law.
And certainly, this verdict (a) will itself be set aside, and (b) gives added ammunition to the lawyers like myself who are arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382319</id>
	<title>24 songs is about 2 CDs?</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1245326640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's assume 24 songs is about 2 CDs worth of music. What would happen if I stole 2 CDs from Wal-Mart?  I'd get a slap on the wrist misdemeanor, and no more than a $1,000 fine. Probably I would get a whole lot less than that.<br> <br>

How is stealing that same content digitally somehow worse?  If anything I can think of a few ways it's <i>less</i> harmful than shoplifting...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's assume 24 songs is about 2 CDs worth of music .
What would happen if I stole 2 CDs from Wal-Mart ?
I 'd get a slap on the wrist misdemeanor , and no more than a $ 1,000 fine .
Probably I would get a whole lot less than that .
How is stealing that same content digitally somehow worse ?
If anything I can think of a few ways it 's less harmful than shoplifting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's assume 24 songs is about 2 CDs worth of music.
What would happen if I stole 2 CDs from Wal-Mart?
I'd get a slap on the wrist misdemeanor, and no more than a $1,000 fine.
Probably I would get a whole lot less than that.
How is stealing that same content digitally somehow worse?
If anything I can think of a few ways it's less harmful than shoplifting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382029</id>
	<title>Really?!?!?!?</title>
	<author>hurrikane</author>
	<datestamp>1245325380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely unbelievable....

F!@# it...why not go for a full million per track...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely unbelievable... .
F ! @ # it...why not go for a full million per track.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely unbelievable....
F!@# it...why not go for a full million per track...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387825</id>
	<title>Out of Control</title>
	<author>Andypcguy</author>
	<datestamp>1245416400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this had been me, I'd be out buying fetilizer and diesel fuel with what little money I had left over.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this had been me , I 'd be out buying fetilizer and diesel fuel with what little money I had left over .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this had been me, I'd be out buying fetilizer and diesel fuel with what little money I had left over.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383381</id>
	<title>Re:Eighth Amendment - One Line</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1245331260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is not a fine. It is compensatory and punative damages in a civil suit. There is an important difference.</p></div><p>I don't care if you call it a "Opposite-Day Gift Basket" -- if it's a punishment, and it's handed out on American soil, it must follow the 8th amendment or it must be ruled as unconstitutional.  It escapes me how you could consciensiously disagree based on such a ridiculously trivial symantic difference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not a fine .
It is compensatory and punative damages in a civil suit .
There is an important difference.I do n't care if you call it a " Opposite-Day Gift Basket " -- if it 's a punishment , and it 's handed out on American soil , it must follow the 8th amendment or it must be ruled as unconstitutional .
It escapes me how you could consciensiously disagree based on such a ridiculously trivial symantic difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not a fine.
It is compensatory and punative damages in a civil suit.
There is an important difference.I don't care if you call it a "Opposite-Day Gift Basket" -- if it's a punishment, and it's handed out on American soil, it must follow the 8th amendment or it must be ruled as unconstitutional.
It escapes me how you could consciensiously disagree based on such a ridiculously trivial symantic difference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381995</id>
	<title>For once I am simply</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>speechless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>speechless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>speechless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383519</id>
	<title>Re:Throwing on purpose</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245331920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws.</p></div><p>Then they should have exercised their right to nullification, and voted not guilty on the basis that the law is bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws.Then they should have exercised their right to nullification , and voted not guilty on the basis that the law is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws.Then they should have exercised their right to nullification, and voted not guilty on the basis that the law is bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383153</id>
	<title>Well Done!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245330120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well done, RIAA, and a hearty thank you to your minions at MediaSentry.</p><p>I now feel that I am REALLY getting my monies worth from my Internet connection. Just downloaded 1,000 songs in a collection "Best Rock Songs Ever".</p><p>Used Bittorrent, so I figure that, at 80,000 per song, I just copped 80 MILLION DOLLARS last month!That theft took just 5\% of my transfer cap, so I *could* go for 1.6 BILLION if I really got cracking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well done , RIAA , and a hearty thank you to your minions at MediaSentry.I now feel that I am REALLY getting my monies worth from my Internet connection .
Just downloaded 1,000 songs in a collection " Best Rock Songs Ever " .Used Bittorrent , so I figure that , at 80,000 per song , I just copped 80 MILLION DOLLARS last month ! That theft took just 5 \ % of my transfer cap , so I * could * go for 1.6 BILLION if I really got cracking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well done, RIAA, and a hearty thank you to your minions at MediaSentry.I now feel that I am REALLY getting my monies worth from my Internet connection.
Just downloaded 1,000 songs in a collection "Best Rock Songs Ever".Used Bittorrent, so I figure that, at 80,000 per song, I just copped 80 MILLION DOLLARS last month!That theft took just 5\% of my transfer cap, so I *could* go for 1.6 BILLION if I really got cracking!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382611</id>
	<title>Re:24 songs is about 2 CDs?</title>
	<author>googlesmith123</author>
	<datestamp>1245328200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't really about stealing the music, but distributing it. RIAA is saying that they lost 80 000 $ per song because of the illegal distribution. <br> <br>This is just a bit much considering that the music industry make about 50 cents per song (from iTunes), which would mean that they lost 80000/0.5 = 160 000 customers. Seeding a song of 3 mb to 160 000 people would take 185 days per song, or 12 years for the entire collection if she seeded at the usual rate of 30 KB/s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't really about stealing the music , but distributing it .
RIAA is saying that they lost 80 000 $ per song because of the illegal distribution .
This is just a bit much considering that the music industry make about 50 cents per song ( from iTunes ) , which would mean that they lost 80000/0.5 = 160 000 customers .
Seeding a song of 3 mb to 160 000 people would take 185 days per song , or 12 years for the entire collection if she seeded at the usual rate of 30 KB/s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't really about stealing the music, but distributing it.
RIAA is saying that they lost 80 000 $ per song because of the illegal distribution.
This is just a bit much considering that the music industry make about 50 cents per song (from iTunes), which would mean that they lost 80000/0.5 = 160 000 customers.
Seeding a song of 3 mb to 160 000 people would take 185 days per song, or 12 years for the entire collection if she seeded at the usual rate of 30 KB/s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382567</id>
	<title>Eighth Amendment - One Line</title>
	<author>Bryan Gividen</author>
	<datestamp>1245327960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." One line says it all. I can't see this standing when it is appealed. Twenty-four music files being available for download, whether it's wrong or not, does not warrant what is effectually a life-sentence worth of money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Excessive bail shall not be required , nor excessive fines imposed , nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted .
" One line says it all .
I ca n't see this standing when it is appealed .
Twenty-four music files being available for download , whether it 's wrong or not , does not warrant what is effectually a life-sentence worth of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
" One line says it all.
I can't see this standing when it is appealed.
Twenty-four music files being available for download, whether it's wrong or not, does not warrant what is effectually a life-sentence worth of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390929</id>
	<title>Re:$80,000 is awesome</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245430500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, you've just given me an idea...<p>
I write a crappy album and you torrent it.  I get a judgement against you for $2m.  You agree to pay in instalments of, say, $100K/year.  Every year, you default.  I choose not to pursue you for it, and simply write it off as a loss.  As long as my income is under $100K/year, I don't pay income tax for the next 20 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you 've just given me an idea.. . I write a crappy album and you torrent it .
I get a judgement against you for $ 2m .
You agree to pay in instalments of , say , $ 100K/year .
Every year , you default .
I choose not to pursue you for it , and simply write it off as a loss .
As long as my income is under $ 100K/year , I do n't pay income tax for the next 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you've just given me an idea...
I write a crappy album and you torrent it.
I get a judgement against you for $2m.
You agree to pay in instalments of, say, $100K/year.
Every year, you default.
I choose not to pursue you for it, and simply write it off as a loss.
As long as my income is under $100K/year, I don't pay income tax for the next 20 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382221</id>
	<title>Re:Throwing on purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245326280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm voting Civil Disobedience on this one as well.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 80,000 per song is excessive.  After the first case was tossed, the judge even made a point of how ridiculous the first verdict's damages were and begged congress to do something about it.  The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws.  Stealing music is wrong, but our copyright laws that set the damages are way out of whack!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm voting Civil Disobedience on this one as well .
It does n't take a genius to figure out that 80,000 per song is excessive .
After the first case was tossed , the judge even made a point of how ridiculous the first verdict 's damages were and begged congress to do something about it .
The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws .
Stealing music is wrong , but our copyright laws that set the damages are way out of whack !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm voting Civil Disobedience on this one as well.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 80,000 per song is excessive.
After the first case was tossed, the judge even made a point of how ridiculous the first verdict's damages were and begged congress to do something about it.
The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws.
Stealing music is wrong, but our copyright laws that set the damages are way out of whack!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383951</id>
	<title>Soap, Ballot, Jury...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245334500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.<br>Use boxes in that order.</p><p>Well, so much for the Jury box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soap , Ballot , Jury , Ammo.Use boxes in that order.Well , so much for the Jury box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.Use boxes in that order.Well, so much for the Jury box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139</id>
	<title>Something has gone seriously wrong when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any goon sitting at a computer can cause millions of dollars in damages at the drop of a hat. The problem is that people have assigned value to information. Personally, while this may seem radical, I personally believe that distributing information should be entirely legal in any situation except where someone is personally threatened (say, giving out SSNs and Bank Account numbers.)
This would instantly destroy a lot of business, but the matter of the fact is that these businesses should have never existed in the first place. If companies could charge people for using mathematical constants or specific words, we would be in the same situation. It is inheritly wrong to charge people for information. Piracy is not theft, it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any goon sitting at a computer can cause millions of dollars in damages at the drop of a hat .
The problem is that people have assigned value to information .
Personally , while this may seem radical , I personally believe that distributing information should be entirely legal in any situation except where someone is personally threatened ( say , giving out SSNs and Bank Account numbers .
) This would instantly destroy a lot of business , but the matter of the fact is that these businesses should have never existed in the first place .
If companies could charge people for using mathematical constants or specific words , we would be in the same situation .
It is inheritly wrong to charge people for information .
Piracy is not theft , it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any goon sitting at a computer can cause millions of dollars in damages at the drop of a hat.
The problem is that people have assigned value to information.
Personally, while this may seem radical, I personally believe that distributing information should be entirely legal in any situation except where someone is personally threatened (say, giving out SSNs and Bank Account numbers.
)
This would instantly destroy a lot of business, but the matter of the fact is that these businesses should have never existed in the first place.
If companies could charge people for using mathematical constants or specific words, we would be in the same situation.
It is inheritly wrong to charge people for information.
Piracy is not theft, it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383023</id>
	<title>should they have JUST talked about money?</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1245329760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL.  I don't even want to be one.</p><p>but I wonder - suppose they get the 'guilty' stuff RIGHT out of the way.  don't even deny that.  you get some goodwill that way (apparently) and then just TALK to the jury about what is fair punishment.</p><p>let 'fair punishment' be on trail.  that's the elephant in the room.</p><p>now, perhaps this IS the way to get that to be the foremost issue - by making it so high even an extremely well-off person could not, in their lifetime, pay this 'fine'.</p><p>but the fact that the jury gave this kind of figure away means, to me, that either they didn't realize what they were really assigning (hard to believe) or that they were simply correct and somehow paid-off.</p><p>it does not pass the smell test.</p><p>I hope this is not the last word.  else, well, time for an iranian style revolt right here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL .
I do n't even want to be one.but I wonder - suppose they get the 'guilty ' stuff RIGHT out of the way .
do n't even deny that .
you get some goodwill that way ( apparently ) and then just TALK to the jury about what is fair punishment.let 'fair punishment ' be on trail .
that 's the elephant in the room.now , perhaps this IS the way to get that to be the foremost issue - by making it so high even an extremely well-off person could not , in their lifetime , pay this 'fine'.but the fact that the jury gave this kind of figure away means , to me , that either they did n't realize what they were really assigning ( hard to believe ) or that they were simply correct and somehow paid-off.it does not pass the smell test.I hope this is not the last word .
else , well , time for an iranian style revolt right here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL.
I don't even want to be one.but I wonder - suppose they get the 'guilty' stuff RIGHT out of the way.
don't even deny that.
you get some goodwill that way (apparently) and then just TALK to the jury about what is fair punishment.let 'fair punishment' be on trail.
that's the elephant in the room.now, perhaps this IS the way to get that to be the foremost issue - by making it so high even an extremely well-off person could not, in their lifetime, pay this 'fine'.but the fact that the jury gave this kind of figure away means, to me, that either they didn't realize what they were really assigning (hard to believe) or that they were simply correct and somehow paid-off.it does not pass the smell test.I hope this is not the last word.
else, well, time for an iranian style revolt right here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28386513</id>
	<title>What was the JUDGE thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245444120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I want to know, NYCL, is why the judge didn't bar the RIAA witness from testifying about all that "evidence" that was collected with no safeguards, no peer review, and no anything?  Why, from what I've heard, was only the defendant's expert witness barred from testifying about things?  Please tell me they weren't allowed to make a mockery of the business records exemption?  I've heard about how badly it's been misused in the past and it somehow seems like the most likely scenario, even though I find it hard to imagine why it would be allowed when their business consists of preparing documents for use in later litigation, but I've heard of it abused that way in the past...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know , NYCL , is why the judge did n't bar the RIAA witness from testifying about all that " evidence " that was collected with no safeguards , no peer review , and no anything ?
Why , from what I 've heard , was only the defendant 's expert witness barred from testifying about things ?
Please tell me they were n't allowed to make a mockery of the business records exemption ?
I 've heard about how badly it 's been misused in the past and it somehow seems like the most likely scenario , even though I find it hard to imagine why it would be allowed when their business consists of preparing documents for use in later litigation , but I 've heard of it abused that way in the past.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I want to know, NYCL, is why the judge didn't bar the RIAA witness from testifying about all that "evidence" that was collected with no safeguards, no peer review, and no anything?
Why, from what I've heard, was only the defendant's expert witness barred from testifying about things?
Please tell me they weren't allowed to make a mockery of the business records exemption?
I've heard about how badly it's been misused in the past and it somehow seems like the most likely scenario, even though I find it hard to imagine why it would be allowed when their business consists of preparing documents for use in later litigation, but I've heard of it abused that way in the past...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383125</id>
	<title>Seriously??</title>
	<author>Guru80</author>
	<datestamp>1245330060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you even find 12 average people who can justify in their little brains that nearly $2 million is reasonable for 24 freaking songs??  Not much surprises me anymore but come on! WTF????  Most likely just another case of selecting a jury with a bunch of people dead set from the start on making the defendant pay and pay as much as possible regardless of guilt or innocence.  The verdict was probably in before the opening statement was made.  The RIAA's dream jury</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you even find 12 average people who can justify in their little brains that nearly $ 2 million is reasonable for 24 freaking songs ? ?
Not much surprises me anymore but come on !
WTF ? ? ? ? Most likely just another case of selecting a jury with a bunch of people dead set from the start on making the defendant pay and pay as much as possible regardless of guilt or innocence .
The verdict was probably in before the opening statement was made .
The RIAA 's dream jury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you even find 12 average people who can justify in their little brains that nearly $2 million is reasonable for 24 freaking songs??
Not much surprises me anymore but come on!
WTF????  Most likely just another case of selecting a jury with a bunch of people dead set from the start on making the defendant pay and pay as much as possible regardless of guilt or innocence.
The verdict was probably in before the opening statement was made.
The RIAA's dream jury</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390411</id>
	<title>Legal Recourse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always wondered... Provided that the conviction is not a Felony or some criminal conviction (for which their are restrictions concerning financial penalties), couldn't the defendant file for personal bankruptcy to avoid the judgement? In her particular case there may be hinderances like owning her own home, but isn't the bascic premise sound?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered... Provided that the conviction is not a Felony or some criminal conviction ( for which their are restrictions concerning financial penalties ) , could n't the defendant file for personal bankruptcy to avoid the judgement ?
In her particular case there may be hinderances like owning her own home , but is n't the bascic premise sound ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered... Provided that the conviction is not a Felony or some criminal conviction (for which their are restrictions concerning financial penalties), couldn't the defendant file for personal bankruptcy to avoid the judgement?
In her particular case there may be hinderances like owning her own home, but isn't the bascic premise sound?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045</id>
	<title>Throwing on purpose</title>
	<author>vivaoporto</author>
	<datestamp>1245325440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks like classic civil disobedience. Break am unjust law, get punished in the maximum extent possible and appeal at a superior court, all the way to the Supreme.<br> <br>

That, or massive incompetence of her defense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like classic civil disobedience .
Break am unjust law , get punished in the maximum extent possible and appeal at a superior court , all the way to the Supreme .
That , or massive incompetence of her defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like classic civil disobedience.
Break am unjust law, get punished in the maximum extent possible and appeal at a superior court, all the way to the Supreme.
That, or massive incompetence of her defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382323</id>
	<title>Re:Let's think about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245326700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the money that she would have spent, it will be more from the money that others would have spent rather than downloading from her. Not that I think many of those who were downloading from her would have bought if she hadn't been sharing, but that's the only possible way the fine makes sense.</p><p>Posting anon because I've moderated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the money that she would have spent , it will be more from the money that others would have spent rather than downloading from her .
Not that I think many of those who were downloading from her would have bought if she had n't been sharing , but that 's the only possible way the fine makes sense.Posting anon because I 've moderated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the money that she would have spent, it will be more from the money that others would have spent rather than downloading from her.
Not that I think many of those who were downloading from her would have bought if she hadn't been sharing, but that's the only possible way the fine makes sense.Posting anon because I've moderated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382493</id>
	<title>Re:Can they do anything else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245327660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for Jammie to make a disk image of a TB drive FULL of mp3's and make sure as many people as possible could get access to it.  Spite is the last refuge for misappropriated justice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Jammie to make a disk image of a TB drive FULL of mp3 's and make sure as many people as possible could get access to it .
Spite is the last refuge for misappropriated justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Jammie to make a disk image of a TB drive FULL of mp3's and make sure as many people as possible could get access to it.
Spite is the last refuge for misappropriated justice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383901</id>
	<title>I hope all involved in the verdict dies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245334140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I'm angry or anything, but I think the law is already unfair, the ruling unjust, and for what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm angry or anything , but I think the law is already unfair , the ruling unjust , and for what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm angry or anything, but I think the law is already unfair, the ruling unjust, and for what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384367</id>
	<title>Re: Shift in Counsel</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1245337260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ray,</p><p>Weren't we all hoping for the best when her counsel changed and she got a "young bright newcomer"?</p><p>Typical article among many:</p><p><a href="http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/05/jammie-thomas-gets-new-counsel-kiwi.html?showComment=1242855147496" title="blogspot.com">http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/05/jammie-thomas-gets-new-counsel-kiwi.html?showComment=1242855147496</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>But given the apparently uneven performance of her counsel, what now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray,Were n't we all hoping for the best when her counsel changed and she got a " young bright newcomer " ? Typical article among many : http : //copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/05/jammie-thomas-gets-new-counsel-kiwi.html ? showComment = 1242855147496 [ blogspot.com ] But given the apparently uneven performance of her counsel , what now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ray,Weren't we all hoping for the best when her counsel changed and she got a "young bright newcomer"?Typical article among many:http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/05/jammie-thomas-gets-new-counsel-kiwi.html?showComment=1242855147496 [blogspot.com]But given the apparently uneven performance of her counsel, what now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384275</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>jvillain</author>
	<datestamp>1245336540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you think it is time to face up to the fact that this is what the US Government wants, this is what big media wants, it is the rule of the land and this is the way it is going to be in the US. This is the way it is going to be and telling people other wise is just doing them a disservice. If you listen to all the politicians down there it is obvious that if any judge gets in the way of these types of punishments there will be a new law passed same day to close any possible defence. Face up to the facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you think it is time to face up to the fact that this is what the US Government wants , this is what big media wants , it is the rule of the land and this is the way it is going to be in the US .
This is the way it is going to be and telling people other wise is just doing them a disservice .
If you listen to all the politicians down there it is obvious that if any judge gets in the way of these types of punishments there will be a new law passed same day to close any possible defence .
Face up to the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you think it is time to face up to the fact that this is what the US Government wants, this is what big media wants, it is the rule of the land and this is the way it is going to be in the US.
This is the way it is going to be and telling people other wise is just doing them a disservice.
If you listen to all the politicians down there it is obvious that if any judge gets in the way of these types of punishments there will be a new law passed same day to close any possible defence.
Face up to the facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383663</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>d\_jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1245332880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) at all</p></div><p>To my understanding, statutory damages absolutely apply - in fact, they're more or less tailor made for these situations, given it is more or less impossible (without wiretapping, at least) to know how many times a defendant has uploaded songs (and thus, impossible to know actual damages).</p><p>But then again, I'm not a lawyer.. I use common sense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages ( as opposed to actual damages ) at allTo my understanding , statutory damages absolutely apply - in fact , they 're more or less tailor made for these situations , given it is more or less impossible ( without wiretapping , at least ) to know how many times a defendant has uploaded songs ( and thus , impossible to know actual damages ) .But then again , I 'm not a lawyer.. I use common sense : - &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) at allTo my understanding, statutory damages absolutely apply - in fact, they're more or less tailor made for these situations, given it is more or less impossible (without wiretapping, at least) to know how many times a defendant has uploaded songs (and thus, impossible to know actual damages).But then again, I'm not a lawyer.. I use common sense :-&gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384203</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously??</title>
	<author>stinerman</author>
	<datestamp>1245336120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, the some of the original jury wanted to award the RIAA the statutory maximum of $150,000 per song ($3.6 million).</p><p>Unless the jury decided to nullify, I believe that the very least they could have awarded the RIAA was $750 per song ($18,000).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , the some of the original jury wanted to award the RIAA the statutory maximum of $ 150,000 per song ( $ 3.6 million ) .Unless the jury decided to nullify , I believe that the very least they could have awarded the RIAA was $ 750 per song ( $ 18,000 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, the some of the original jury wanted to award the RIAA the statutory maximum of $150,000 per song ($3.6 million).Unless the jury decided to nullify, I believe that the very least they could have awarded the RIAA was $750 per song ($18,000).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389873</id>
	<title>Re:Throwing on purpose</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1245425940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Throw my vote this way as well... that was my first thought that it was a strategy to make the damages more extreme than necessary, so extreme that the next jury in the appeal process would be suitably offended by it and want to correct the problem.</p><p>This will get appealed and the next jury is likely to go really low (say $0.99 per song like iTunes) on the damages, which will be appealed by the RIAA so it goes up the appeal chain again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Throw my vote this way as well... that was my first thought that it was a strategy to make the damages more extreme than necessary , so extreme that the next jury in the appeal process would be suitably offended by it and want to correct the problem.This will get appealed and the next jury is likely to go really low ( say $ 0.99 per song like iTunes ) on the damages , which will be appealed by the RIAA so it goes up the appeal chain again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throw my vote this way as well... that was my first thought that it was a strategy to make the damages more extreme than necessary, so extreme that the next jury in the appeal process would be suitably offended by it and want to correct the problem.This will get appealed and the next jury is likely to go really low (say $0.99 per song like iTunes) on the damages, which will be appealed by the RIAA so it goes up the appeal chain again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384183</id>
	<title>Re:Trial 3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245335940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>-1 Dumbass?</htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 Dumbass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 Dumbass?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388509</id>
	<title>Re:Something has gone seriously wrong when...</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1245420240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is inheritly [sic] wrong to charge people for information. Piracy is not theft, it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.</p></div><p>Piracy is theft, copyright infringement is not.</p><p>It may be wrong to charge people for information within your moral code. Do you also consider it wrong to reward people for information? Copyright law, like other  intellectual property law (I'm thinking patents), cuts both ways. There's a monopoly for the creator/inventor (or their agents!) in return the public get to have the creation/invention at some future date.</p><p>This scheme is stimulating. People won't invest in multimillion pound movies without getting something back. With no copyright law these movies wouldn't be made. Smaller creative activities would continue, I made and gave away a tutorial on Inkscape the other day licensed BY-NC-SA 3.0,uk. Without any copyright I don't have the moral right to be named as the author of that work (the BY part) nor to specify that it can't be used commercially without recompensing me; nor indeed to stop someone maliciously editing it and leaving me attributed.</p><p>There is much wrong with IP, the balance of power has shifted from the public (or the Crown/State as it was originally) to the corporations (who control the creators) resulting in the public being deprived of the established rights - a breach of contract.</p><p>I don't think that anarchy is the answer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is inheritly [ sic ] wrong to charge people for information .
Piracy is not theft , it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.Piracy is theft , copyright infringement is not.It may be wrong to charge people for information within your moral code .
Do you also consider it wrong to reward people for information ?
Copyright law , like other intellectual property law ( I 'm thinking patents ) , cuts both ways .
There 's a monopoly for the creator/inventor ( or their agents !
) in return the public get to have the creation/invention at some future date.This scheme is stimulating .
People wo n't invest in multimillion pound movies without getting something back .
With no copyright law these movies would n't be made .
Smaller creative activities would continue , I made and gave away a tutorial on Inkscape the other day licensed BY-NC-SA 3.0,uk .
Without any copyright I do n't have the moral right to be named as the author of that work ( the BY part ) nor to specify that it ca n't be used commercially without recompensing me ; nor indeed to stop someone maliciously editing it and leaving me attributed.There is much wrong with IP , the balance of power has shifted from the public ( or the Crown/State as it was originally ) to the corporations ( who control the creators ) resulting in the public being deprived of the established rights - a breach of contract.I do n't think that anarchy is the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is inheritly [sic] wrong to charge people for information.
Piracy is not theft, it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.Piracy is theft, copyright infringement is not.It may be wrong to charge people for information within your moral code.
Do you also consider it wrong to reward people for information?
Copyright law, like other  intellectual property law (I'm thinking patents), cuts both ways.
There's a monopoly for the creator/inventor (or their agents!
) in return the public get to have the creation/invention at some future date.This scheme is stimulating.
People won't invest in multimillion pound movies without getting something back.
With no copyright law these movies wouldn't be made.
Smaller creative activities would continue, I made and gave away a tutorial on Inkscape the other day licensed BY-NC-SA 3.0,uk.
Without any copyright I don't have the moral right to be named as the author of that work (the BY part) nor to specify that it can't be used commercially without recompensing me; nor indeed to stop someone maliciously editing it and leaving me attributed.There is much wrong with IP, the balance of power has shifted from the public (or the Crown/State as it was originally) to the corporations (who control the creators) resulting in the public being deprived of the established rights - a breach of contract.I don't think that anarchy is the answer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382779</id>
	<title>Reason for absurd judgement?</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1245328860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There has been a time where in Britain it wouldn't be surprising if in a similar case the defendant would have been ordered to pay &pound;2,000,000, payable at one pound a month for the rest of her life, and plaintiff pays all the cost. <br> <br>
What I would really like to know, was the jury made up of people who actually think that almost two million dollars for copying two CDs worth of music is correct, or did they intend to set a judgement that just \_has\_ to be overturned?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There has been a time where in Britain it would n't be surprising if in a similar case the defendant would have been ordered to pay   2,000,000 , payable at one pound a month for the rest of her life , and plaintiff pays all the cost .
What I would really like to know , was the jury made up of people who actually think that almost two million dollars for copying two CDs worth of music is correct , or did they intend to set a judgement that just \ _has \ _ to be overturned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has been a time where in Britain it wouldn't be surprising if in a similar case the defendant would have been ordered to pay £2,000,000, payable at one pound a month for the rest of her life, and plaintiff pays all the cost.
What I would really like to know, was the jury made up of people who actually think that almost two million dollars for copying two CDs worth of music is correct, or did they intend to set a judgement that just \_has\_ to be overturned?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents. In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double.

Really, how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA's statements? The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness'. I'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases. The Chewbacca defense might even stand.</p></div><p>While it's difficult to second guess the decisions a trial lawyer makes, it is hard for me to understand why defendant's lawyers gave the plaintiffs a free pass on the MediaSentry/Jacobson nonsense, and didn't even call their own expert. It is likewise difficult to understand why the jurors weren't instructed as to what the plaintiffs had to prove in order to establish a "distribution", or why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) at all, there having been no questions or instructions relating to the essential elements of that.<br> <br>But I should point out that this outsized verdict (a) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside, and (b) cripples the RIAA's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attack. Had the jury awarded $50,000 or $60,000 the RIAA would have more of a chance to hold on to the verdict, and would have had a less embarrassing precedent to try to defend in other cases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents .
In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double .
Really , how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA 's statements ?
The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness' .
I 'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases .
The Chewbacca defense might even stand.While it 's difficult to second guess the decisions a trial lawyer makes , it is hard for me to understand why defendant 's lawyers gave the plaintiffs a free pass on the MediaSentry/Jacobson nonsense , and did n't even call their own expert .
It is likewise difficult to understand why the jurors were n't instructed as to what the plaintiffs had to prove in order to establish a " distribution " , or why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages ( as opposed to actual damages ) at all , there having been no questions or instructions relating to the essential elements of that .
But I should point out that this outsized verdict ( a ) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside , and ( b ) cripples the RIAA 's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attack .
Had the jury awarded $ 50,000 or $ 60,000 the RIAA would have more of a chance to hold on to the verdict , and would have had a less embarrassing precedent to try to defend in other cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents.
In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double.
Really, how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA's statements?
The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness'.
I'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases.
The Chewbacca defense might even stand.While it's difficult to second guess the decisions a trial lawyer makes, it is hard for me to understand why defendant's lawyers gave the plaintiffs a free pass on the MediaSentry/Jacobson nonsense, and didn't even call their own expert.
It is likewise difficult to understand why the jurors weren't instructed as to what the plaintiffs had to prove in order to establish a "distribution", or why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) at all, there having been no questions or instructions relating to the essential elements of that.
But I should point out that this outsized verdict (a) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside, and (b) cripples the RIAA's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attack.
Had the jury awarded $50,000 or $60,000 the RIAA would have more of a chance to hold on to the verdict, and would have had a less embarrassing precedent to try to defend in other cases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28386403</id>
	<title>so in short</title>
	<author>x4r</author>
	<datestamp>1245443100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>space aliens invade us tiny, blue, Earth<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/
and humanity days are numbered.
duck and cover, brotherzs and sisters !
those freaky aliens in courts are gonna eat us all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/ they drink you blood and eat you brain(according to rumors, they prefer cook it in microwave owen)
and no salvation, upon BatMan, Elvis or Connor/Conan return !!</htmltext>
<tokenext>space aliens invade us tiny , blue , Earth : / and humanity days are numbered .
duck and cover , brotherzs and sisters !
those freaky aliens in courts are gon na eat us all : / they drink you blood and eat you brain ( according to rumors , they prefer cook it in microwave owen ) and no salvation , upon BatMan , Elvis or Connor/Conan return !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>space aliens invade us tiny, blue, Earth :/
and humanity days are numbered.
duck and cover, brotherzs and sisters !
those freaky aliens in courts are gonna eat us all :/ they drink you blood and eat you brain(according to rumors, they prefer cook it in microwave owen)
and no salvation, upon BatMan, Elvis or Connor/Conan return !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385335</id>
	<title>On her part?</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1245346740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then she's equally as crazy. I'm sorry, as much as I'd love to "stick it to big media" and/or fight against the RIAA, I'm not willing to settle for blowing a case in order to incur potentially life-ruining expenses. While it's just my personal opinion, it goes beyond "gutsy" to the realm of "crazy"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then she 's equally as crazy .
I 'm sorry , as much as I 'd love to " stick it to big media " and/or fight against the RIAA , I 'm not willing to settle for blowing a case in order to incur potentially life-ruining expenses .
While it 's just my personal opinion , it goes beyond " gutsy " to the realm of " crazy "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then she's equally as crazy.
I'm sorry, as much as I'd love to "stick it to big media" and/or fight against the RIAA, I'm not willing to settle for blowing a case in order to incur potentially life-ruining expenses.
While it's just my personal opinion, it goes beyond "gutsy" to the realm of "crazy"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382099</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>joshtheitguy</author>
	<datestamp>1245325620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where are they finding these jurors at? Where is the constitution on this one? I just recently served as a juror and I was told to look at the evidence and testimony presented then come to a conclusion based on this without bias. How could anyone come to a verdict like this given the evidence from both sides? Do these people not realize at any time they could be a victim just as the defendant, open Wi-Fi anyone? This has to be a blatant violation of her 8th Amendment rights, this is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are they finding these jurors at ?
Where is the constitution on this one ?
I just recently served as a juror and I was told to look at the evidence and testimony presented then come to a conclusion based on this without bias .
How could anyone come to a verdict like this given the evidence from both sides ?
Do these people not realize at any time they could be a victim just as the defendant , open Wi-Fi anyone ?
This has to be a blatant violation of her 8th Amendment rights , this is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are they finding these jurors at?
Where is the constitution on this one?
I just recently served as a juror and I was told to look at the evidence and testimony presented then come to a conclusion based on this without bias.
How could anyone come to a verdict like this given the evidence from both sides?
Do these people not realize at any time they could be a victim just as the defendant, open Wi-Fi anyone?
This has to be a blatant violation of her 8th Amendment rights, this is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384133</id>
	<title>Re:24 songs is about 2 CDs?</title>
	<author>stinerman</author>
	<datestamp>1245335700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ostensibly, the statutory amount is to discourage infringement.  This is just like parking tickets and littering.  However, we'd rightfully be up in arms if we got a $100,000 ticket for 62/55 or a few million dollar fine for throwing a cigarette out the window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ostensibly , the statutory amount is to discourage infringement .
This is just like parking tickets and littering .
However , we 'd rightfully be up in arms if we got a $ 100,000 ticket for 62/55 or a few million dollar fine for throwing a cigarette out the window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ostensibly, the statutory amount is to discourage infringement.
This is just like parking tickets and littering.
However, we'd rightfully be up in arms if we got a $100,000 ticket for 62/55 or a few million dollar fine for throwing a cigarette out the window.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383497</id>
	<title>Re:Eighth Amendment - One Line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245331800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they are not spelled at all the same.  Mod parent doubleplus insightful!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they are not spelled at all the same .
Mod parent doubleplus insightful !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they are not spelled at all the same.
Mod parent doubleplus insightful!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382193</id>
	<title>Trial 3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245326100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pinky in mouth... We award the plaintiffs one <b>Trillion dollars!</b> <p> <b>

Not actually too far off.  A case could be made for $250 million dollars (one quarter trillion dollars), based on 1,700 songs available, and $150,000 damages per song.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pinky in mouth... We award the plaintiffs one Trillion dollars !
Not actually too far off .
A case could be made for $ 250 million dollars ( one quarter trillion dollars ) , based on 1,700 songs available , and $ 150,000 damages per song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pinky in mouth... We award the plaintiffs one Trillion dollars!
Not actually too far off.
A case could be made for $250 million dollars (one quarter trillion dollars), based on 1,700 songs available, and $150,000 damages per song.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382627</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1245328260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I should point out that this outsized verdict (a) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside, and (b) cripples the RIAA's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attack. Had the jury awarded $50,000 or $60,000 the RIAA would have more of a chance to hold on to the verdict, and would have had a less embarrassing precedent to try to defend in other cases.</p></div><p>Considering their legal performance so far, I'm far from convinced they won't fumble in the supreme court too. That would be real nasty, if they've treated the subject once they're not likely to do so again for a long time. Unless the lawyer purposely bent over in this court to reach the supreme court but I'd call that a haphazard strategy, then again she's probably bankrupt anyway so they might as well bet it all. I think you're seriously underestimating their balls, I'm sure they'll argue this verdict is exactly how it should be. You try to spin it like a bad thing but at least on the short term it's not. Share 2 CDs of music, pay $2 million dollars. It's enough to instantly bankrupt most people, it's either settle or risk screwing up the rest of your life. It might turn the tide even more against them, but it makes it no better for those crushed underfoot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I should point out that this outsized verdict ( a ) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside , and ( b ) cripples the RIAA 's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attack .
Had the jury awarded $ 50,000 or $ 60,000 the RIAA would have more of a chance to hold on to the verdict , and would have had a less embarrassing precedent to try to defend in other cases.Considering their legal performance so far , I 'm far from convinced they wo n't fumble in the supreme court too .
That would be real nasty , if they 've treated the subject once they 're not likely to do so again for a long time .
Unless the lawyer purposely bent over in this court to reach the supreme court but I 'd call that a haphazard strategy , then again she 's probably bankrupt anyway so they might as well bet it all .
I think you 're seriously underestimating their balls , I 'm sure they 'll argue this verdict is exactly how it should be .
You try to spin it like a bad thing but at least on the short term it 's not .
Share 2 CDs of music , pay $ 2 million dollars .
It 's enough to instantly bankrupt most people , it 's either settle or risk screwing up the rest of your life .
It might turn the tide even more against them , but it makes it no better for those crushed underfoot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I should point out that this outsized verdict (a) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside, and (b) cripples the RIAA's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attack.
Had the jury awarded $50,000 or $60,000 the RIAA would have more of a chance to hold on to the verdict, and would have had a less embarrassing precedent to try to defend in other cases.Considering their legal performance so far, I'm far from convinced they won't fumble in the supreme court too.
That would be real nasty, if they've treated the subject once they're not likely to do so again for a long time.
Unless the lawyer purposely bent over in this court to reach the supreme court but I'd call that a haphazard strategy, then again she's probably bankrupt anyway so they might as well bet it all.
I think you're seriously underestimating their balls, I'm sure they'll argue this verdict is exactly how it should be.
You try to spin it like a bad thing but at least on the short term it's not.
Share 2 CDs of music, pay $2 million dollars.
It's enough to instantly bankrupt most people, it's either settle or risk screwing up the rest of your life.
It might turn the tide even more against them, but it makes it no better for those crushed underfoot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387357</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1245411060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>have you looked at the evidence?</p><p>"A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury, which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset. The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port. When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement (and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators), her "tereastarr" username, and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years, jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>have you looked at the evidence ?
" A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury , which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset .
The evidence clearly pointed to her machine , even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer 's Ethernet port .
When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement ( and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators ) , her " tereastarr " username , and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years , jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have you looked at the evidence?
"A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury, which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset.
The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port.
When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement (and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators), her "tereastarr" username, and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years, jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385421</id>
	<title>MAC address</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245347400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't read through the whole transcript, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but as a technical person I wonder about this point:</p><p><i>"The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port</i> </p><p>How the heck would they have gotten the MAC of the modem and/or her computer, unless such details were provided by the ISP or sniffed by some form of internally invasive software? A MAC should only be available to a machine within the same network segment, so - assumedly - her modem could ready the MAC on her PC, and I suppose the ISP's next upstream router could read the MAC of the modem, but without the ISP's assistance I realyl don't see any other way this information could have been attained. Even then - depending on configuration -  you'd need some pretty stiff logging to tie continual traffic from a given <b>IP</b> to a MAC.</p><p>That being said, the common username was a fairly damaging point aside from this all.</p><p>The ARS article pretty much repeats these same tidbits without fleshing out the how. Any answers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read through the whole transcript , and I 'm certainly not a lawyer , but as a technical person I wonder about this point : " The evidence clearly pointed to her machine , even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer 's Ethernet port How the heck would they have gotten the MAC of the modem and/or her computer , unless such details were provided by the ISP or sniffed by some form of internally invasive software ?
A MAC should only be available to a machine within the same network segment , so - assumedly - her modem could ready the MAC on her PC , and I suppose the ISP 's next upstream router could read the MAC of the modem , but without the ISP 's assistance I realyl do n't see any other way this information could have been attained .
Even then - depending on configuration - you 'd need some pretty stiff logging to tie continual traffic from a given IP to a MAC.That being said , the common username was a fairly damaging point aside from this all.The ARS article pretty much repeats these same tidbits without fleshing out the how .
Any answers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read through the whole transcript, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but as a technical person I wonder about this point:"The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port How the heck would they have gotten the MAC of the modem and/or her computer, unless such details were provided by the ISP or sniffed by some form of internally invasive software?
A MAC should only be available to a machine within the same network segment, so - assumedly - her modem could ready the MAC on her PC, and I suppose the ISP's next upstream router could read the MAC of the modem, but without the ISP's assistance I realyl don't see any other way this information could have been attained.
Even then - depending on configuration -  you'd need some pretty stiff logging to tie continual traffic from a given IP to a MAC.That being said, the common username was a fairly damaging point aside from this all.The ARS article pretty much repeats these same tidbits without fleshing out the how.
Any answers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382189</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>SoCalChris</author>
	<datestamp>1245326100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder what her punishment would have been for being convicted of stealing 2-3 cds from WalMart. Certainly not a lifetime of debt and court cases spanning out over years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what her punishment would have been for being convicted of stealing 2-3 cds from WalMart .
Certainly not a lifetime of debt and court cases spanning out over years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what her punishment would have been for being convicted of stealing 2-3 cds from WalMart.
Certainly not a lifetime of debt and court cases spanning out over years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383561</id>
	<title>Re:Just why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245332220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyers can and do come to different conclusions.  Some may think NYCL is the one who is at fault.  It's actually quite common for lawyers to gripe at one another, but far far more rare for anything to actually happen.  The judges and yes, the other lawyers know what an adversarial situation it is.</p><p>
&nbsp; And there are a bit over 1.1 million lawyers in the United States according to the ABA.</p><p>http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/2008\_Natl\_Lawyer\_FINALonepage.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers can and do come to different conclusions .
Some may think NYCL is the one who is at fault .
It 's actually quite common for lawyers to gripe at one another , but far far more rare for anything to actually happen .
The judges and yes , the other lawyers know what an adversarial situation it is .
  And there are a bit over 1.1 million lawyers in the United States according to the ABA.http : //www.abanet.org/marketresearch/2008 \ _Natl \ _Lawyer \ _FINALonepage.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers can and do come to different conclusions.
Some may think NYCL is the one who is at fault.
It's actually quite common for lawyers to gripe at one another, but far far more rare for anything to actually happen.
The judges and yes, the other lawyers know what an adversarial situation it is.
  And there are a bit over 1.1 million lawyers in the United States according to the ABA.http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/2008\_Natl\_Lawyer\_FINALonepage.pdf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382225</id>
	<title>Come on people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245326280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>She lied about her hard drive, thinking it would get her off. I don't like the RIAA, but she deserved this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>She lied about her hard drive , thinking it would get her off .
I do n't like the RIAA , but she deserved this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She lied about her hard drive, thinking it would get her off.
I don't like the RIAA, but she deserved this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388003</id>
	<title>Completely insane</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1245417300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This pretty much proves what I thought all along of the RIAA - they abandonned their goal of making music years ago, now they plan to making lawsuits their SOLE source of income.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This pretty much proves what I thought all along of the RIAA - they abandonned their goal of making music years ago , now they plan to making lawsuits their SOLE source of income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This pretty much proves what I thought all along of the RIAA - they abandonned their goal of making music years ago, now they plan to making lawsuits their SOLE source of income.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382737</id>
	<title>Re:Why oh why didn't she settle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245328680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.</p></div><p>Here's a hint: $5,000 is still inappropriate for the crime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moral of the story : do n't break the law , and if you do , try to avoid lawyers , they are very expensive .
It was foolish to reject the initial $ 5000 settlement .
Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she did n't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence , which is very important in civil trials.Here 's a hint : $ 5,000 is still inappropriate for the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive.
It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement.
Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.Here's a hint: $5,000 is still inappropriate for the crime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382129</id>
	<title>Run for the hills!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we end up with a string of verdicts like this I have two things to say:</p><p>
1. I, for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords
<br> <br>
2. I think we finally have step 3!
<br> <br>
1. Produce easily copied item no one wants to pay for<br>
2. Let people get used to getting it for free<br>
3. Sue your customers for millions of dollars<br>
4. Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we end up with a string of verdicts like this I have two things to say : 1 .
I , for one , welcome our new RIAA overlords 2 .
I think we finally have step 3 !
1. Produce easily copied item no one wants to pay for 2 .
Let people get used to getting it for free 3 .
Sue your customers for millions of dollars 4 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we end up with a string of verdicts like this I have two things to say:
1.
I, for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords
 
2.
I think we finally have step 3!
1. Produce easily copied item no one wants to pay for
2.
Let people get used to getting it for free
3.
Sue your customers for millions of dollars
4.
Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387217</id>
	<title>Re:Throwing on purpose</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1245409620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>massive incompetence of her defense.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, she's getting what she's paid for: a bunch of young bucks trying to make a name for themselves by shooting for the moon on a big profile case.

</p><p>Thing is, if they miss, they get to walk away and merely be filthy rich rather than obscenely rich for the rest of their lives.  Jammie gets to work as an indentured slave to the RIAA for the rest of hers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>massive incompetence of her defense.Well , she 's getting what she 's paid for : a bunch of young bucks trying to make a name for themselves by shooting for the moon on a big profile case .
Thing is , if they miss , they get to walk away and merely be filthy rich rather than obscenely rich for the rest of their lives .
Jammie gets to work as an indentured slave to the RIAA for the rest of hers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>massive incompetence of her defense.Well, she's getting what she's paid for: a bunch of young bucks trying to make a name for themselves by shooting for the moon on a big profile case.
Thing is, if they miss, they get to walk away and merely be filthy rich rather than obscenely rich for the rest of their lives.
Jammie gets to work as an indentured slave to the RIAA for the rest of hers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382339</id>
	<title>Oh, and you got the moral wrong</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1245326760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Moral of the story: don't break the law</p><p>In my eyes the moral is: don't let large corporations twist the law into an distorted abomination....</p><p>The most ironic part of this whole mess is that the jury system was designed to exactly defend against this kind of abuse of the legal system, but because big government and big corporations have gotten so good at controlling the public's behavior, it is actually working out in reverse....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Moral of the story : do n't break the lawIn my eyes the moral is : do n't let large corporations twist the law into an distorted abomination....The most ironic part of this whole mess is that the jury system was designed to exactly defend against this kind of abuse of the legal system , but because big government and big corporations have gotten so good at controlling the public 's behavior , it is actually working out in reverse... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Moral of the story: don't break the lawIn my eyes the moral is: don't let large corporations twist the law into an distorted abomination....The most ironic part of this whole mess is that the jury system was designed to exactly defend against this kind of abuse of the legal system, but because big government and big corporations have gotten so good at controlling the public's behavior, it is actually working out in reverse....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384667</id>
	<title>So when you're wrong abou this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245339600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No doubt there will now have to be a third trial"</p><p>When you prove to be as wrong about this as you are about the vast majority of what you post, will you come back and admit you hav eno idea what the fuck you're talking about?</p><p>We don't need the admission, it's obvious, but it would be nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No doubt there will now have to be a third trial " When you prove to be as wrong about this as you are about the vast majority of what you post , will you come back and admit you hav eno idea what the fuck you 're talking about ? We do n't need the admission , it 's obvious , but it would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No doubt there will now have to be a third trial"When you prove to be as wrong about this as you are about the vast majority of what you post, will you come back and admit you hav eno idea what the fuck you're talking about?We don't need the admission, it's obvious, but it would be nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389595</id>
	<title>Re:Let's think about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245424860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot to adjust for inflation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to adjust for inflation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to adjust for inflation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384267</id>
	<title>It's more than 12</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245336420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that she actually downloaded far more than 12 songs, 1700+ in fact, for the sake of simplicity the prosecution only proved 24, but I think 24 is enough. That number is skewed, of course even when you make it 1,700, it's still far too large to give a single mom, but just wanted to put that out there. The verdict is ridiculous but not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/that/ ridiculous.</p><p>source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31432024/ns/business-local\_business/page/2/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that she actually downloaded far more than 12 songs , 1700 + in fact , for the sake of simplicity the prosecution only proved 24 , but I think 24 is enough .
That number is skewed , of course even when you make it 1,700 , it 's still far too large to give a single mom , but just wanted to put that out there .
The verdict is ridiculous but not /that/ ridiculous.source : http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31432024/ns/business-local \ _business/page/2/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that she actually downloaded far more than 12 songs, 1700+ in fact, for the sake of simplicity the prosecution only proved 24, but I think 24 is enough.
That number is skewed, of course even when you make it 1,700, it's still far too large to give a single mom, but just wanted to put that out there.
The verdict is ridiculous but not /that/ ridiculous.source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31432024/ns/business-local\_business/page/2/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383539</id>
	<title>The dead horse at the finish line</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245332040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional.</i> </p><p>The plaintiff has taken this case twice to a jury on essentially the same set of facts - and each time the defendant has been pounded into the ground.</p><p>It is no longer a theory when statutory damages are written into the law.</p><p> The trial court or the court of appeal can reduce the damages without ever touching the constitutional question. The chances that the case will reach any higher are about the same as winning the weekly Jackpot Lotto.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt there will now have to be a third trial , and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA 's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional .
The plaintiff has taken this case twice to a jury on essentially the same set of facts - and each time the defendant has been pounded into the ground.It is no longer a theory when statutory damages are written into the law .
The trial court or the court of appeal can reduce the damages without ever touching the constitutional question .
The chances that the case will reach any higher are about the same as winning the weekly Jackpot Lotto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional.
The plaintiff has taken this case twice to a jury on essentially the same set of facts - and each time the defendant has been pounded into the ground.It is no longer a theory when statutory damages are written into the law.
The trial court or the court of appeal can reduce the damages without ever touching the constitutional question.
The chances that the case will reach any higher are about the same as winning the weekly Jackpot Lotto.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383723</id>
	<title>Re:$80,000 is awesome</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245333120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that's worth $160,000 right</p></div></blockquote><p>See, if you get someone to put it up, then you are giving tacit permission for others to make copies. What you need to do is hack into Paris Hilton's computer, secretly install Kazaa on her computer, stick a 24 of your original songs on there for download, then erase all evidence you did it, and then sue her for infringement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that 's worth $ 160,000 rightSee , if you get someone to put it up , then you are giving tacit permission for others to make copies .
What you need to do is hack into Paris Hilton 's computer , secretly install Kazaa on her computer , stick a 24 of your original songs on there for download , then erase all evidence you did it , and then sue her for infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that's worth $160,000 rightSee, if you get someone to put it up, then you are giving tacit permission for others to make copies.
What you need to do is hack into Paris Hilton's computer, secretly install Kazaa on her computer, stick a 24 of your original songs on there for download, then erase all evidence you did it, and then sue her for infringement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969</id>
	<title>Why oh why didn't she settle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She should have settled at any point during this whole mess. In fact, the RIAA's spokesperson gave this comment right after the verdict was read today. "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so." That seems pretty reasonable.</p><p>The damages are enormous, but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion. Jammie was stupid to think that the damages would go down. I've been following the case, and she has been caught lying several times.</p><p>Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA, but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them. They didn't suggest any fine; the jurors decided on it by themselves. You can argue till the cows come home about whether what she did should be a crime, but it's the law and given the facts in the case, the burden of proof in civil trials (it only has to be more likely that she did it than not), and the facts of the case; a verdict of liable was the only reasonable conclusion. I'm disappointed in her counsel; trying to make a statement on copyright law and the shenanigans was irresponsible. Kiwi did a horrible disservice to her.</p><p>Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She should have settled at any point during this whole mess .
In fact , the RIAA 's spokesperson gave this comment right after the verdict was read today .
" Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so .
" That seems pretty reasonable.The damages are enormous , but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion .
Jammie was stupid to think that the damages would go down .
I 've been following the case , and she has been caught lying several times.Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA , but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them .
They did n't suggest any fine ; the jurors decided on it by themselves .
You can argue till the cows come home about whether what she did should be a crime , but it 's the law and given the facts in the case , the burden of proof in civil trials ( it only has to be more likely that she did it than not ) , and the facts of the case ; a verdict of liable was the only reasonable conclusion .
I 'm disappointed in her counsel ; trying to make a statement on copyright law and the shenanigans was irresponsible .
Kiwi did a horrible disservice to her.Moral of the story : do n't break the law , and if you do , try to avoid lawyers , they are very expensive .
It was foolish to reject the initial $ 5000 settlement .
Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she did n't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence , which is very important in civil trials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She should have settled at any point during this whole mess.
In fact, the RIAA's spokesperson gave this comment right after the verdict was read today.
"Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so.
" That seems pretty reasonable.The damages are enormous, but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion.
Jammie was stupid to think that the damages would go down.
I've been following the case, and she has been caught lying several times.Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA, but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them.
They didn't suggest any fine; the jurors decided on it by themselves.
You can argue till the cows come home about whether what she did should be a crime, but it's the law and given the facts in the case, the burden of proof in civil trials (it only has to be more likely that she did it than not), and the facts of the case; a verdict of liable was the only reasonable conclusion.
I'm disappointed in her counsel; trying to make a statement on copyright law and the shenanigans was irresponsible.
Kiwi did a horrible disservice to her.Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive.
It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement.
Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382825</id>
	<title>No doubt?</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1245329040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional</p></div><p>I have my doubts.  Isn't an accepted definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : No doubt there will now have to be a third trial , and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA 's statutory damages theory is unconstitutionalI have my doubts .
Is n't an accepted definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again , and expecting a different result ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary:No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutionalI have my doubts.
Isn't an accepted definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383549</id>
	<title>Re:24 songs is about 2 CDs?</title>
	<author>igxqrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1245332100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a lawyer, but I thought she was being tried for copyright infringement, not for theft?

Wikipedia describes the difference:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_infringement#Comparison\_to\_theft" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_infringement#Comparison\_to\_theft</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a lawyer , but I thought she was being tried for copyright infringement , not for theft ?
Wikipedia describes the difference : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright \ _infringement # Comparison \ _to \ _theft [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a lawyer, but I thought she was being tried for copyright infringement, not for theft?
Wikipedia describes the difference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_infringement#Comparison\_to\_theft [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28391965</id>
	<title>Sure, Ray. Whatever.</title>
	<author>gruffbear</author>
	<datestamp>1245435000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, Ray. Whatever.

BTW, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">it WAS an all white jury, according to Ars Technica.</a> [arstechnica.com]

In Minnesota, for a Native American, that's a hanging jury.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , Ray .
Whatever . BTW , it WAS an all white jury , according to Ars Technica .
[ arstechnica.com ] In Minnesota , for a Native American , that 's a hanging jury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, Ray.
Whatever.

BTW, it WAS an all white jury, according to Ars Technica.
[arstechnica.com]

In Minnesota, for a Native American, that's a hanging jury.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387327</id>
	<title>Re:Throwing on purpose</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1245410760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Well, ain't that noble of them!

</p><p>After being forced to sit and listen to Jammie's "uh... a wizard did it" defence (redux), is it possible, do you think, that the jury were just royally pissed, and wanted to bitch-slap her less for sharing the files, and more for wasting everyone's time and tax dollars by trying to bullshit them?

</p><p>Look, she did it.  She knows it, the RIAA know it, we know it, "Kiwi" knows it, everybody involved knew it from day 1.  The issue is the penalty, not the guilt, but Jammie just can't stop running her mouth off with her ludicrous "Oh no I did-UHNT" assertions.

</p><p>Perhaps a more <em>penitent</em> tack might be advised for the appeal?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws .
Well , ai n't that noble of them !
After being forced to sit and listen to Jammie 's " uh... a wizard did it " defence ( redux ) , is it possible , do you think , that the jury were just royally pissed , and wanted to bitch-slap her less for sharing the files , and more for wasting everyone 's time and tax dollars by trying to bullshit them ?
Look , she did it .
She knows it , the RIAA know it , we know it , " Kiwi " knows it , everybody involved knew it from day 1 .
The issue is the penalty , not the guilt , but Jammie just ca n't stop running her mouth off with her ludicrous " Oh no I did-UHNT " assertions .
Perhaps a more penitent tack might be advised for the appeal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws.
Well, ain't that noble of them!
After being forced to sit and listen to Jammie's "uh... a wizard did it" defence (redux), is it possible, do you think, that the jury were just royally pissed, and wanted to bitch-slap her less for sharing the files, and more for wasting everyone's time and tax dollars by trying to bullshit them?
Look, she did it.
She knows it, the RIAA know it, we know it, "Kiwi" knows it, everybody involved knew it from day 1.
The issue is the penalty, not the guilt, but Jammie just can't stop running her mouth off with her ludicrous "Oh no I did-UHNT" assertions.
Perhaps a more penitent tack might be advised for the appeal?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384581</id>
	<title>Re:Some math...</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245338940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>False assumption. The penalty is not based on the cost of purchasing the song from itunes, nor is it based on the number of times it was downloaded.</p><p>First there is actual damages and profits.</p><p>Then there are the statutary damages. The MINIMUM statutary damages for unknowing infringement is $200 per item. The maximum for knowingly and willfully infringing is $150,000 per item.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>False assumption .
The penalty is not based on the cost of purchasing the song from itunes , nor is it based on the number of times it was downloaded.First there is actual damages and profits.Then there are the statutary damages .
The MINIMUM statutary damages for unknowing infringement is $ 200 per item .
The maximum for knowingly and willfully infringing is $ 150,000 per item .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False assumption.
The penalty is not based on the cost of purchasing the song from itunes, nor is it based on the number of times it was downloaded.First there is actual damages and profits.Then there are the statutary damages.
The MINIMUM statutary damages for unknowing infringement is $200 per item.
The maximum for knowingly and willfully infringing is $150,000 per item.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384991</id>
	<title>Petty Theft</title>
	<author>LuminaireX</author>
	<datestamp>1245341880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Downloading been called no different than shoplifting by members of the music industry - why is it not prosecuted accordingly?  This woman lifted $23.76 worth of music.  If those were candy bars she'd be slapped on the wrist with a small fine or light jail time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Downloading been called no different than shoplifting by members of the music industry - why is it not prosecuted accordingly ?
This woman lifted $ 23.76 worth of music .
If those were candy bars she 'd be slapped on the wrist with a small fine or light jail time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Downloading been called no different than shoplifting by members of the music industry - why is it not prosecuted accordingly?
This woman lifted $23.76 worth of music.
If those were candy bars she'd be slapped on the wrist with a small fine or light jail time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383653</id>
	<title>Four Boxes</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1245332820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are now officially past soap, ballot, and jury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are now officially past soap , ballot , and jury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are now officially past soap, ballot, and jury.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382067</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1245325560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recall in the previous stories on this case, everyone kept say "Slam Dunk!". I thought that the defense lawyers where supposed to be a "crack team" and yet from the Slashdot write-up, it seems the defense left much to be desired. What happened?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall in the previous stories on this case , everyone kept say " Slam Dunk ! " .
I thought that the defense lawyers where supposed to be a " crack team " and yet from the Slashdot write-up , it seems the defense left much to be desired .
What happened ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall in the previous stories on this case, everyone kept say "Slam Dunk!".
I thought that the defense lawyers where supposed to be a "crack team" and yet from the Slashdot write-up, it seems the defense left much to be desired.
What happened?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28386649</id>
	<title>yeah right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245402660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>United States land of freedom.... yeah right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>United States land of freedom.... yeah right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>United States land of freedom.... yeah right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382581</id>
	<title>Contempt</title>
	<author>castrox</author>
	<datestamp>1245328080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of obvious bullshit trials, bad defense lawyers withstanding, topped with ridiculous legislation really pushes the younger part of society, not yet indoctrinated, into anarchism. I usually state that I'm Swedish - we recently saw a "spectrial" (as The Pirate Bay called it) unfold, too.</p><p>Combine this with deaf politicians who refuse to listen to the (quite large) opposition and what do you have? You've got people contempt of law. I realize you need to build your own case and defend yourself, but even if you do, the playing field is uneven. I personally question the correctness of being able to monetize an idea/creative work for a life time. Most people outside of showbiz offers hard working labor - be it welding or consulting - for clients. We cannot profit from our monday 12'o'clock service for the rest of our lives. What's so got damn special with music or film?</p><p>I think, imagine at least, that people are growing more and more contemptuous to the powers that be. This is one failed business model - people recognize the absurdity of the situation. But when will this bullshit stop?</p><p>I'd had wished it'd be just like with SCO - touch and hard spirit then die a slow death in the media. Unfortunately, they have support from the government, who refuses to see the illogical conclusion that they need to work for their money (not just sell copies).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//S</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of obvious bullshit trials , bad defense lawyers withstanding , topped with ridiculous legislation really pushes the younger part of society , not yet indoctrinated , into anarchism .
I usually state that I 'm Swedish - we recently saw a " spectrial " ( as The Pirate Bay called it ) unfold , too.Combine this with deaf politicians who refuse to listen to the ( quite large ) opposition and what do you have ?
You 've got people contempt of law .
I realize you need to build your own case and defend yourself , but even if you do , the playing field is uneven .
I personally question the correctness of being able to monetize an idea/creative work for a life time .
Most people outside of showbiz offers hard working labor - be it welding or consulting - for clients .
We can not profit from our monday 12'o'clock service for the rest of our lives .
What 's so got damn special with music or film ? I think , imagine at least , that people are growing more and more contemptuous to the powers that be .
This is one failed business model - people recognize the absurdity of the situation .
But when will this bullshit stop ? I 'd had wished it 'd be just like with SCO - touch and hard spirit then die a slow death in the media .
Unfortunately , they have support from the government , who refuses to see the illogical conclusion that they need to work for their money ( not just sell copies ) .
//S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of obvious bullshit trials, bad defense lawyers withstanding, topped with ridiculous legislation really pushes the younger part of society, not yet indoctrinated, into anarchism.
I usually state that I'm Swedish - we recently saw a "spectrial" (as The Pirate Bay called it) unfold, too.Combine this with deaf politicians who refuse to listen to the (quite large) opposition and what do you have?
You've got people contempt of law.
I realize you need to build your own case and defend yourself, but even if you do, the playing field is uneven.
I personally question the correctness of being able to monetize an idea/creative work for a life time.
Most people outside of showbiz offers hard working labor - be it welding or consulting - for clients.
We cannot profit from our monday 12'o'clock service for the rest of our lives.
What's so got damn special with music or film?I think, imagine at least, that people are growing more and more contemptuous to the powers that be.
This is one failed business model - people recognize the absurdity of the situation.
But when will this bullshit stop?I'd had wished it'd be just like with SCO - touch and hard spirit then die a slow death in the media.
Unfortunately, they have support from the government, who refuses to see the illogical conclusion that they need to work for their money (not just sell copies).
//S</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388429</id>
	<title>Re:Eighth Amendment - One Line</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1245419880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The foundation of your statement is based on the misguided premise that the America created by our founding fathers still exists.
<br> <br>
America is dead, the only sad part is that there are no new lands to flee to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The foundation of your statement is based on the misguided premise that the America created by our founding fathers still exists .
America is dead , the only sad part is that there are no new lands to flee to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The foundation of your statement is based on the misguided premise that the America created by our founding fathers still exists.
America is dead, the only sad part is that there are no new lands to flee to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435</id>
	<title>right verdict, wrong result</title>
	<author>eddeye</author>
	<datestamp>1245327360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a lawyer, I'm not surprised by this outcome.  I admit to not closely following this case.  But from what I've read, her defense arguments were really weak.  Oddly enough, Ars Technica says it best:</p><blockquote><div><p>A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury, which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset. The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port. When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement (and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators), her "tereastarr" username, and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years, jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
The case is a reminder that in civil trials, simply raising some doubt about liability is not enough; lawyers need to raise lots of doubt to win the case, and Camara and Sibley were unable to do so here.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I really can't emphasize that last part enough.  Winning a civil trial isn't about being "right" in any objective sense.  It's about convincing normal people.  If your explanations (technical or otherwise) go over their heads or seem implausible, you will lose.  If the jury senses any sort of deception or dishonesty, you will lose.  Sometimes if they just plain don't like you, you will lose.  Clearly erroneous results can get overturned on appeal, but may cases are close enough calls that an appeal won't help.

</p><p>
On the facts above, I'd have found her liable too.  It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used.  That creates a reasonable inference that she used Kazaa on it.  While there are many ways for her to rebut this presumption, the flimsy conjecture offered doesn't cut it.  Especially if she seemed less than forthright.

</p><p>
That said, the damages award is completely insane.  I'd have given nominal damages, enough to hurt but not crippling (on the order of $100-500 per song - yes, below the statutory minimum of $750).  It will get reduced on appeal, but not to that level.  Maybe something on the order of a few thousand per song.  My guess is that the jury really disliked her dishonesty and smacked her for it with huge damages.

</p><p>
I won't criticize her lawyers since I don't know all the details.  Maybe these were the best arguments they had.  Maybe their client chose to use this defense against their recommendations.  Undoubtedly the news reports distorted the story.  Whatever the case, the defense was really weak.  This verdict was predictable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a lawyer , I 'm not surprised by this outcome .
I admit to not closely following this case .
But from what I 've read , her defense arguments were really weak .
Oddly enough , Ars Technica says it best : A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury , which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset .
The evidence clearly pointed to her machine , even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer 's Ethernet port .
When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement ( and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators ) , her " tereastarr " username , and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years , jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence .
.. . The case is a reminder that in civil trials , simply raising some doubt about liability is not enough ; lawyers need to raise lots of doubt to win the case , and Camara and Sibley were unable to do so here .
I really ca n't emphasize that last part enough .
Winning a civil trial is n't about being " right " in any objective sense .
It 's about convincing normal people .
If your explanations ( technical or otherwise ) go over their heads or seem implausible , you will lose .
If the jury senses any sort of deception or dishonesty , you will lose .
Sometimes if they just plain do n't like you , you will lose .
Clearly erroneous results can get overturned on appeal , but may cases are close enough calls that an appeal wo n't help .
On the facts above , I 'd have found her liable too .
It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used .
That creates a reasonable inference that she used Kazaa on it .
While there are many ways for her to rebut this presumption , the flimsy conjecture offered does n't cut it .
Especially if she seemed less than forthright .
That said , the damages award is completely insane .
I 'd have given nominal damages , enough to hurt but not crippling ( on the order of $ 100-500 per song - yes , below the statutory minimum of $ 750 ) .
It will get reduced on appeal , but not to that level .
Maybe something on the order of a few thousand per song .
My guess is that the jury really disliked her dishonesty and smacked her for it with huge damages .
I wo n't criticize her lawyers since I do n't know all the details .
Maybe these were the best arguments they had .
Maybe their client chose to use this defense against their recommendations .
Undoubtedly the news reports distorted the story .
Whatever the case , the defense was really weak .
This verdict was predictable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a lawyer, I'm not surprised by this outcome.
I admit to not closely following this case.
But from what I've read, her defense arguments were really weak.
Oddly enough, Ars Technica says it best:A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury, which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset.
The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port.
When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement (and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators), her "tereastarr" username, and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years, jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence.
...

The case is a reminder that in civil trials, simply raising some doubt about liability is not enough; lawyers need to raise lots of doubt to win the case, and Camara and Sibley were unable to do so here.
I really can't emphasize that last part enough.
Winning a civil trial isn't about being "right" in any objective sense.
It's about convincing normal people.
If your explanations (technical or otherwise) go over their heads or seem implausible, you will lose.
If the jury senses any sort of deception or dishonesty, you will lose.
Sometimes if they just plain don't like you, you will lose.
Clearly erroneous results can get overturned on appeal, but may cases are close enough calls that an appeal won't help.
On the facts above, I'd have found her liable too.
It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used.
That creates a reasonable inference that she used Kazaa on it.
While there are many ways for her to rebut this presumption, the flimsy conjecture offered doesn't cut it.
Especially if she seemed less than forthright.
That said, the damages award is completely insane.
I'd have given nominal damages, enough to hurt but not crippling (on the order of $100-500 per song - yes, below the statutory minimum of $750).
It will get reduced on appeal, but not to that level.
Maybe something on the order of a few thousand per song.
My guess is that the jury really disliked her dishonesty and smacked her for it with huge damages.
I won't criticize her lawyers since I don't know all the details.
Maybe these were the best arguments they had.
Maybe their client chose to use this defense against their recommendations.
Undoubtedly the news reports distorted the story.
Whatever the case, the defense was really weak.
This verdict was predictable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28399573</id>
	<title>Post on Jon Stewart forum</title>
	<author>arthernan</author>
	<datestamp>1245437700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is the RIAA thread on the case on their new ideas forum.<p>


<a href="http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=story\_suggestions&amp;thread.id=9642" title="thedailyshow.com" rel="nofollow">http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=story\_suggestions&amp;thread.id=9642</a> [thedailyshow.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the RIAA thread on the case on their new ideas forum .
http : //forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message ? board.id = story \ _suggestions&amp;thread.id = 9642 [ thedailyshow.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the RIAA thread on the case on their new ideas forum.
http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=story\_suggestions&amp;thread.id=9642 [thedailyshow.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28391845</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245434400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the jurors are pissed from being pulled of their jobs that probably don't cover the difference between jury duty pay and their real checks.  This was my first reaction when I saw the outrageous amount.  Maybe they were unforgiving because she had such a shallow defense and she was fighting this so hard wasting their time, the courts time and the pro bono lawyers time.  Other than pinning it on her boyfriend... the music selection really exonerates her IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the jurors are pissed from being pulled of their jobs that probably do n't cover the difference between jury duty pay and their real checks .
This was my first reaction when I saw the outrageous amount .
Maybe they were unforgiving because she had such a shallow defense and she was fighting this so hard wasting their time , the courts time and the pro bono lawyers time .
Other than pinning it on her boyfriend... the music selection really exonerates her IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the jurors are pissed from being pulled of their jobs that probably don't cover the difference between jury duty pay and their real checks.
This was my first reaction when I saw the outrageous amount.
Maybe they were unforgiving because she had such a shallow defense and she was fighting this so hard wasting their time, the courts time and the pro bono lawyers time.
Other than pinning it on her boyfriend... the music selection really exonerates her IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383301</id>
	<title>Re:Just why?</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245330780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ethics are made-up, feel-good guidelines that have no legal standing.</p><p>Oaths?</p><p>What kind of crack are you on, Anonymous Cowardon?<br>It's all about the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethics are made-up , feel-good guidelines that have no legal standing.Oaths ? What kind of crack are you on , Anonymous Cowardon ? It 's all about the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethics are made-up, feel-good guidelines that have no legal standing.Oaths?What kind of crack are you on, Anonymous Cowardon?It's all about the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382535</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1245327840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While it's difficult to second guess the decisions a trial lawyer makes, it is hard for me to understand why defendant's lawyers gave the plaintiffs a free pass on the MediaSentry/Jacobson nonsense, and didn't even call their own expert. It is likewise difficult to understand why the jurors weren't instructed as to what the plaintiffs had to prove in order to establish a "distribution", or why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) at all, there having been no questions or instructions relating to the essential elements of that.</p></div></blockquote><p>Probably because the realization that the expert witness (I read the written testimony, and I know Yongdae Kim as a colleague: he is an excellent and honest researcher and professor) can't really contribute to the defense.</p><p>This is a civil trial, in terms of probabilities.  The probability of misidentification of the computer goes way down when you remove the wireless, password protect the computer, and go from there.</p><p>The problem is, Media Sentry's evidence is pretty compelling:  Identify her IP, identify her commonly used username, identify the songs, and she wasn't offering up a defense of being a poisoner/spreading bogus files.</p><p>As much as you'd like to believe it is nonsense, an honest expert witness for the defense would be forced to acknowledge all of this.</p><p>Yongdae Kim's written testimony mostly covered cases which could not have occured (no wireless, etc) and which were specifically ruled out by the judge for being irrelevant possibilities, or which would be exceedingly unlikely (a trojan on the system soley for KaZaA, IP address hijacking which, if Ms Thomas's computer was on, might result in RST storms from unexpected data, dropping the hijacker, by a hijacker who anyway was trying specifically to frame Ms Thomas), and on the stand he'd have to say so.</p><p>This is likely why Dr Kim was not put on the stand: during mock cross examination, Ms Thomas's laywer realized just how damaging Dr Kim's testimony would be in the hands of a plantiff's attorney.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's difficult to second guess the decisions a trial lawyer makes , it is hard for me to understand why defendant 's lawyers gave the plaintiffs a free pass on the MediaSentry/Jacobson nonsense , and did n't even call their own expert .
It is likewise difficult to understand why the jurors were n't instructed as to what the plaintiffs had to prove in order to establish a " distribution " , or why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages ( as opposed to actual damages ) at all , there having been no questions or instructions relating to the essential elements of that.Probably because the realization that the expert witness ( I read the written testimony , and I know Yongdae Kim as a colleague : he is an excellent and honest researcher and professor ) ca n't really contribute to the defense.This is a civil trial , in terms of probabilities .
The probability of misidentification of the computer goes way down when you remove the wireless , password protect the computer , and go from there.The problem is , Media Sentry 's evidence is pretty compelling : Identify her IP , identify her commonly used username , identify the songs , and she was n't offering up a defense of being a poisoner/spreading bogus files.As much as you 'd like to believe it is nonsense , an honest expert witness for the defense would be forced to acknowledge all of this.Yongdae Kim 's written testimony mostly covered cases which could not have occured ( no wireless , etc ) and which were specifically ruled out by the judge for being irrelevant possibilities , or which would be exceedingly unlikely ( a trojan on the system soley for KaZaA , IP address hijacking which , if Ms Thomas 's computer was on , might result in RST storms from unexpected data , dropping the hijacker , by a hijacker who anyway was trying specifically to frame Ms Thomas ) , and on the stand he 'd have to say so.This is likely why Dr Kim was not put on the stand : during mock cross examination , Ms Thomas 's laywer realized just how damaging Dr Kim 's testimony would be in the hands of a plantiff 's attorney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's difficult to second guess the decisions a trial lawyer makes, it is hard for me to understand why defendant's lawyers gave the plaintiffs a free pass on the MediaSentry/Jacobson nonsense, and didn't even call their own expert.
It is likewise difficult to understand why the jurors weren't instructed as to what the plaintiffs had to prove in order to establish a "distribution", or why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) at all, there having been no questions or instructions relating to the essential elements of that.Probably because the realization that the expert witness (I read the written testimony, and I know Yongdae Kim as a colleague: he is an excellent and honest researcher and professor) can't really contribute to the defense.This is a civil trial, in terms of probabilities.
The probability of misidentification of the computer goes way down when you remove the wireless, password protect the computer, and go from there.The problem is, Media Sentry's evidence is pretty compelling:  Identify her IP, identify her commonly used username, identify the songs, and she wasn't offering up a defense of being a poisoner/spreading bogus files.As much as you'd like to believe it is nonsense, an honest expert witness for the defense would be forced to acknowledge all of this.Yongdae Kim's written testimony mostly covered cases which could not have occured (no wireless, etc) and which were specifically ruled out by the judge for being irrelevant possibilities, or which would be exceedingly unlikely (a trojan on the system soley for KaZaA, IP address hijacking which, if Ms Thomas's computer was on, might result in RST storms from unexpected data, dropping the hijacker, by a hijacker who anyway was trying specifically to frame Ms Thomas), and on the stand he'd have to say so.This is likely why Dr Kim was not put on the stand: during mock cross examination, Ms Thomas's laywer realized just how damaging Dr Kim's testimony would be in the hands of a plantiff's attorney.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385935</id>
	<title>Re:Let's think about this</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1245352320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She has infringed on copyright, and should be punished for that. I think that is clear enough here. If you break the law and get caught, be prepared to be punished. That the punishment amount is way higher than the value of the direct loss, only makes sense. Imagine if you infringe on a $1 copyright, and have to later pay $1 if caught. The risk of getting caught is quite low. Then why not just run the risk of getting caught? It won't cost you extra.
</p><p>It is not even a matter of how much she would have spent on music, if anything at all. That is irrelevant.
</p><p>The only point you can make here is that the statutory damages are excessive punishment. I would argue that 100-200 times would be more reasonable.
</p><p>The main problem there (for the rights holders) is that doing some research and issuing a lawyer's letter requesting settlement to someone costs more already than the couple thousand dollars they could get in statutory damages in such a case, as most people do not infringe on too many works at a time. This is making the whole enforcement process uneconomical at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She has infringed on copyright , and should be punished for that .
I think that is clear enough here .
If you break the law and get caught , be prepared to be punished .
That the punishment amount is way higher than the value of the direct loss , only makes sense .
Imagine if you infringe on a $ 1 copyright , and have to later pay $ 1 if caught .
The risk of getting caught is quite low .
Then why not just run the risk of getting caught ?
It wo n't cost you extra .
It is not even a matter of how much she would have spent on music , if anything at all .
That is irrelevant .
The only point you can make here is that the statutory damages are excessive punishment .
I would argue that 100-200 times would be more reasonable .
The main problem there ( for the rights holders ) is that doing some research and issuing a lawyer 's letter requesting settlement to someone costs more already than the couple thousand dollars they could get in statutory damages in such a case , as most people do not infringe on too many works at a time .
This is making the whole enforcement process uneconomical at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She has infringed on copyright, and should be punished for that.
I think that is clear enough here.
If you break the law and get caught, be prepared to be punished.
That the punishment amount is way higher than the value of the direct loss, only makes sense.
Imagine if you infringe on a $1 copyright, and have to later pay $1 if caught.
The risk of getting caught is quite low.
Then why not just run the risk of getting caught?
It won't cost you extra.
It is not even a matter of how much she would have spent on music, if anything at all.
That is irrelevant.
The only point you can make here is that the statutory damages are excessive punishment.
I would argue that 100-200 times would be more reasonable.
The main problem there (for the rights holders) is that doing some research and issuing a lawyer's letter requesting settlement to someone costs more already than the couple thousand dollars they could get in statutory damages in such a case, as most people do not infringe on too many works at a time.
This is making the whole enforcement process uneconomical at best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28386485</id>
	<title>Violence the answer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245443820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the "law" is on the side of the RIAA in cases such as these, I can't help but think that if you're already going to break the law--you might as well do it in style. Let's see how much one of these songs are worth their lives or their loved ones. In a matter of minutes you could very quickly teach them the value of "respect".<br><br>Violence doesn't get you anywhere? Sure it does. Violence solves a lot of problems. The American Revolution, for one.<br><br>I'm not a psycho and wouldn't do this in practice--but what other options do we, the consumers, have when backed into a corner such as this?<br><br>Viva la revolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the " law " is on the side of the RIAA in cases such as these , I ca n't help but think that if you 're already going to break the law--you might as well do it in style .
Let 's see how much one of these songs are worth their lives or their loved ones .
In a matter of minutes you could very quickly teach them the value of " respect " .Violence does n't get you anywhere ?
Sure it does .
Violence solves a lot of problems .
The American Revolution , for one.I 'm not a psycho and would n't do this in practice--but what other options do we , the consumers , have when backed into a corner such as this ? Viva la revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the "law" is on the side of the RIAA in cases such as these, I can't help but think that if you're already going to break the law--you might as well do it in style.
Let's see how much one of these songs are worth their lives or their loved ones.
In a matter of minutes you could very quickly teach them the value of "respect".Violence doesn't get you anywhere?
Sure it does.
Violence solves a lot of problems.
The American Revolution, for one.I'm not a psycho and wouldn't do this in practice--but what other options do we, the consumers, have when backed into a corner such as this?Viva la revolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389907</id>
	<title>Can a presidential pardon work for...</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1245426060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can a presidential pardon work for statutory damages?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can a presidential pardon work for statutory damages ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can a presidential pardon work for statutory damages?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28397477</id>
	<title>Upside down</title>
	<author>omsdiver</author>
	<datestamp>1245415440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm really full of admiration for those who debate over the guilt of a person who downloaded a few songs. They are willing to see an tiny match in her eye without seeing a huge wooden block in own eye. This is what happens if the greed is the only reason behind. Unrestricted, unstoppable hunger for more and more money without looking on something that is called "public interest". I still do not understand how it is possible that a crappy piece of plastic called CD, DVD or BluRay is worth more than hardware used to play it. What kind of innovation, brilliant ideas and hard work is contained within this plastic. Just one. How to sell shit at the highest price.

I'm also astonished by stupidity of American judges who are buying the crap stories of RIAA about the amount of loses music industry is suffering because of people downloading music. It requires really the brain of the size of a bean (or maybe even smaller) to accept the thesis that if not downloaded every song would have been bought.

Hundreds year ago ordinary people have been chased and punished when trying to catch animals in forrests that belong to a count or alike. They did that in order to survive. Music and movies are not necessary to live but the motives are similar. Not wealthy people are trying to live normal live, to enjoy little pleasures whithout haveing to spend excessive resources on those who did nothing but think how to sqeeze another dollar without giving anythin of value in return. It's strange that ordinary people are punished and those who are paying himself millions of dollars for causing companies to collapse are untouchable. If this is justified by law it is a piece of shit not a law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really full of admiration for those who debate over the guilt of a person who downloaded a few songs .
They are willing to see an tiny match in her eye without seeing a huge wooden block in own eye .
This is what happens if the greed is the only reason behind .
Unrestricted , unstoppable hunger for more and more money without looking on something that is called " public interest " .
I still do not understand how it is possible that a crappy piece of plastic called CD , DVD or BluRay is worth more than hardware used to play it .
What kind of innovation , brilliant ideas and hard work is contained within this plastic .
Just one .
How to sell shit at the highest price .
I 'm also astonished by stupidity of American judges who are buying the crap stories of RIAA about the amount of loses music industry is suffering because of people downloading music .
It requires really the brain of the size of a bean ( or maybe even smaller ) to accept the thesis that if not downloaded every song would have been bought .
Hundreds year ago ordinary people have been chased and punished when trying to catch animals in forrests that belong to a count or alike .
They did that in order to survive .
Music and movies are not necessary to live but the motives are similar .
Not wealthy people are trying to live normal live , to enjoy little pleasures whithout haveing to spend excessive resources on those who did nothing but think how to sqeeze another dollar without giving anythin of value in return .
It 's strange that ordinary people are punished and those who are paying himself millions of dollars for causing companies to collapse are untouchable .
If this is justified by law it is a piece of shit not a law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really full of admiration for those who debate over the guilt of a person who downloaded a few songs.
They are willing to see an tiny match in her eye without seeing a huge wooden block in own eye.
This is what happens if the greed is the only reason behind.
Unrestricted, unstoppable hunger for more and more money without looking on something that is called "public interest".
I still do not understand how it is possible that a crappy piece of plastic called CD, DVD or BluRay is worth more than hardware used to play it.
What kind of innovation, brilliant ideas and hard work is contained within this plastic.
Just one.
How to sell shit at the highest price.
I'm also astonished by stupidity of American judges who are buying the crap stories of RIAA about the amount of loses music industry is suffering because of people downloading music.
It requires really the brain of the size of a bean (or maybe even smaller) to accept the thesis that if not downloaded every song would have been bought.
Hundreds year ago ordinary people have been chased and punished when trying to catch animals in forrests that belong to a count or alike.
They did that in order to survive.
Music and movies are not necessary to live but the motives are similar.
Not wealthy people are trying to live normal live, to enjoy little pleasures whithout haveing to spend excessive resources on those who did nothing but think how to sqeeze another dollar without giving anythin of value in return.
It's strange that ordinary people are punished and those who are paying himself millions of dollars for causing companies to collapse are untouchable.
If this is justified by law it is a piece of shit not a law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384047</id>
	<title>What if the RIAA tried a different approach?</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1245335100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disregarding the merits or not of this specific case, I wonder how different people's attitude would be if the RIAA had taken all the money they've spent on investigation's, lawyers, lobbyists etc, and instead of suing people offered an "amnesty" where they subsidised subscriptions/purchases to DRM-free music to the first X (invent some very large number &gt; 1M) of people. They could market this with the labels and come out looking like good guys.<br><br>Just a thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disregarding the merits or not of this specific case , I wonder how different people 's attitude would be if the RIAA had taken all the money they 've spent on investigation 's , lawyers , lobbyists etc , and instead of suing people offered an " amnesty " where they subsidised subscriptions/purchases to DRM-free music to the first X ( invent some very large number &gt; 1M ) of people .
They could market this with the labels and come out looking like good guys.Just a thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disregarding the merits or not of this specific case, I wonder how different people's attitude would be if the RIAA had taken all the money they've spent on investigation's, lawyers, lobbyists etc, and instead of suing people offered an "amnesty" where they subsidised subscriptions/purchases to DRM-free music to the first X (invent some very large number &gt; 1M) of people.
They could market this with the labels and come out looking like good guys.Just a thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390773</id>
	<title>This is one of those April Fools posts right?</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1245429840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cause there is no possible way this could be legit. I mean in America, with our uncorrupted legal system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cause there is no possible way this could be legit .
I mean in America , with our uncorrupted legal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cause there is no possible way this could be legit.
I mean in America, with our uncorrupted legal system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382469</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>Barny</author>
	<datestamp>1245327540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this then be a ploy by the court to force it to higher courts of justice in order to make a precedent that will stick? Would sure make future cases much easier if there was a supreme court ruling, either one way or the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this then be a ploy by the court to force it to higher courts of justice in order to make a precedent that will stick ?
Would sure make future cases much easier if there was a supreme court ruling , either one way or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this then be a ploy by the court to force it to higher courts of justice in order to make a precedent that will stick?
Would sure make future cases much easier if there was a supreme court ruling, either one way or the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384625</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely Nuts</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1245339300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As one of those said musicians, I'm on your side. But I'm tired of waiting. What can we do to make the music industry die faster?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As one of those said musicians , I 'm on your side .
But I 'm tired of waiting .
What can we do to make the music industry die faster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one of those said musicians, I'm on your side.
But I'm tired of waiting.
What can we do to make the music industry die faster?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382283</id>
	<title>Re:Why oh why didn't she settle?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1245326460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The damages are enormous, but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion.</p> </div><p>The expenses can be recouped in the following manner: the RIAA pays the legal expenses they incurred.  If we get into a fender bender, and I sue you for damages, that's okay.  If I spend 3 million on my legal team over it, that's me spending money foolishly.  You shouldn't have to pay for it.</p><p>I did say should... applying logic or "should" statements to legal proceedings is it's own type of illogical, I know...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA, but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them.</p></div><p>To absurd degrees considering how trivial an offense it was.  That's what makes them bad guys.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.</p></div><p>I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The damages are enormous , but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion .
The expenses can be recouped in the following manner : the RIAA pays the legal expenses they incurred .
If we get into a fender bender , and I sue you for damages , that 's okay .
If I spend 3 million on my legal team over it , that 's me spending money foolishly .
You should n't have to pay for it.I did say should... applying logic or " should " statements to legal proceedings is it 's own type of illogical , I know...Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA , but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them.To absurd degrees considering how trivial an offense it was .
That 's what makes them bad guys.Moral of the story : do n't break the law , and if you do , try to avoid lawyers , they are very expensive .
It was foolish to reject the initial $ 5000 settlement .
Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she did n't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence , which is very important in civil trials.I would n't call standing up to a bully " foolish " exactly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damages are enormous, but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion.
The expenses can be recouped in the following manner: the RIAA pays the legal expenses they incurred.
If we get into a fender bender, and I sue you for damages, that's okay.
If I spend 3 million on my legal team over it, that's me spending money foolishly.
You shouldn't have to pay for it.I did say should... applying logic or "should" statements to legal proceedings is it's own type of illogical, I know...Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA, but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them.To absurd degrees considering how trivial an offense it was.
That's what makes them bad guys.Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive.
It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement.
Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387189</id>
	<title>Civil court</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont know how civil court works, but jury sets the award amount, then later the judge can reduce it if he wants to</p><p>Dont they have to go through a sentenacing phase or some such</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont know how civil court works , but jury sets the award amount , then later the judge can reduce it if he wants toDont they have to go through a sentenacing phase or some such</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont know how civil court works, but jury sets the award amount, then later the judge can reduce it if he wants toDont they have to go through a sentenacing phase or some such</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382071</id>
	<title>Justifying piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fellow pirates,</p><p>I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty.  I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing <em>someone else</em> as the bad guy.  Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership.  I am overjoyed.</p><p>Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take.  I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.</p><p>I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work.  I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software.  When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work.  I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted.  If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/18/0311216/Harvard-Study-Says-Weak-Copyright-Benefits-Society" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this one</a> [slashdot.org], amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.</p><p>According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours."  Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do.  John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming.  It's genius.  The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate.  We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work.  Excellent job.</p><p>I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are.  Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've <a href="http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/30/0036206" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">pretended to care about plagiarism</a> [slashdot.org], we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda.  I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me.  It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something.  Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is.  That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.</p><p>EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good.  Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code."  I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me.  I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL.  I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences.  I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.</p><p>Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching.  Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt.  Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations.  Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.</p><p>Yours truly,<br>A fellow Slashbot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fellow pirates,I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty .
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong , but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever , it 's easier for me to accept what I 'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy .
Once on the forefront of relevant IT news , Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership .
I am overjoyed.Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking , I 'm just going to take .
I 'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.I do n't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work .
I 'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software .
When their game comes out , I 'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work .
I 'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted .
If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty , I 'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint , such as this one [ slashdot.org ] , amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.According to that study , it 's okay to not pay people for their work because there 's some vague hope that they 'll make up the difference in income through " concerts and speaking tours .
" Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do .
John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming .
It 's genius .
The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate .
We 've managed to stretch the truth so far that we 're actually telling ourselves that we 're helping artists by not paying them for their work .
Excellent job.I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are .
Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement , and they 've pretended to care about plagiarism [ slashdot.org ] , we 're supposed to go along with Slashdot 's anti-copyright agenda .
I 'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me .
It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something .
Remember , I 'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is .
That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong , yet the GPL is good .
Piracy is n't theft , yet GPL violations are referred to as " stolen GPL code .
" I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me .
I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law , and if I want to get rid of copyright , my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL .
I do n't care , because I 'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free , not about the consequences .
I want to get rid of copyrights because I 've been told that copyrights are the bad guy , and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.Fellow pirates , let us continue our selfish leeching .
Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt .
Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations .
Making money is wrong , even though Slashdot displays ads , and it cost me money to buy the computer I 'm using to pirate stuff.Yours truly,A fellow Slashbot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fellow pirates,I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty.
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy.
Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership.
I am overjoyed.Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take.
I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work.
I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software.
When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work.
I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted.
If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one [slashdot.org], amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours.
"  Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do.
John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming.
It's genius.
The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate.
We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work.
Excellent job.I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are.
Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism [slashdot.org], we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda.
I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me.
It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something.
Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is.
That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good.
Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code.
"  I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me.
I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL.
I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences.
I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching.
Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt.
Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations.
Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.Yours truly,A fellow Slashbot</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382465</id>
	<title>Re:Trial 3</title>
	<author>DimmO</author>
	<datestamp>1245327540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$250 million dollars (one quarter trillion dollars)... </p></div><p>you're out by a factor of 1000 there.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 250 million dollars ( one quarter trillion dollars ) ... you 're out by a factor of 1000 there .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$250 million dollars (one quarter trillion dollars)... you're out by a factor of 1000 there.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382361</id>
	<title>A juror's dilemma</title>
	<author>clemenstimpler</author>
	<datestamp>1245326880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the jury instruction: "The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to you."

And what, if the law as given by the judge obliterates common sense?</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the jury instruction : " The law demands of you a just verdict , unaffected by anything except the evidence , your common sense , and the law as I give it to you .
" And what , if the law as given by the judge obliterates common sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the jury instruction: "The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to you.
"

And what, if the law as given by the judge obliterates common sense?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28386347</id>
	<title>lord Dredd eat you brain now. most interesting..</title>
	<author>x4r</author>
	<datestamp>1245442620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>thing is nobody question main angle:why SO NUMEROUS jury's in various contries decide similary ?
yep, against constitution, yes, against country laws, and main jurispridency primnciples(such as fundamental"inoccence presumption")
btw answer is simple - they are blackmailed by international organisation. those lawyers, who not member of it.
so in fact, Microsoft/RIAA/MPAA or etc is ONE org(and use shared HR resources, financial, security and etc..)
google about "scientology", for example. btw, google... participated too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
as 85\% of IT&amp;telecom<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
60\% law enforcement.
~38\% world money.
worldwide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>thing is nobody question main angle : why SO NUMEROUS jury 's in various contries decide similary ?
yep , against constitution , yes , against country laws , and main jurispridency primnciples ( such as fundamental " inoccence presumption " ) btw answer is simple - they are blackmailed by international organisation .
those lawyers , who not member of it .
so in fact , Microsoft/RIAA/MPAA or etc is ONE org ( and use shared HR resources , financial , security and etc.. ) google about " scientology " , for example .
btw , google... participated too : - ) as 85 \ % of IT&amp;telecom : - ) 60 \ % law enforcement .
~ 38 \ % world money .
worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thing is nobody question main angle:why SO NUMEROUS jury's in various contries decide similary ?
yep, against constitution, yes, against country laws, and main jurispridency primnciples(such as fundamental"inoccence presumption")
btw answer is simple - they are blackmailed by international organisation.
those lawyers, who not member of it.
so in fact, Microsoft/RIAA/MPAA or etc is ONE org(and use shared HR resources, financial, security and etc..)
google about "scientology", for example.
btw, google... participated too :-)
as 85\% of IT&amp;telecom :-)
60\% law enforcement.
~38\% world money.
worldwide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387519</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245413160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they should sue anyone who sings a song out loud (exp if they sing bad).</p><p>If you look at all the artist I am sure they are all coping something.  A form, a guitar melody, words so all the artist or their companies should be sued also especially if they are reproducing previously copywrited material and claiming it as their own.  (You probably do not even have to look hard to find it)</p><p>Also I and a lot of others would be willing to buy directly from an Internet Artist and just cut the middle altogether but nothing has come together yet.  Probably because they are in fear of getting sued for the aforementioned.</p><p>Personally I just went back to listening to classical music and NPR.</p><p>Best Wishes in your pursuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they should sue anyone who sings a song out loud ( exp if they sing bad ) .If you look at all the artist I am sure they are all coping something .
A form , a guitar melody , words so all the artist or their companies should be sued also especially if they are reproducing previously copywrited material and claiming it as their own .
( You probably do not even have to look hard to find it ) Also I and a lot of others would be willing to buy directly from an Internet Artist and just cut the middle altogether but nothing has come together yet .
Probably because they are in fear of getting sued for the aforementioned.Personally I just went back to listening to classical music and NPR.Best Wishes in your pursuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they should sue anyone who sings a song out loud (exp if they sing bad).If you look at all the artist I am sure they are all coping something.
A form, a guitar melody, words so all the artist or their companies should be sued also especially if they are reproducing previously copywrited material and claiming it as their own.
(You probably do not even have to look hard to find it)Also I and a lot of others would be willing to buy directly from an Internet Artist and just cut the middle altogether but nothing has come together yet.
Probably because they are in fear of getting sued for the aforementioned.Personally I just went back to listening to classical music and NPR.Best Wishes in your pursuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387915</id>
	<title>more propaganda?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245416940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the RIAA have reached an agreement with the defendent already?<br>Let us WIN; let us destroy you in court; do not challenge us on the point everyone knows are full of chit;  let the court assign ridiculous damage awards to us;  in turn, we will not collect anything from you, but the general population will have a clear example of why they should not fuck with the RIAA.</p><p>maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the RIAA have reached an agreement with the defendent already ? Let us WIN ; let us destroy you in court ; do not challenge us on the point everyone knows are full of chit ; let the court assign ridiculous damage awards to us ; in turn , we will not collect anything from you , but the general population will have a clear example of why they should not fuck with the RIAA.maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the RIAA have reached an agreement with the defendent already?Let us WIN; let us destroy you in court; do not challenge us on the point everyone knows are full of chit;  let the court assign ridiculous damage awards to us;  in turn, we will not collect anything from you, but the general population will have a clear example of why they should not fuck with the RIAA.maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383179</id>
	<title>Cant change your own drive?.....</title>
	<author>compatibles</author>
	<datestamp>1245330240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>....then you probably shouldn't be trying to outsmart the justice system in a tech based case.  Also they should change the name of kazza to: 'barrel of fish into which the RIAA will periodically shoot.'  Personally I think that the verdict from the first case should have stood + additional court costs. Then a perjury case should begin.  I'm not anti-piracy, but it is piracy.  All there really is to discuss is what the penalty should be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>....then you probably should n't be trying to outsmart the justice system in a tech based case .
Also they should change the name of kazza to : 'barrel of fish into which the RIAA will periodically shoot .
' Personally I think that the verdict from the first case should have stood + additional court costs .
Then a perjury case should begin .
I 'm not anti-piracy , but it is piracy .
All there really is to discuss is what the penalty should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....then you probably shouldn't be trying to outsmart the justice system in a tech based case.
Also they should change the name of kazza to: 'barrel of fish into which the RIAA will periodically shoot.
'  Personally I think that the verdict from the first case should have stood + additional court costs.
Then a perjury case should begin.
I'm not anti-piracy, but it is piracy.
All there really is to discuss is what the penalty should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385459</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely Nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245347880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No distribution was ever shown.  The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they wouldn't show it because it's impossible to show. THIS IS INSANE!!!</p><p>I, for one, cannot wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available, and who market through cooperatives over the Internet. Let Big Music Die Now Please!</p></div><p>I agree 100\%.  This is absolutely insane.  These bastards have spent decades sucking wallets dry and screwing over the artists in the process.</p><p>Let big music die now -- no question!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No distribution was ever shown .
The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they would n't show it because it 's impossible to show .
THIS IS INSANE ! !
! I , for one , can not wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available , and who market through cooperatives over the Internet .
Let Big Music Die Now Please ! I agree 100 \ % .
This is absolutely insane .
These bastards have spent decades sucking wallets dry and screwing over the artists in the process.Let big music die now -- no question !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No distribution was ever shown.
The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they wouldn't show it because it's impossible to show.
THIS IS INSANE!!
!I, for one, cannot wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available, and who market through cooperatives over the Internet.
Let Big Music Die Now Please!I agree 100\%.
This is absolutely insane.
These bastards have spent decades sucking wallets dry and screwing over the artists in the process.Let big music die now -- no question!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382081</id>
	<title>You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CDs are $10 at Wal-Mart...</htmltext>
<tokenext>CDs are $ 10 at Wal-Mart.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CDs are $10 at Wal-Mart...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382407</id>
	<title>Evolution at work</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1245327120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always the stupid and careless pirates that get caught in the harbor. It's natural evolution at work, a culling of the weak and unfit from the pirate fleet. Feel sad if you must for Thomas, but also feel comfort that evolution has done its job: the pirates that remain are the cream of the crop. They will bear an even more naturally skilled crew to man the next fleet of sloops and schooners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always the stupid and careless pirates that get caught in the harbor .
It 's natural evolution at work , a culling of the weak and unfit from the pirate fleet .
Feel sad if you must for Thomas , but also feel comfort that evolution has done its job : the pirates that remain are the cream of the crop .
They will bear an even more naturally skilled crew to man the next fleet of sloops and schooners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always the stupid and careless pirates that get caught in the harbor.
It's natural evolution at work, a culling of the weak and unfit from the pirate fleet.
Feel sad if you must for Thomas, but also feel comfort that evolution has done its job: the pirates that remain are the cream of the crop.
They will bear an even more naturally skilled crew to man the next fleet of sloops and schooners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249</id>
	<title>$80,000 is awesome</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1245326400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So all I have to do is, twice a year write an awful song, then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that's worth $160,000 right? That's a freaking awesome alternate reality! I can live like a king for playing guitar badly a couple of times a year!</p><p>By that kind of accounting, I'm worth billions. Boat salesmen will knock. Bikini clad women will swoon. I can have any car I like!</p><p>Tell the truth now, you're just trying to outdo the British, aren't you? They only used to send their convicts to Australia for a dozen years for stealing a loaf of bread. You'd ruin people's whole lives over copying a song.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So all I have to do is , twice a year write an awful song , then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that 's worth $ 160,000 right ?
That 's a freaking awesome alternate reality !
I can live like a king for playing guitar badly a couple of times a year ! By that kind of accounting , I 'm worth billions .
Boat salesmen will knock .
Bikini clad women will swoon .
I can have any car I like ! Tell the truth now , you 're just trying to outdo the British , are n't you ?
They only used to send their convicts to Australia for a dozen years for stealing a loaf of bread .
You 'd ruin people 's whole lives over copying a song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So all I have to do is, twice a year write an awful song, then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that's worth $160,000 right?
That's a freaking awesome alternate reality!
I can live like a king for playing guitar badly a couple of times a year!By that kind of accounting, I'm worth billions.
Boat salesmen will knock.
Bikini clad women will swoon.
I can have any car I like!Tell the truth now, you're just trying to outdo the British, aren't you?
They only used to send their convicts to Australia for a dozen years for stealing a loaf of bread.
You'd ruin people's whole lives over copying a song.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383401</id>
	<title>The award vs the damage</title>
	<author>Technician</author>
	<datestamp>1245331380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering if the award will cover the loss as people start to refuse to do business with the music business.  Some have already started. The ball is rolling a picking up speed.  The industry is doing nothing to stop it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering if the award will cover the loss as people start to refuse to do business with the music business .
Some have already started .
The ball is rolling a picking up speed .
The industry is doing nothing to stop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering if the award will cover the loss as people start to refuse to do business with the music business.
Some have already started.
The ball is rolling a picking up speed.
The industry is doing nothing to stop it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387271</id>
	<title>Monsters</title>
	<author>Eternal Annoyance</author>
	<datestamp>1245410160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I recollect correctly, this girl was depressed and suffered from some incurable disease. Add this to her (already big) list of problems, and she's ready to commit suicide.<br><br>This isn't justice anymore, this is extortion. The lawyers of the RIAA know damn well of this girl's state, and they just press on.<br><br>What kind monsters are they? When will the state step in and start kicking the RIAA around over this? Must this girl be turned into a martyr to convince the justice department to prosecute the RIAA?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recollect correctly , this girl was depressed and suffered from some incurable disease .
Add this to her ( already big ) list of problems , and she 's ready to commit suicide.This is n't justice anymore , this is extortion .
The lawyers of the RIAA know damn well of this girl 's state , and they just press on.What kind monsters are they ?
When will the state step in and start kicking the RIAA around over this ?
Must this girl be turned into a martyr to convince the justice department to prosecute the RIAA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recollect correctly, this girl was depressed and suffered from some incurable disease.
Add this to her (already big) list of problems, and she's ready to commit suicide.This isn't justice anymore, this is extortion.
The lawyers of the RIAA know damn well of this girl's state, and they just press on.What kind monsters are they?
When will the state step in and start kicking the RIAA around over this?
Must this girl be turned into a martyr to convince the justice department to prosecute the RIAA?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387353</id>
	<title>Re:Well Done!</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1245411060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's only worth that much to you if you can sell them at that price.<br> <br>Goodluckwiththat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only worth that much to you if you can sell them at that price .
Goodluckwiththat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only worth that much to you if you can sell them at that price.
Goodluckwiththat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382023</id>
	<title>Just why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just why is it, NYCL, that you're one of the very few voices crying out in the wilderness?  Aren't all lawyers bound by oath and ethics to do the same thing you do?  And just how many lawyers are there in the USA?</p><p>Where are they?</p><p>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just why is it , NYCL , that you 're one of the very few voices crying out in the wilderness ?
Are n't all lawyers bound by oath and ethics to do the same thing you do ?
And just how many lawyers are there in the USA ? Where are they ? AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just why is it, NYCL, that you're one of the very few voices crying out in the wilderness?
Aren't all lawyers bound by oath and ethics to do the same thing you do?
And just how many lawyers are there in the USA?Where are they?AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382647</id>
	<title>$80.000?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245328320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>$80,000 per song file</p></div></blockquote><p>
Jesus Fucking Christ!<br>
What the hell is going on in this country?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 80,000 per song file Jesus Fucking Christ !
What the hell is going on in this country ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$80,000 per song file
Jesus Fucking Christ!
What the hell is going on in this country?
!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382471</id>
	<title>The bright side</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1245327540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they take the money and start producing music that doesn't suck, then this may actually work out OK for everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they take the money and start producing music that does n't suck , then this may actually work out OK for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they take the money and start producing music that doesn't suck, then this may actually work out OK for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382325</id>
	<title>Love the article arrangement today...</title>
	<author>hjorhrafn</author>
	<datestamp>1245326700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But you know, "campaigns can change hearts and minds... If you do them right you can make a material impact on people's behaviour.'"

Well, here's a campaign killer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you know , " campaigns can change hearts and minds... If you do them right you can make a material impact on people 's behaviour .
' " Well , here 's a campaign killer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you know, "campaigns can change hearts and minds... If you do them right you can make a material impact on people's behaviour.
'"

Well, here's a campaign killer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383987</id>
	<title>I would like to sell my music back to the RIAA</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1245334680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have way more than 24 songs and I will even take 1/4 price of what they think they are worth, $20000 per song.  With the money I plan to pay off Jamie's Judgment and buy a beer for $1.2 million (that is what they should be worth in the RIAA's world).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have way more than 24 songs and I will even take 1/4 price of what they think they are worth , $ 20000 per song .
With the money I plan to pay off Jamie 's Judgment and buy a beer for $ 1.2 million ( that is what they should be worth in the RIAA 's world ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have way more than 24 songs and I will even take 1/4 price of what they think they are worth, $20000 per song.
With the money I plan to pay off Jamie's Judgment and buy a beer for $1.2 million (that is what they should be worth in the RIAA's world).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387137</id>
	<title>unRIAAencumbered legal music resources</title>
	<author>An dochasac</author>
	<datestamp>1245408720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/opensource\_audio" title="archive.org">http://www.archive.org/details/opensource\_audio</a> [archive.org]</li>

<li>soundblog</li>
<li> <a href="http://music.podshow.com/" title="podshow.com">Podshow's podsafe music network</a> [podshow.com]</li>
</ul><p>

From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"Spokesperson Cara Duckworth of the RIAA, who attended the trial, told reporters afterwards, "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so." The industry appears to be doing everything it can not to appear vindictive in these cases..."</i></p> </div><p>
The RIAA says, vindictive, pretty old me?  No, no, we are bending over backwards to take as little as possible of this poor native American mom's scant resources and transfer it to the billionaires we protect.  Look, we kept it under $2 million, that's fair isn't it?<br> <br>
Use the above resources, don't buy anything which pays into the RIAA coffers.  Let them see a $5 million negative blip that makes them wish they hadn't racketeered against their consumers including this midwestern mom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.archive.org/details/opensource \ _audio [ archive.org ] soundblog Podshow 's podsafe music network [ podshow.com ] From TFA : " Spokesperson Cara Duckworth of the RIAA , who attended the trial , told reporters afterwards , " Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so .
" The industry appears to be doing everything it can not to appear vindictive in these cases... " The RIAA says , vindictive , pretty old me ?
No , no , we are bending over backwards to take as little as possible of this poor native American mom 's scant resources and transfer it to the billionaires we protect .
Look , we kept it under $ 2 million , that 's fair is n't it ?
Use the above resources , do n't buy anything which pays into the RIAA coffers .
Let them see a $ 5 million negative blip that makes them wish they had n't racketeered against their consumers including this midwestern mom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 http://www.archive.org/details/opensource\_audio [archive.org]

soundblog
 Podshow's podsafe music network [podshow.com]


From TFA: "Spokesperson Cara Duckworth of the RIAA, who attended the trial, told reporters afterwards, "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so.
" The industry appears to be doing everything it can not to appear vindictive in these cases..." 
The RIAA says, vindictive, pretty old me?
No, no, we are bending over backwards to take as little as possible of this poor native American mom's scant resources and transfer it to the billionaires we protect.
Look, we kept it under $2 million, that's fair isn't it?
Use the above resources, don't buy anything which pays into the RIAA coffers.
Let them see a $5 million negative blip that makes them wish they hadn't racketeered against their consumers including this midwestern mom.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382895</id>
	<title>DISGUSTING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245329280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an absolutely disgraceful award. 24 songs and done for $2 million. They should make the damned jury pay it. What a goddamned disgrace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an absolutely disgraceful award .
24 songs and done for $ 2 million .
They should make the damned jury pay it .
What a goddamned disgrace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an absolutely disgraceful award.
24 songs and done for $2 million.
They should make the damned jury pay it.
What a goddamned disgrace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385971</id>
	<title>Re:Why oh why didn't she settle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA's legal fees may be enormous, but this award is ridiculously high. And they won't see anything close it it anyway. She'll declare bankruptcy. She probably only has only a few thousand dollars in assets, so they'll get those, but they'll never repay their legal fees. The RIAA's legal actions have never been about making back money they lost. They're about destroying people to make an example of them and scare other people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA 's legal fees may be enormous , but this award is ridiculously high .
And they wo n't see anything close it it anyway .
She 'll declare bankruptcy .
She probably only has only a few thousand dollars in assets , so they 'll get those , but they 'll never repay their legal fees .
The RIAA 's legal actions have never been about making back money they lost .
They 're about destroying people to make an example of them and scare other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA's legal fees may be enormous, but this award is ridiculously high.
And they won't see anything close it it anyway.
She'll declare bankruptcy.
She probably only has only a few thousand dollars in assets, so they'll get those, but they'll never repay their legal fees.
The RIAA's legal actions have never been about making back money they lost.
They're about destroying people to make an example of them and scare other people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28386761</id>
	<title>the list?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245404220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am missing the most important thing - where is the list of those unbelievably valuable 24 MP3s? I need to know which bands I want to boycot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am missing the most important thing - where is the list of those unbelievably valuable 24 MP3s ?
I need to know which bands I want to boycot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am missing the most important thing - where is the list of those unbelievably valuable 24 MP3s?
I need to know which bands I want to boycot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383849</id>
	<title>That ice's the copyright discussion for me.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245333840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time to change the law.  Copyrights should be shortened to the lifetime of the author and intellectual property should be taxed in order to claim a copyright claim.  If I can pay property taxes on my land, I can pay it on my IP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to change the law .
Copyrights should be shortened to the lifetime of the author and intellectual property should be taxed in order to claim a copyright claim .
If I can pay property taxes on my land , I can pay it on my IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to change the law.
Copyrights should be shortened to the lifetime of the author and intellectual property should be taxed in order to claim a copyright claim.
If I can pay property taxes on my land, I can pay it on my IP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384533</id>
	<title>Legal malpractice!</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1245338580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why did the expert not get called?<br><br>Why was no objection made?<br><br>Remember, anything you don't move or object at trial is forever barred at appeal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did the expert not get called ? Why was no objection made ? Remember , anything you do n't move or object at trial is forever barred at appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did the expert not get called?Why was no objection made?Remember, anything you don't move or object at trial is forever barred at appeal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385383</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely Nuts</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1245347220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For an example of this, I heartily recommend <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaA-wibT0sQ" title="youtube.com">Maren Song</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>Home recording at its best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For an example of this , I heartily recommend Maren Song [ youtube.com ] .Home recording at its best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For an example of this, I heartily recommend Maren Song [youtube.com].Home recording at its best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389943</id>
	<title>Did Jammie get a trial by a jury of her peers?</title>
	<author>gruffbear</author>
	<datestamp>1245426240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jammie Thomas is an Ojibwa woman living <a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html" title="census.gov" rel="nofollow">in a state where 89.3\% of the population is Caucasian.</a> [census.gov] Yes, there is racism in Minnesota -- not overt, cross-burning, KKK-style racism; but a kind of smug, condescending relegation of non-white people to second-class citizenship; people to be tolerated with feigned PC magnanimity, while hinting that life would be better if they would just all go away, "back to where they came from."

</p><p>Against this backdrop of white Minnesota popular culture, it only stands to reason that Jammie Thomas could not have gotten a fair trial from an all-white jury. For justice to be served, the jury should have included at least a few Native Americans, if only to remind the other jurors that Ms. Thomas was not some abstract cultural archtype that they could direct their fears and frustrations at, but that she was a real human being like they were.

</p><p>Were there any Native Americans on the jury? <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15479871&amp;postID=4664165946201021379" title="blogger.com" rel="nofollow">In a comment on NewYorkCountryLawyer's blog,</a> [blogger.com] I politely asked what the gender and racial composition of the jury were. He rejected this question, characterizing it as "offensive." "People's lives are at stake in these cases," he offered in self-justification.

</p><p>Oh really? Let's set aside, for the moment, that the notion of a trial by a jury of her peers is somehow offensive.  How does suppressing information about whether there were Native Americans on the jury actually HELP Jammie Thomas? I think suppressing this information actually hurt her, and continues to hurt her.

</p><p>Racism hurts people in the justice system. Not acknowledging it hurts people even more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jammie Thomas is an Ojibwa woman living in a state where 89.3 \ % of the population is Caucasian .
[ census.gov ] Yes , there is racism in Minnesota -- not overt , cross-burning , KKK-style racism ; but a kind of smug , condescending relegation of non-white people to second-class citizenship ; people to be tolerated with feigned PC magnanimity , while hinting that life would be better if they would just all go away , " back to where they came from .
" Against this backdrop of white Minnesota popular culture , it only stands to reason that Jammie Thomas could not have gotten a fair trial from an all-white jury .
For justice to be served , the jury should have included at least a few Native Americans , if only to remind the other jurors that Ms. Thomas was not some abstract cultural archtype that they could direct their fears and frustrations at , but that she was a real human being like they were .
Were there any Native Americans on the jury ?
In a comment on NewYorkCountryLawyer 's blog , [ blogger.com ] I politely asked what the gender and racial composition of the jury were .
He rejected this question , characterizing it as " offensive .
" " People 's lives are at stake in these cases , " he offered in self-justification .
Oh really ?
Let 's set aside , for the moment , that the notion of a trial by a jury of her peers is somehow offensive .
How does suppressing information about whether there were Native Americans on the jury actually HELP Jammie Thomas ?
I think suppressing this information actually hurt her , and continues to hurt her .
Racism hurts people in the justice system .
Not acknowledging it hurts people even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jammie Thomas is an Ojibwa woman living in a state where 89.3\% of the population is Caucasian.
[census.gov] Yes, there is racism in Minnesota -- not overt, cross-burning, KKK-style racism; but a kind of smug, condescending relegation of non-white people to second-class citizenship; people to be tolerated with feigned PC magnanimity, while hinting that life would be better if they would just all go away, "back to where they came from.
"

Against this backdrop of white Minnesota popular culture, it only stands to reason that Jammie Thomas could not have gotten a fair trial from an all-white jury.
For justice to be served, the jury should have included at least a few Native Americans, if only to remind the other jurors that Ms. Thomas was not some abstract cultural archtype that they could direct their fears and frustrations at, but that she was a real human being like they were.
Were there any Native Americans on the jury?
In a comment on NewYorkCountryLawyer's blog, [blogger.com] I politely asked what the gender and racial composition of the jury were.
He rejected this question, characterizing it as "offensive.
" "People's lives are at stake in these cases," he offered in self-justification.
Oh really?
Let's set aside, for the moment, that the notion of a trial by a jury of her peers is somehow offensive.
How does suppressing information about whether there were Native Americans on the jury actually HELP Jammie Thomas?
I think suppressing this information actually hurt her, and continues to hurt her.
Racism hurts people in the justice system.
Not acknowledging it hurts people even more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381989</id>
	<title>do you take</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 party out of state bad checks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 party out of state bad checks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 party out of state bad checks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28420571</id>
	<title>Ouch that hurts</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1245680040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pass her the KY, I am sure that her butt hurts!<br>Seriously, the judge has no real world knowledge of what songs cost, because if he did, he would have laughed at this, the fact he ruled in favor shows the judges need to be replaced with younger ones, because they are still old school, not even aware what mp3s stand for let alone what they should cost!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pass her the KY , I am sure that her butt hurts ! Seriously , the judge has no real world knowledge of what songs cost , because if he did , he would have laughed at this , the fact he ruled in favor shows the judges need to be replaced with younger ones , because they are still old school , not even aware what mp3s stand for let alone what they should cost !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pass her the KY, I am sure that her butt hurts!Seriously, the judge has no real world knowledge of what songs cost, because if he did, he would have laughed at this, the fact he ruled in favor shows the judges need to be replaced with younger ones, because they are still old school, not even aware what mp3s stand for let alone what they should cost!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382077</id>
	<title>Can they do anything else</title>
	<author>MadHakish</author>
	<datestamp>1245325560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that they've virtually guaranteed her bankruptcy, how else could they possibly punish her? Couldn't she just go on a sharing spree and drum up attention about it?

Seems that once you ruin a person, they have no more motivation to do what you want as you've already leveled the most extreme punishment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that they 've virtually guaranteed her bankruptcy , how else could they possibly punish her ?
Could n't she just go on a sharing spree and drum up attention about it ?
Seems that once you ruin a person , they have no more motivation to do what you want as you 've already leveled the most extreme punishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that they've virtually guaranteed her bankruptcy, how else could they possibly punish her?
Couldn't she just go on a sharing spree and drum up attention about it?
Seems that once you ruin a person, they have no more motivation to do what you want as you've already leveled the most extreme punishment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382921</id>
	<title>What do you know?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245329340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turns out they did find her guilty, and decided to put a high penalty on her.</p><p>What a surprise!</p><p>Believe it or not, Juries do decide sometimes that they're going to send a message in their verdicts.   This is why Judges can sometimes reduce the amount of the judgment downward.  Perhaps the judge in this case will decide to do so.  Perhaps the RIAA will never both trying to collect.  For them, it's more about the message, which is...don't be a shit-head and think you can get away with sharing music that you don't have the rights to share.  And don't expect the courts or a jury of your peers to be idiots and buy your lame bull-shit excuses.</p><p>You want to work for a world where music is free?   Start feeding money to bands and artists that license under the CC instead of hunting the latest top 40 hit on your favorite site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turns out they did find her guilty , and decided to put a high penalty on her.What a surprise ! Believe it or not , Juries do decide sometimes that they 're going to send a message in their verdicts .
This is why Judges can sometimes reduce the amount of the judgment downward .
Perhaps the judge in this case will decide to do so .
Perhaps the RIAA will never both trying to collect .
For them , it 's more about the message , which is...do n't be a shit-head and think you can get away with sharing music that you do n't have the rights to share .
And do n't expect the courts or a jury of your peers to be idiots and buy your lame bull-shit excuses.You want to work for a world where music is free ?
Start feeding money to bands and artists that license under the CC instead of hunting the latest top 40 hit on your favorite site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turns out they did find her guilty, and decided to put a high penalty on her.What a surprise!Believe it or not, Juries do decide sometimes that they're going to send a message in their verdicts.
This is why Judges can sometimes reduce the amount of the judgment downward.
Perhaps the judge in this case will decide to do so.
Perhaps the RIAA will never both trying to collect.
For them, it's more about the message, which is...don't be a shit-head and think you can get away with sharing music that you don't have the rights to share.
And don't expect the courts or a jury of your peers to be idiots and buy your lame bull-shit excuses.You want to work for a world where music is free?
Start feeding money to bands and artists that license under the CC instead of hunting the latest top 40 hit on your favorite site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384841</id>
	<title>The RIAA Messed UP!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245340800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        A huge jury award such as this one virtually assures that the RIAA will never get paid. In addition to grounds for appeal it also<br>would cause almost all normal people into bankruptcy or simply moving to an area such as Florida where the debt would be next to impossible to collect.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Perhaps the RIAA values the publicity generated by such an award but it sure is the wrong way to try to get paid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A huge jury award such as this one virtually assures that the RIAA will never get paid .
In addition to grounds for appeal it alsowould cause almost all normal people into bankruptcy or simply moving to an area such as Florida where the debt would be next to impossible to collect .
                Perhaps the RIAA values the publicity generated by such an award but it sure is the wrong way to try to get paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        A huge jury award such as this one virtually assures that the RIAA will never get paid.
In addition to grounds for appeal it alsowould cause almost all normal people into bankruptcy or simply moving to an area such as Florida where the debt would be next to impossible to collect.
                Perhaps the RIAA values the publicity generated by such an award but it sure is the wrong way to try to get paid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383921</id>
	<title>Judge was a kangaroo....</title>
	<author>LVSlushdat</author>
	<datestamp>1245334260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me, but isn't that the shortest trial in history?? Didn't it just start this past Monday??? How could ANY trial, short of a "kangaroo court", end so soon... Oh wait... perhaps that's what this was... Where were all the expert witnesses, and hotshot lawyer that was taking this probono??<br>I'm sure gonna be waiting to hear NYCL's take on this abortion......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , but is n't that the shortest trial in history ? ?
Did n't it just start this past Monday ? ? ?
How could ANY trial , short of a " kangaroo court " , end so soon... Oh wait... perhaps that 's what this was... Where were all the expert witnesses , and hotshot lawyer that was taking this probono ?
? I 'm sure gon na be waiting to hear NYCL 's take on this abortion..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, but isn't that the shortest trial in history??
Didn't it just start this past Monday???
How could ANY trial, short of a "kangaroo court", end so soon... Oh wait... perhaps that's what this was... Where were all the expert witnesses, and hotshot lawyer that was taking this probono?
?I'm sure gonna be waiting to hear NYCL's take on this abortion......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383753</id>
	<title>Dura lex, sed lex</title>
	<author>acb</author>
	<datestamp>1245333240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chances are, if there is an appeal, she'll get the death penalty. Three times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chances are , if there is an appeal , she 'll get the death penalty .
Three times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chances are, if there is an appeal, she'll get the death penalty.
Three times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385085</id>
	<title>Re:For once I am simply</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1245343440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then let me help: Jammie, if you go nuts and commit an act of retribution against the RIAA and/or their lawyers, and I can scam my way onto the jury, I personally guarantee you a hung jury at worst.  Seriously, I figure for $2 million you've pretty much bought the right to any form of revenge you can come up with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then let me help : Jammie , if you go nuts and commit an act of retribution against the RIAA and/or their lawyers , and I can scam my way onto the jury , I personally guarantee you a hung jury at worst .
Seriously , I figure for $ 2 million you 've pretty much bought the right to any form of revenge you can come up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then let me help: Jammie, if you go nuts and commit an act of retribution against the RIAA and/or their lawyers, and I can scam my way onto the jury, I personally guarantee you a hung jury at worst.
Seriously, I figure for $2 million you've pretty much bought the right to any form of revenge you can come up with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383329</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245330960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you also repeatedly say that the RIAA has effectively no chance of winning this time around in the <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/14/1453202" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">last article on this</a> [slashdot.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you also repeatedly say that the RIAA has effectively no chance of winning this time around in the last article on this [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you also repeatedly say that the RIAA has effectively no chance of winning this time around in the last article on this [slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383063</id>
	<title>Re:should they have JUST talked about money?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245329880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if she admitted guilt and the RIAA agreed to the awarding of minimum damages, she would still be on the hook for the legal fees of the RIAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if she admitted guilt and the RIAA agreed to the awarding of minimum damages , she would still be on the hook for the legal fees of the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if she admitted guilt and the RIAA agreed to the awarding of minimum damages, she would still be on the hook for the legal fees of the RIAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383605</id>
	<title>Out of time</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1245332520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Her lawyers invested all their time preparing the Chewbacca defense, and when at the court they realized that Lucas will sue them for 2M for using it, they picked the cheaper alternative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Her lawyers invested all their time preparing the Chewbacca defense , and when at the court they realized that Lucas will sue them for 2M for using it , they picked the cheaper alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Her lawyers invested all their time preparing the Chewbacca defense, and when at the court they realized that Lucas will sue them for 2M for using it, they picked the cheaper alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382003</id>
	<title>What happened to the "making available" argument?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245325320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something definitely doesn't sound right.  Given that the making available argument was already shown to be bad, how can they still get her?  And what the hell was the jury thinking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something definitely does n't sound right .
Given that the making available argument was already shown to be bad , how can they still get her ?
And what the hell was the jury thinking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something definitely doesn't sound right.
Given that the making available argument was already shown to be bad, how can they still get her?
And what the hell was the jury thinking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28391763</id>
	<title>Re:right verdict, wrong result</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245433980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh pish posh "It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used." No it was not clearly her computer or her username... I have many usernames... I've signed up to many sites and not been able to get my usual username. MAC addresses can be spoofed, and screen shots are so far from authoritative it's not even funny. I more than believe she did it but there is no meaningful evidence that she did, any claims as such are moronic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh pish posh " It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used .
" No it was not clearly her computer or her username... I have many usernames... I 've signed up to many sites and not been able to get my usual username .
MAC addresses can be spoofed , and screen shots are so far from authoritative it 's not even funny .
I more than believe she did it but there is no meaningful evidence that she did , any claims as such are moronic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh pish posh "It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used.
" No it was not clearly her computer or her username... I have many usernames... I've signed up to many sites and not been able to get my usual username.
MAC addresses can be spoofed, and screen shots are so far from authoritative it's not even funny.
I more than believe she did it but there is no meaningful evidence that she did, any claims as such are moronic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387369</id>
	<title>Re:She made it easy for them</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1245411480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtual "+1, Needs to Be Said".  When the facts <em>and</em> the law are against you, simply putting your fingers in your ears and shrieking "Didn't, didn't, DIDN'T" is not a defence strategy, it's evidence of insanity.

</p><p>Also, any ethical lawyer would have looked at the evidence against her, and advised her to settle up front. At this point, her freebie wunderkind is playing a game of "Let's you and him fight".  He's the only possible winner here; everybody else loses, no matter what the final verdict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtual " + 1 , Needs to Be Said " .
When the facts and the law are against you , simply putting your fingers in your ears and shrieking " Did n't , did n't , DID N'T " is not a defence strategy , it 's evidence of insanity .
Also , any ethical lawyer would have looked at the evidence against her , and advised her to settle up front .
At this point , her freebie wunderkind is playing a game of " Let 's you and him fight " .
He 's the only possible winner here ; everybody else loses , no matter what the final verdict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtual "+1, Needs to Be Said".
When the facts and the law are against you, simply putting your fingers in your ears and shrieking "Didn't, didn't, DIDN'T" is not a defence strategy, it's evidence of insanity.
Also, any ethical lawyer would have looked at the evidence against her, and advised her to settle up front.
At this point, her freebie wunderkind is playing a game of "Let's you and him fight".
He's the only possible winner here; everybody else loses, no matter what the final verdict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389835</id>
	<title>Re:right verdict, wrong result</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245425820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used."</p><p>I salute your naivite, it's obvious you're not that technical. All that "clearly" from above could also be:<br>1. faked. RIAA just prints some crap on paper, pulled straight out of their asses (or ask MediaSentri or whatever to do that, as "impartial experts"). The jury, hand in hand with people like you, are gullible enough to bait.<br>2. tricked. Someone else, from another computer, fakes a communication with her data. Not easy to do, definitely not impossible.<br>3. tricked #2. Her computer is in the hands of a bot, someone else controls what the computer does. Definitely not impossible.</p><p>Unfortunately, as you said, the jury is a bunch of "normal people". Maybe we should stop bringing "normal people", and start asking "better than average people" to be part of jury. Also, maybe we should stop using our "gut-feelings" ("hmm... she smells like a crook") and get some rationality in the process.</p><p>god forbid one gets in the hands of such jury/judge</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used .
" I salute your naivite , it 's obvious you 're not that technical .
All that " clearly " from above could also be : 1. faked. RIAA just prints some crap on paper , pulled straight out of their asses ( or ask MediaSentri or whatever to do that , as " impartial experts " ) .
The jury , hand in hand with people like you , are gullible enough to bait.2 .
tricked. Someone else , from another computer , fakes a communication with her data .
Not easy to do , definitely not impossible.3 .
tricked # 2 .
Her computer is in the hands of a bot , someone else controls what the computer does .
Definitely not impossible.Unfortunately , as you said , the jury is a bunch of " normal people " .
Maybe we should stop bringing " normal people " , and start asking " better than average people " to be part of jury .
Also , maybe we should stop using our " gut-feelings " ( " hmm... she smells like a crook " ) and get some rationality in the process.god forbid one gets in the hands of such jury/judge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used.
"I salute your naivite, it's obvious you're not that technical.
All that "clearly" from above could also be:1. faked. RIAA just prints some crap on paper, pulled straight out of their asses (or ask MediaSentri or whatever to do that, as "impartial experts").
The jury, hand in hand with people like you, are gullible enough to bait.2.
tricked. Someone else, from another computer, fakes a communication with her data.
Not easy to do, definitely not impossible.3.
tricked #2.
Her computer is in the hands of a bot, someone else controls what the computer does.
Definitely not impossible.Unfortunately, as you said, the jury is a bunch of "normal people".
Maybe we should stop bringing "normal people", and start asking "better than average people" to be part of jury.
Also, maybe we should stop using our "gut-feelings" ("hmm... she smells like a crook") and get some rationality in the process.god forbid one gets in the hands of such jury/judge</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383863</id>
	<title>Amen, Brother</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1245333960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need laws that match the new technological reality. Updated business models too. Those who figure out the new business reality are gonna run circles around the old-school whiners.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need laws that match the new technological reality .
Updated business models too .
Those who figure out the new business reality are gon na run circles around the old-school whiners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need laws that match the new technological reality.
Updated business models too.
Those who figure out the new business reality are gonna run circles around the old-school whiners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387045</id>
	<title>Can't control the flow of information.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245407580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't control the flow of information. People will download what they want. Is anyone really sympathizing with the corrupt organizations who steal millions, if not billions of dollars from the United States and the people?</p><p>They steal from us because they can with relatively little repercussions, and without anyone significantly noticing.</p><p>We steal from them because we can with relatively little repercussions, and without anyone significantly noticing.</p><p>The difference is, they have billions of dollars and the most disgustingly immoral and unethical teams of lawyers that money can buy.</p><p>We don't. And even if we did, they still have more powerful friends.</p><p>Fuck the RIAA. Downloading songs isn't unethical, its a legitimate fucking financial strategy. These corps can teach us one thing - The law only applies if you get caught.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't control the flow of information .
People will download what they want .
Is anyone really sympathizing with the corrupt organizations who steal millions , if not billions of dollars from the United States and the people ? They steal from us because they can with relatively little repercussions , and without anyone significantly noticing.We steal from them because we can with relatively little repercussions , and without anyone significantly noticing.The difference is , they have billions of dollars and the most disgustingly immoral and unethical teams of lawyers that money can buy.We do n't .
And even if we did , they still have more powerful friends.Fuck the RIAA .
Downloading songs is n't unethical , its a legitimate fucking financial strategy .
These corps can teach us one thing - The law only applies if you get caught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't control the flow of information.
People will download what they want.
Is anyone really sympathizing with the corrupt organizations who steal millions, if not billions of dollars from the United States and the people?They steal from us because they can with relatively little repercussions, and without anyone significantly noticing.We steal from them because we can with relatively little repercussions, and without anyone significantly noticing.The difference is, they have billions of dollars and the most disgustingly immoral and unethical teams of lawyers that money can buy.We don't.
And even if we did, they still have more powerful friends.Fuck the RIAA.
Downloading songs isn't unethical, its a legitimate fucking financial strategy.
These corps can teach us one thing - The law only applies if you get caught.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388617</id>
	<title>Fight back, join the Pirate Party</title>
	<author>cabalamat3</author>
	<datestamp>1245420780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If like me you think this is absurd, let me suggest you join the Pirate Party in your country. We recently got 7.1\% of the vote in Sweden, and it's likely that soon we'll be achieving this and more throughout the developed world.

</p><p>In the UK, join <a href="http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/" title="pirateparty.org.uk" rel="nofollow">Pirate Party UK</a> [pirateparty.org.uk]; elsewhere look at <a href="http://www.pp-international.net/" title="pp-international.net" rel="nofollow">Pirate Party International</a> [pp-international.net] to find your national Pirate Party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If like me you think this is absurd , let me suggest you join the Pirate Party in your country .
We recently got 7.1 \ % of the vote in Sweden , and it 's likely that soon we 'll be achieving this and more throughout the developed world .
In the UK , join Pirate Party UK [ pirateparty.org.uk ] ; elsewhere look at Pirate Party International [ pp-international.net ] to find your national Pirate Party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If like me you think this is absurd, let me suggest you join the Pirate Party in your country.
We recently got 7.1\% of the vote in Sweden, and it's likely that soon we'll be achieving this and more throughout the developed world.
In the UK, join Pirate Party UK [pirateparty.org.uk]; elsewhere look at Pirate Party International [pp-international.net] to find your national Pirate Party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383739</id>
	<title>Next stop, bankruptcy Court</title>
	<author>speedlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1245333180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure you all know the defendant's next stop will be on the very long line outside the Bankruptcy Court, where the Trustee will do a double-take at the Petition, and then approve it, as no normal person could pay that back.

Once the Chapter 7 is behind the defendant, they can go on with their lives, with only a smoking crater where the credit rating used to be.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure you all know the defendant 's next stop will be on the very long line outside the Bankruptcy Court , where the Trustee will do a double-take at the Petition , and then approve it , as no normal person could pay that back .
Once the Chapter 7 is behind the defendant , they can go on with their lives , with only a smoking crater where the credit rating used to be.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure you all know the defendant's next stop will be on the very long line outside the Bankruptcy Court, where the Trustee will do a double-take at the Petition, and then approve it, as no normal person could pay that back.
Once the Chapter 7 is behind the defendant, they can go on with their lives, with only a smoking crater where the credit rating used to be.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381921</id>
	<title>Well . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245324960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some thoughts about this award:<ul><li>Crooked, obscene, irrational, ineffective assistance of counsel, insane, tom foolery, crooked, baseless, should have used NYCL, undeserved, excessive, way excessive, legally raped, crooked, sanctions, more sanctions, terroristic actions, bungled, inept, crooked, bad dog bad, sit in the corner, stupid, payback, legal hos, dumb award, timeout, crooked, who ya gonna call, something is rotten in Denmark, spanked, what will you do when they come for you, retrial, bought jury, bad judge, all bad, and did I mention crooked?</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some thoughts about this award : Crooked , obscene , irrational , ineffective assistance of counsel , insane , tom foolery , crooked , baseless , should have used NYCL , undeserved , excessive , way excessive , legally raped , crooked , sanctions , more sanctions , terroristic actions , bungled , inept , crooked , bad dog bad , sit in the corner , stupid , payback , legal hos , dumb award , timeout , crooked , who ya gon na call , something is rotten in Denmark , spanked , what will you do when they come for you , retrial , bought jury , bad judge , all bad , and did I mention crooked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some thoughts about this award:Crooked, obscene, irrational, ineffective assistance of counsel, insane, tom foolery, crooked, baseless, should have used NYCL, undeserved, excessive, way excessive, legally raped, crooked, sanctions, more sanctions, terroristic actions, bungled, inept, crooked, bad dog bad, sit in the corner, stupid, payback, legal hos, dumb award, timeout, crooked, who ya gonna call, something is rotten in Denmark, spanked, what will you do when they come for you, retrial, bought jury, bad judge, all bad, and did I mention crooked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383279</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>gravesb</author>
	<datestamp>1245330660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there isn't a new trial, what did her attorneys preserve for appeal?  Anything?  Was there an objection to the jury instructions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is n't a new trial , what did her attorneys preserve for appeal ?
Anything ? Was there an objection to the jury instructions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there isn't a new trial, what did her attorneys preserve for appeal?
Anything?  Was there an objection to the jury instructions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28392879</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245438840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> But I should point out that this outsized verdict (a) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside, and (b) cripples the RIAA's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attack</p></div></blockquote><p>Agreed.  This is clearly bad public policy in that the award implies that perhaps a third of the people living in the USA are each liable for millions of dollars in damages.</p><p>To quantify this - if we take an improbably small estimate of the number of people who have traded files at the level of Ms Thomas, say 10 000 000 persons, that would amount to two trillion dollars in damages.   The entire industry worldwide is worth much less than this so such an award cannot possibly be said to make the plaintiffs whole.</p><p>Enriching a plaintiff is a perverse outcome and should be prevented by any sound system of justice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I should point out that this outsized verdict ( a ) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside , and ( b ) cripples the RIAA 's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attackAgreed .
This is clearly bad public policy in that the award implies that perhaps a third of the people living in the USA are each liable for millions of dollars in damages.To quantify this - if we take an improbably small estimate of the number of people who have traded files at the level of Ms Thomas , say 10 000 000 persons , that would amount to two trillion dollars in damages .
The entire industry worldwide is worth much less than this so such an award can not possibly be said to make the plaintiffs whole.Enriching a plaintiff is a perverse outcome and should be prevented by any sound system of justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But I should point out that this outsized verdict (a) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside, and (b) cripples the RIAA's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attackAgreed.
This is clearly bad public policy in that the award implies that perhaps a third of the people living in the USA are each liable for millions of dollars in damages.To quantify this - if we take an improbably small estimate of the number of people who have traded files at the level of Ms Thomas, say 10 000 000 persons, that would amount to two trillion dollars in damages.
The entire industry worldwide is worth much less than this so such an award cannot possibly be said to make the plaintiffs whole.Enriching a plaintiff is a perverse outcome and should be prevented by any sound system of justice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381991</id>
	<title>Why a new trail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they just keep having new trials whenever juries award supposedly crazy damages? Or do the damages just get lowered/reversed on appeal?</p><p>Why didn't the defendant call their expert witnesses?</p><p>Seems we get unreasonable vedicts every day without all of them causing a do-over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they just keep having new trials whenever juries award supposedly crazy damages ?
Or do the damages just get lowered/reversed on appeal ? Why did n't the defendant call their expert witnesses ? Seems we get unreasonable vedicts every day without all of them causing a do-over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they just keep having new trials whenever juries award supposedly crazy damages?
Or do the damages just get lowered/reversed on appeal?Why didn't the defendant call their expert witnesses?Seems we get unreasonable vedicts every day without all of them causing a do-over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959</id>
	<title>What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1245325140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents. In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double.</p><p>Really, how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA's statements? The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness'. I'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases. The Chewbacca defense might even stand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents .
In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double.Really , how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA 's statements ?
The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness' .
I 'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases .
The Chewbacca defense might even stand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents.
In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double.Really, how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA's statements?
The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness'.
I'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases.
The Chewbacca defense might even stand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382633</id>
	<title>Re:Run for the hills!</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245328260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except Jamie was violating their legally acquired right to control the copying of the works she was helping to make copies of. She stopped being a customer the minute she put those songs on Kazaa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Jamie was violating their legally acquired right to control the copying of the works she was helping to make copies of .
She stopped being a customer the minute she put those songs on Kazaa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Jamie was violating their legally acquired right to control the copying of the works she was helping to make copies of.
She stopped being a customer the minute she put those songs on Kazaa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384177</id>
	<title>Look, really downloading songs is stealing.</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1245335880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Artist's deserve to get paid. Maybe their contract with the label suck. But damn it they should get paid for every song they put out "there" in the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Artist 's deserve to get paid .
Maybe their contract with the label suck .
But damn it they should get paid for every song they put out " there " in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artist's deserve to get paid.
Maybe their contract with the label suck.
But damn it they should get paid for every song they put out "there" in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390577</id>
	<title>Specifically makes DLs infringement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from the obscene amount, my biggest worry about the case is the judge's instruction #14 to the jury:<br>"The act of downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners&#226;(TM) exclusive reproduction right."</p><p>AFAIK, the RIAA has not tried to sue anyone for illegal downloading, only for sharing / distributing.  While it seems like "common sense" that downloading something for free when you know the owner wants to make money off it would be illegal, this is troubling.  This means it is up to the person downloading or streaming music to know whether the source is licensed to provide it.  Given that there are a lot of music services and web sites that now legally allow users to stream or download music for free, how is the user supposed to know for sure if it's legal?</p><p>Shouldn't the person who makes the sound recording available be responsible for the reproduction tort?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the obscene amount , my biggest worry about the case is the judge 's instruction # 14 to the jury : " The act of downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network , without license from the copyright owners , violates the copyright owners   ( TM ) exclusive reproduction right .
" AFAIK , the RIAA has not tried to sue anyone for illegal downloading , only for sharing / distributing .
While it seems like " common sense " that downloading something for free when you know the owner wants to make money off it would be illegal , this is troubling .
This means it is up to the person downloading or streaming music to know whether the source is licensed to provide it .
Given that there are a lot of music services and web sites that now legally allow users to stream or download music for free , how is the user supposed to know for sure if it 's legal ? Should n't the person who makes the sound recording available be responsible for the reproduction tort ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the obscene amount, my biggest worry about the case is the judge's instruction #14 to the jury:"The act of downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright ownersâ(TM) exclusive reproduction right.
"AFAIK, the RIAA has not tried to sue anyone for illegal downloading, only for sharing / distributing.
While it seems like "common sense" that downloading something for free when you know the owner wants to make money off it would be illegal, this is troubling.
This means it is up to the person downloading or streaming music to know whether the source is licensed to provide it.
Given that there are a lot of music services and web sites that now legally allow users to stream or download music for free, how is the user supposed to know for sure if it's legal?Shouldn't the person who makes the sound recording available be responsible for the reproduction tort?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383659</id>
	<title>Re:$80.000?</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1245332820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can almost guarantee that $80,000 is less than they've actually spent on those songs.  So when does the 'right to sue for damages' turn into the 'right to sue for profit'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can almost guarantee that $ 80,000 is less than they 've actually spent on those songs .
So when does the 'right to sue for damages ' turn into the 'right to sue for profit ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can almost guarantee that $80,000 is less than they've actually spent on those songs.
So when does the 'right to sue for damages' turn into the 'right to sue for profit'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385053</id>
	<title>If 1000 SlashDotters ...</title>
	<author>Cassini2</author>
	<datestamp>1245342960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If 1000 SlashDotters download one song every 2 minutes, then they will download 262,800 songs over the course of one year.  If the RIAA collects $80,000 per song, they will collect $21 Trillion Dollars.  At 10\% income tax, this will raise an extra $2 trillion for the U.S. budget, and wipe out the nations deficit.
</p><p>As such, every<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader should download as many songs as possible.  Save the nation from deficit!  Fix the housing crisis! Save the stock market!  Be a national hero!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 1000 SlashDotters download one song every 2 minutes , then they will download 262,800 songs over the course of one year .
If the RIAA collects $ 80,000 per song , they will collect $ 21 Trillion Dollars .
At 10 \ % income tax , this will raise an extra $ 2 trillion for the U.S. budget , and wipe out the nations deficit .
As such , every / .
reader should download as many songs as possible .
Save the nation from deficit !
Fix the housing crisis !
Save the stock market !
Be a national hero !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 1000 SlashDotters download one song every 2 minutes, then they will download 262,800 songs over the course of one year.
If the RIAA collects $80,000 per song, they will collect $21 Trillion Dollars.
At 10\% income tax, this will raise an extra $2 trillion for the U.S. budget, and wipe out the nations deficit.
As such, every /.
reader should download as many songs as possible.
Save the nation from deficit!
Fix the housing crisis!
Save the stock market!
Be a national hero!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387993</id>
	<title>Just my take on things</title>
	<author>Zontar\_Thing\_From\_Ve</author>
	<datestamp>1245417240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is how I saw the trial from what I read.  I am <b> not </b> a lawyer, but my best friend is and I know a decent amount about the law thanks to him.  This is just how I see it and in my non-lawyer viewpoint, I could be wrong about things.
<br> <br>

It seemed to me that she pulled a fast one on her attorneys.  They seemed caught off guard with the revelation that her disk drive was changed by Best Buy <b> after </b> the date she had specified in her previous trial.  Oops!  I think it was pretty much "game over" at that point.  Her attorneys now had to improvise a defense on the spot and you saw how well that worked. <br> <br>

The defendant seems to project a real aura of arrogance and dishonesty.  This is twice now that juries have bitch slapped her with huge compensatory damages.  I'm sure if we met her in person that we would think that she is a master manipulator and she has twice convinced attorneys that some great wrong has been done to her and yet both times in trial she looked completely guilty when her web of lies fell down.  Now all we can hope for is a 3rd trial based on technicalities, but at this point I think it's pretty hopeless.  Her case is pathetic and she's not going to win.  It really hurts those who have been wronged by the RIAA that this delusional and manipulative woman has been a test case for fighting back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how I saw the trial from what I read .
I am not a lawyer , but my best friend is and I know a decent amount about the law thanks to him .
This is just how I see it and in my non-lawyer viewpoint , I could be wrong about things .
It seemed to me that she pulled a fast one on her attorneys .
They seemed caught off guard with the revelation that her disk drive was changed by Best Buy after the date she had specified in her previous trial .
Oops ! I think it was pretty much " game over " at that point .
Her attorneys now had to improvise a defense on the spot and you saw how well that worked .
The defendant seems to project a real aura of arrogance and dishonesty .
This is twice now that juries have bitch slapped her with huge compensatory damages .
I 'm sure if we met her in person that we would think that she is a master manipulator and she has twice convinced attorneys that some great wrong has been done to her and yet both times in trial she looked completely guilty when her web of lies fell down .
Now all we can hope for is a 3rd trial based on technicalities , but at this point I think it 's pretty hopeless .
Her case is pathetic and she 's not going to win .
It really hurts those who have been wronged by the RIAA that this delusional and manipulative woman has been a test case for fighting back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how I saw the trial from what I read.
I am  not  a lawyer, but my best friend is and I know a decent amount about the law thanks to him.
This is just how I see it and in my non-lawyer viewpoint, I could be wrong about things.
It seemed to me that she pulled a fast one on her attorneys.
They seemed caught off guard with the revelation that her disk drive was changed by Best Buy  after  the date she had specified in her previous trial.
Oops!  I think it was pretty much "game over" at that point.
Her attorneys now had to improvise a defense on the spot and you saw how well that worked.
The defendant seems to project a real aura of arrogance and dishonesty.
This is twice now that juries have bitch slapped her with huge compensatory damages.
I'm sure if we met her in person that we would think that she is a master manipulator and she has twice convinced attorneys that some great wrong has been done to her and yet both times in trial she looked completely guilty when her web of lies fell down.
Now all we can hope for is a 3rd trial based on technicalities, but at this point I think it's pretty hopeless.
Her case is pathetic and she's not going to win.
It really hurts those who have been wronged by the RIAA that this delusional and manipulative woman has been a test case for fighting back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382643</id>
	<title>Re:Can they do anything else</title>
	<author>mustafap</author>
	<datestamp>1245328320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Now that they've virtually guaranteed her bankruptcy, how else could they possibly punish her?</p><p>er, jail?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Now that they 've virtually guaranteed her bankruptcy , how else could they possibly punish her ? er , jail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Now that they've virtually guaranteed her bankruptcy, how else could they possibly punish her?er, jail?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382057</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245325500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least from what I gathered from the article is that basically the defense was incompetent, might as well pleaded out of court because the damages are absolutely ridiculous.  I can say the defense was incompetent because they can't even convince a jury that 24 songs aren't worth less than 1.9 million.  Although the jury makes me sad as well.  Trials like this really scare me because the punishment doesn't even come close to the crime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least from what I gathered from the article is that basically the defense was incompetent , might as well pleaded out of court because the damages are absolutely ridiculous .
I can say the defense was incompetent because they ca n't even convince a jury that 24 songs are n't worth less than 1.9 million .
Although the jury makes me sad as well .
Trials like this really scare me because the punishment does n't even come close to the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least from what I gathered from the article is that basically the defense was incompetent, might as well pleaded out of court because the damages are absolutely ridiculous.
I can say the defense was incompetent because they can't even convince a jury that 24 songs aren't worth less than 1.9 million.
Although the jury makes me sad as well.
Trials like this really scare me because the punishment doesn't even come close to the crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382043</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>mkiwi</author>
	<datestamp>1245325440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the amount of money she'll owe she could have hired someone insanely good many times over.  I'm not putting on my tinfoil hat yet, but this legal ineptitude is rather suspicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the amount of money she 'll owe she could have hired someone insanely good many times over .
I 'm not putting on my tinfoil hat yet , but this legal ineptitude is rather suspicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the amount of money she'll owe she could have hired someone insanely good many times over.
I'm not putting on my tinfoil hat yet, but this legal ineptitude is rather suspicious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382527</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>xbytor</author>
	<datestamp>1245327840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My theory is that the attorneys really needed more time to prep for the case. Knowing full well (or praying) that this verdict will also be set aside gives them several months to get more completely prepared for a third trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My theory is that the attorneys really needed more time to prep for the case .
Knowing full well ( or praying ) that this verdict will also be set aside gives them several months to get more completely prepared for a third trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My theory is that the attorneys really needed more time to prep for the case.
Knowing full well (or praying) that this verdict will also be set aside gives them several months to get more completely prepared for a third trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382251</id>
	<title>Conspiracy theory</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1245326400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.9M is so suspiciously close to 2M that a potential previous conversation perfectly could well has been "I pay you 2M if you don't defend yourself, and return only 1.9M... you can keep the change". You know, like using a bait trial to set a precedent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1.9M is so suspiciously close to 2M that a potential previous conversation perfectly could well has been " I pay you 2M if you do n't defend yourself , and return only 1.9M... you can keep the change " .
You know , like using a bait trial to set a precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.9M is so suspiciously close to 2M that a potential previous conversation perfectly could well has been "I pay you 2M if you don't defend yourself, and return only 1.9M... you can keep the change".
You know, like using a bait trial to set a precedent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384095</id>
	<title>Re:Something has gone seriously wrong when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245335400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are not, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.</p><p>When a construction worker is hired, he cuts the boards, hangs the drywall, etc., and then he collects his paycheck.  The lawyer researches his case, makes appearances before the judge, etc., and then he collects his paycheck.</p><p>What the construction worker and lawyer do not do or expect, but the independent programmer or musician do is to get paid every time someone uses their work.  Construction workers do not expect to be paid a monthly fee for the buildings they've already built.  Lawyers do not expect to be paid when a colleague references their case in a brief.  Why is it that the musician and programmer expect something different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not , and I do n't see how anyone could think otherwise.When a construction worker is hired , he cuts the boards , hangs the drywall , etc. , and then he collects his paycheck .
The lawyer researches his case , makes appearances before the judge , etc. , and then he collects his paycheck.What the construction worker and lawyer do not do or expect , but the independent programmer or musician do is to get paid every time someone uses their work .
Construction workers do not expect to be paid a monthly fee for the buildings they 've already built .
Lawyers do not expect to be paid when a colleague references their case in a brief .
Why is it that the musician and programmer expect something different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are not, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.When a construction worker is hired, he cuts the boards, hangs the drywall, etc., and then he collects his paycheck.
The lawyer researches his case, makes appearances before the judge, etc., and then he collects his paycheck.What the construction worker and lawyer do not do or expect, but the independent programmer or musician do is to get paid every time someone uses their work.
Construction workers do not expect to be paid a monthly fee for the buildings they've already built.
Lawyers do not expect to be paid when a colleague references their case in a brief.
Why is it that the musician and programmer expect something different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383821</id>
	<title>Some math...</title>
	<author>Ioldanach</author>
	<datestamp>1245333660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Lets presume each of the 24 songs in question (of the 1702 songs being shared by that IP) is available on itunes with a price of 99 cents.  Lets also presume that statutory damages were actually limited to the revenue lost by the company (which they apparently aren't).  And finally that the 24 songs were each 5MB and the cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps.
</p><p>
For the 24 songs in question to incur $80,000 in damages each, therefore, they would have had to be downloaded a total of 1939394 times, for 9696970MB of downloads.  This would, at 256kbps, take 3507 days (about 9 and a half years).  Kazaa had only existed for about three years at the point of infringement.  Also, for that matter, that ignores the remaining 1678 songs.
</p><p>
Going the other direction, if all 1702 songs were saturating the upload speed of the modem for the history of Kazaa (call it 3 years even to make things easier) you'd have been able to upload 1009152MB, or about 201830 songs, divided evenly over all 1702 songs that's about 118 times each.  At 99 cents each that's $2803.68 in statutory damages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets presume each of the 24 songs in question ( of the 1702 songs being shared by that IP ) is available on itunes with a price of 99 cents .
Lets also presume that statutory damages were actually limited to the revenue lost by the company ( which they apparently are n't ) .
And finally that the 24 songs were each 5MB and the cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps .
For the 24 songs in question to incur $ 80,000 in damages each , therefore , they would have had to be downloaded a total of 1939394 times , for 9696970MB of downloads .
This would , at 256kbps , take 3507 days ( about 9 and a half years ) .
Kazaa had only existed for about three years at the point of infringement .
Also , for that matter , that ignores the remaining 1678 songs .
Going the other direction , if all 1702 songs were saturating the upload speed of the modem for the history of Kazaa ( call it 3 years even to make things easier ) you 'd have been able to upload 1009152MB , or about 201830 songs , divided evenly over all 1702 songs that 's about 118 times each .
At 99 cents each that 's $ 2803.68 in statutory damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Lets presume each of the 24 songs in question (of the 1702 songs being shared by that IP) is available on itunes with a price of 99 cents.
Lets also presume that statutory damages were actually limited to the revenue lost by the company (which they apparently aren't).
And finally that the 24 songs were each 5MB and the cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps.
For the 24 songs in question to incur $80,000 in damages each, therefore, they would have had to be downloaded a total of 1939394 times, for 9696970MB of downloads.
This would, at 256kbps, take 3507 days (about 9 and a half years).
Kazaa had only existed for about three years at the point of infringement.
Also, for that matter, that ignores the remaining 1678 songs.
Going the other direction, if all 1702 songs were saturating the upload speed of the modem for the history of Kazaa (call it 3 years even to make things easier) you'd have been able to upload 1009152MB, or about 201830 songs, divided evenly over all 1702 songs that's about 118 times each.
At 99 cents each that's $2803.68 in statutory damages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382831</id>
	<title>Re:$80,000 is awesome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245329040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I'm setting up a music label. 'Stimulus Records'. Please send all your links to original MP3's, names of tracks, your addresses  and some idea of how much each of your tracks is worth for a) a movie, a rock video, a you tube track, a student video (think cheap), free for non-commercial use.</p><p>I will have to have you also sign a media release that all your work belongs to me (for marketing).  However, I will give all royalties to charity as part of this campaign and release your tune under a creative commons license after all this is over. (RIAA case first, CCL after). CC (of course) belongs to the author and you get the right to use it as you see fit.  Even though it is distributed under CCL.</p><p>Hurry, up, we only have a few hours to move all your beautiful original tooons across the net so the RIAA can ask me for the name of the royalty holders.  If we got say 100,000 new tracks a day I am pretty sure it might be an interesting time for them.  Especially if they got downloaded by 50,000,000 people next week.</p><p>Bono? Slayer? Interested?  I am sure you home in Ireland is very pretty.  But this is sort of important.</p><p>Anyone?</p><p>Please give me a call if you think you can make this work on twitter @gerald\_speers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 'm setting up a music label .
'Stimulus Records' .
Please send all your links to original MP3 's , names of tracks , your addresses and some idea of how much each of your tracks is worth for a ) a movie , a rock video , a you tube track , a student video ( think cheap ) , free for non-commercial use.I will have to have you also sign a media release that all your work belongs to me ( for marketing ) .
However , I will give all royalties to charity as part of this campaign and release your tune under a creative commons license after all this is over .
( RIAA case first , CCL after ) .
CC ( of course ) belongs to the author and you get the right to use it as you see fit .
Even though it is distributed under CCL.Hurry , up , we only have a few hours to move all your beautiful original tooons across the net so the RIAA can ask me for the name of the royalty holders .
If we got say 100,000 new tracks a day I am pretty sure it might be an interesting time for them .
Especially if they got downloaded by 50,000,000 people next week.Bono ?
Slayer ? Interested ?
I am sure you home in Ireland is very pretty .
But this is sort of important.Anyone ? Please give me a call if you think you can make this work on twitter @ gerald \ _speers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I'm setting up a music label.
'Stimulus Records'.
Please send all your links to original MP3's, names of tracks, your addresses  and some idea of how much each of your tracks is worth for a) a movie, a rock video, a you tube track, a student video (think cheap), free for non-commercial use.I will have to have you also sign a media release that all your work belongs to me (for marketing).
However, I will give all royalties to charity as part of this campaign and release your tune under a creative commons license after all this is over.
(RIAA case first, CCL after).
CC (of course) belongs to the author and you get the right to use it as you see fit.
Even though it is distributed under CCL.Hurry, up, we only have a few hours to move all your beautiful original tooons across the net so the RIAA can ask me for the name of the royalty holders.
If we got say 100,000 new tracks a day I am pretty sure it might be an interesting time for them.
Especially if they got downloaded by 50,000,000 people next week.Bono?
Slayer? Interested?
I am sure you home in Ireland is very pretty.
But this is sort of important.Anyone?Please give me a call if you think you can make this work on twitter @gerald\_speers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388507</id>
	<title>Request for clarification</title>
	<author>hasbeard</author>
	<datestamp>1245420240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to make sure I have this right.  She was accused not merely of downloading for her own use 24 songs, but of distributing the songs to others, and this was the reason for the high damages. Is this correct?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to make sure I have this right .
She was accused not merely of downloading for her own use 24 songs , but of distributing the songs to others , and this was the reason for the high damages .
Is this correct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to make sure I have this right.
She was accused not merely of downloading for her own use 24 songs, but of distributing the songs to others, and this was the reason for the high damages.
Is this correct?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443</id>
	<title>Absolutely Nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245327360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No distribution was ever shown.  The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they wouldn't show it because it's impossible to show. THIS IS INSANE!!!
<br> <br>
I, for one, cannot wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available, and who market through cooperatives over the Internet. Let Big Music Die Now Please!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No distribution was ever shown .
The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they would n't show it because it 's impossible to show .
THIS IS INSANE ! ! !
I , for one , can not wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available , and who market through cooperatives over the Internet .
Let Big Music Die Now Please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No distribution was ever shown.
The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they wouldn't show it because it's impossible to show.
THIS IS INSANE!!!
I, for one, cannot wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available, and who market through cooperatives over the Internet.
Let Big Music Die Now Please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383461</id>
	<title>Re:Come on people</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1245331680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>She lied about her hard drive, thinking it would get her off. I don't like the RIAA, but she deserved this.</p></div><p>You're also assuming that the RIAA's case didn't contain greater legal dishonesty, even if they didn't get held responsible for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>She lied about her hard drive , thinking it would get her off .
I do n't like the RIAA , but she deserved this.You 're also assuming that the RIAA 's case did n't contain greater legal dishonesty , even if they did n't get held responsible for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She lied about her hard drive, thinking it would get her off.
I don't like the RIAA, but she deserved this.You're also assuming that the RIAA's case didn't contain greater legal dishonesty, even if they didn't get held responsible for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382697</id>
	<title>Re:Eighth Amendment - One Line</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245328560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not a fine. It is compensatory and punative damages in a civil suit. There is an important difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not a fine .
It is compensatory and punative damages in a civil suit .
There is an important difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not a fine.
It is compensatory and punative damages in a civil suit.
There is an important difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383169</id>
	<title>Re:Throwing on purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245330180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this goes to the Supreme Court everyone will be more trouble. The fact is that she did indeed go beyond the means of fair use, and that would really be the only argument that they could use in any other court. Distributing copy protected works that allow other people to avoid paying the normal price is against civil law. The Supreme court would no legal avenue other then to favor the RIAA.</p><p>If you want to discuss legal options the best way is to have a law passed where limited sharing of copy protected works IS allowed so most individuals won't be sued. That's as far as this can go legally, IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this goes to the Supreme Court everyone will be more trouble .
The fact is that she did indeed go beyond the means of fair use , and that would really be the only argument that they could use in any other court .
Distributing copy protected works that allow other people to avoid paying the normal price is against civil law .
The Supreme court would no legal avenue other then to favor the RIAA.If you want to discuss legal options the best way is to have a law passed where limited sharing of copy protected works IS allowed so most individuals wo n't be sued .
That 's as far as this can go legally , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this goes to the Supreme Court everyone will be more trouble.
The fact is that she did indeed go beyond the means of fair use, and that would really be the only argument that they could use in any other court.
Distributing copy protected works that allow other people to avoid paying the normal price is against civil law.
The Supreme court would no legal avenue other then to favor the RIAA.If you want to discuss legal options the best way is to have a law passed where limited sharing of copy protected works IS allowed so most individuals won't be sued.
That's as far as this can go legally, IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385179</id>
	<title>Re:$80,000 is awesome</title>
	<author>cadrell0</author>
	<datestamp>1245344640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, all you have to do is write one awful song.... ever.  Once someone puts it up on a torrent, you just sue two random people a year for the next 30 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , all you have to do is write one awful song.... ever. Once someone puts it up on a torrent , you just sue two random people a year for the next 30 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, all you have to do is write one awful song.... ever.  Once someone puts it up on a torrent, you just sue two random people a year for the next 30 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388891</id>
	<title>Re:Well Done!</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1245421980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, I have a torrent with the top 2000, do you want it? We're gonna make you the biggest thief of all in no-time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P

But serieus, I feel sorry for the Amerikans. This is just insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I have a torrent with the top 2000 , do you want it ?
We 're gon na make you the biggest thief of all in no-time : P But serieus , I feel sorry for the Amerikans .
This is just insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I have a torrent with the top 2000, do you want it?
We're gonna make you the biggest thief of all in no-time :P

But serieus, I feel sorry for the Amerikans.
This is just insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382073</id>
	<title>1.92MegaBucks?  It could be million times that</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1245325560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is obviously unreasonable, I don't understand how a dozen juries find that it is not absolutely insane to order the defendant to pay that amount.</p><p>However from point of view of RIAA it is obviously necessary to make the fines so obscene, that from now on every single person charged just settles for the few grand (what is it, 5K nowadays?)</p><p>In any case, at this point it could be a bajjjillion dollars (with a pinky near near the corner of a mouth), there is no way that the defendant can ever pay this out, so why not add another 20 zeros at the end of the fine?  Shit, they could argue that taxes from this fine alone will fix the US economy for the next 50 years!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is obviously unreasonable , I do n't understand how a dozen juries find that it is not absolutely insane to order the defendant to pay that amount.However from point of view of RIAA it is obviously necessary to make the fines so obscene , that from now on every single person charged just settles for the few grand ( what is it , 5K nowadays ?
) In any case , at this point it could be a bajjjillion dollars ( with a pinky near near the corner of a mouth ) , there is no way that the defendant can ever pay this out , so why not add another 20 zeros at the end of the fine ?
Shit , they could argue that taxes from this fine alone will fix the US economy for the next 50 years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is obviously unreasonable, I don't understand how a dozen juries find that it is not absolutely insane to order the defendant to pay that amount.However from point of view of RIAA it is obviously necessary to make the fines so obscene, that from now on every single person charged just settles for the few grand (what is it, 5K nowadays?
)In any case, at this point it could be a bajjjillion dollars (with a pinky near near the corner of a mouth), there is no way that the defendant can ever pay this out, so why not add another 20 zeros at the end of the fine?
Shit, they could argue that taxes from this fine alone will fix the US economy for the next 50 years!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383235</id>
	<title>Re:right verdict, wrong result</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245330480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a lawyer, you should know that you can't award her less than the statutory minimum of $750 because the innocent infringement defense was not available.  And an appellate court is not going to touch this award because there's nothing wrong with the decision and no grounds for error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a lawyer , you should know that you ca n't award her less than the statutory minimum of $ 750 because the innocent infringement defense was not available .
And an appellate court is not going to touch this award because there 's nothing wrong with the decision and no grounds for error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a lawyer, you should know that you can't award her less than the statutory minimum of $750 because the innocent infringement defense was not available.
And an appellate court is not going to touch this award because there's nothing wrong with the decision and no grounds for error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390055</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously??</title>
	<author>Nesman64</author>
	<datestamp>1245426660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't need 12.  1 person that cannot be swayed and 11 people that would rather go home than continue to argue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need 12 .
1 person that can not be swayed and 11 people that would rather go home than continue to argue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need 12.
1 person that cannot be swayed and 11 people that would rather go home than continue to argue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384577</id>
	<title>Re:Why oh why didn't she settle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245338940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.</p></div><p>No, what is foolish is knowing you were guilty, challenging them (so far, it can still be construed as civil disobedience or standing up to a bully), then putting on a show, committing perjury and trying to pull a fast one on the jurors - which in a jury trial is suicidal if they realize it. Its no wonder she got spanked in court.</p><p>I have no love for the RIAA, but to underestimate them, consider them brainless morons and act like a douchebag in court warrants punishment (personally, I think that it is excessive and I'm sure the amount will be reduced on appeal. But I wouldn't have any sympathy if this woman was taken down a peg or two).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call standing up to a bully " foolish " exactly.No , what is foolish is knowing you were guilty , challenging them ( so far , it can still be construed as civil disobedience or standing up to a bully ) , then putting on a show , committing perjury and trying to pull a fast one on the jurors - which in a jury trial is suicidal if they realize it .
Its no wonder she got spanked in court.I have no love for the RIAA , but to underestimate them , consider them brainless morons and act like a douchebag in court warrants punishment ( personally , I think that it is excessive and I 'm sure the amount will be reduced on appeal .
But I would n't have any sympathy if this woman was taken down a peg or two ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.No, what is foolish is knowing you were guilty, challenging them (so far, it can still be construed as civil disobedience or standing up to a bully), then putting on a show, committing perjury and trying to pull a fast one on the jurors - which in a jury trial is suicidal if they realize it.
Its no wonder she got spanked in court.I have no love for the RIAA, but to underestimate them, consider them brainless morons and act like a douchebag in court warrants punishment (personally, I think that it is excessive and I'm sure the amount will be reduced on appeal.
But I wouldn't have any sympathy if this woman was taken down a peg or two).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28394665</id>
	<title>"angry with her"?</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1245445140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.</p></div><p>The prosecution successfully created personal feelings towards the defendant in the jury?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He said it suggested that jurors did n't believe Thomas-Rasset 's denials of illegal file-sharing , and that they were angry with her.The prosecution successfully created personal feelings towards the defendant in the jury ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.The prosecution successfully created personal feelings towards the defendant in the jury?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383097</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245330000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not inevitable that the vedict will be set aside.  In fact, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict would most certainly fail.  This isn't a situation where the award is excessive as a matter of fact, but rather an award that falls within well-tailored statutory guidelines set by Congress.  As a result, there is simply no reason for the judge to take the case from the jury and overturn their decision.  They evaluated the evidence properly, found her liable, and tallied the damage as they saw fit.  End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not inevitable that the vedict will be set aside .
In fact , a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict would most certainly fail .
This is n't a situation where the award is excessive as a matter of fact , but rather an award that falls within well-tailored statutory guidelines set by Congress .
As a result , there is simply no reason for the judge to take the case from the jury and overturn their decision .
They evaluated the evidence properly , found her liable , and tallied the damage as they saw fit .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not inevitable that the vedict will be set aside.
In fact, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict would most certainly fail.
This isn't a situation where the award is excessive as a matter of fact, but rather an award that falls within well-tailored statutory guidelines set by Congress.
As a result, there is simply no reason for the judge to take the case from the jury and overturn their decision.
They evaluated the evidence properly, found her liable, and tallied the damage as they saw fit.
End of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384883</id>
	<title>Don't you love how corupt our government is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245341040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One week the RIAA loses a case the next week a federal law is created that makes it possible to win, the next week the RIAA can't get more then a dollar a song this week they can get 80,000. Oh well time to file for bankruptcy and live in a cabin in canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One week the RIAA loses a case the next week a federal law is created that makes it possible to win , the next week the RIAA ca n't get more then a dollar a song this week they can get 80,000 .
Oh well time to file for bankruptcy and live in a cabin in canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One week the RIAA loses a case the next week a federal law is created that makes it possible to win, the next week the RIAA can't get more then a dollar a song this week they can get 80,000.
Oh well time to file for bankruptcy and live in a cabin in canada.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384551</id>
	<title>Re:What are the lawyers thinking?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1245338700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I missed it, but did the defense allow the plaintiff's counsel to suggest that she knew she'd be sued before being served? I remember one of the jurors spouting off about how she was destroying evidence in response to papers she wouldn't be served until a few weeks after the hard drive was detroyed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I missed it , but did the defense allow the plaintiff 's counsel to suggest that she knew she 'd be sued before being served ?
I remember one of the jurors spouting off about how she was destroying evidence in response to papers she would n't be served until a few weeks after the hard drive was detroyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I missed it, but did the defense allow the plaintiff's counsel to suggest that she knew she'd be sued before being served?
I remember one of the jurors spouting off about how she was destroying evidence in response to papers she wouldn't be served until a few weeks after the hard drive was detroyed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383403</id>
	<title>Re:Something has gone seriously wrong when...</title>
	<author>igxqrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1245331380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a producer of intellectual property, I would find it debilitating if the data I create were taken from me without compensation.

Why are construction workers or lawyers more entitled to the fruits of their labor than musicians or computer programmers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a producer of intellectual property , I would find it debilitating if the data I create were taken from me without compensation .
Why are construction workers or lawyers more entitled to the fruits of their labor than musicians or computer programmers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a producer of intellectual property, I would find it debilitating if the data I create were taken from me without compensation.
Why are construction workers or lawyers more entitled to the fruits of their labor than musicians or computer programmers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390803</id>
	<title>Re:Well Done!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245429960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>IP noted.
<br>
<br>
Please do not attempt to erase your hard drive until we can file for discovery on John Doe #104074.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP noted .
Please do not attempt to erase your hard drive until we can file for discovery on John Doe # 104074 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP noted.
Please do not attempt to erase your hard drive until we can file for discovery on John Doe #104074.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384231</id>
	<title>Re:$80.000?</title>
	<author>matt328</author>
	<datestamp>1245336300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously.  These assholes oughta be ashamed of themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
These assholes oughta be ashamed of themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
These assholes oughta be ashamed of themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28392233</id>
	<title>Re:The dead horse at the finish line</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1245436140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
IANAL, but it's my understanding that juries rule on matters of fact, and judges on matters of law.
</p><p>
From where I sit, it seems exceedingly likely that she did exactly what she was accused of, and I don't see that another trial would be reasonable.  She had her chance to convince a jury that she didn't do it, and was unable to.
</p><p>
The question of what damages are constitutionally allowable is a matter of law, and is not to be settled by a jury.  Therefore, I'd expect appeals to reduce the damages to less than $1000, based on the appropriate part of the Constitution as amended.
</p><p>
How far this goes is a matter of speculation.  I'd be really surprised if the Supreme Court were to take this up, but it is possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but it 's my understanding that juries rule on matters of fact , and judges on matters of law .
From where I sit , it seems exceedingly likely that she did exactly what she was accused of , and I do n't see that another trial would be reasonable .
She had her chance to convince a jury that she did n't do it , and was unable to .
The question of what damages are constitutionally allowable is a matter of law , and is not to be settled by a jury .
Therefore , I 'd expect appeals to reduce the damages to less than $ 1000 , based on the appropriate part of the Constitution as amended .
How far this goes is a matter of speculation .
I 'd be really surprised if the Supreme Court were to take this up , but it is possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
IANAL, but it's my understanding that juries rule on matters of fact, and judges on matters of law.
From where I sit, it seems exceedingly likely that she did exactly what she was accused of, and I don't see that another trial would be reasonable.
She had her chance to convince a jury that she didn't do it, and was unable to.
The question of what damages are constitutionally allowable is a matter of law, and is not to be settled by a jury.
Therefore, I'd expect appeals to reduce the damages to less than $1000, based on the appropriate part of the Constitution as amended.
How far this goes is a matter of speculation.
I'd be really surprised if the Supreme Court were to take this up, but it is possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382551</id>
	<title>Sue and compensation culture</title>
	<author>NSN A392-99-964-5927</author>
	<datestamp>1245327960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is rather a bitter pill to swallow, however it is a travesty of justice. The awards in no way represent compensation or fair justice.

I find it appauling to the extreme. When is someone going to stand up to the RIAA, legally and disband this corrupt organisation? They are just as bad as if not worst than what happened at Enron, which was the start of the economic downturn in reality and because people have no money, we are hitting an all time high of lawsuits of compensation.

May the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg be with you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is rather a bitter pill to swallow , however it is a travesty of justice .
The awards in no way represent compensation or fair justice .
I find it appauling to the extreme .
When is someone going to stand up to the RIAA , legally and disband this corrupt organisation ?
They are just as bad as if not worst than what happened at Enron , which was the start of the economic downturn in reality and because people have no money , we are hitting an all time high of lawsuits of compensation .
May the .ogg be with you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is rather a bitter pill to swallow, however it is a travesty of justice.
The awards in no way represent compensation or fair justice.
I find it appauling to the extreme.
When is someone going to stand up to the RIAA, legally and disband this corrupt organisation?
They are just as bad as if not worst than what happened at Enron, which was the start of the economic downturn in reality and because people have no money, we are hitting an all time high of lawsuits of compensation.
May the .ogg be with you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385899</id>
	<title>Re:right verdict, wrong result</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing that 12 people are willing to destory someone's entire life over this... I hope they burn in hell</p><p>What she did was wrong.. but as a human being you have a moral obligation to stop injustice.</p><p>As a juror, knowing the ridiculous penalities.. I would have had to find her innocent... but then again I have a conscience</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing that 12 people are willing to destory someone 's entire life over this... I hope they burn in hellWhat she did was wrong.. but as a human being you have a moral obligation to stop injustice.As a juror , knowing the ridiculous penalities.. I would have had to find her innocent... but then again I have a conscience</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing that 12 people are willing to destory someone's entire life over this... I hope they burn in hellWhat she did was wrong.. but as a human being you have a moral obligation to stop injustice.As a juror, knowing the ridiculous penalities.. I would have had to find her innocent... but then again I have a conscience</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384505</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely Nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245338460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes RIAA's business model is so 20th century... A new future is awaiting us!</p><p>In the meanwhile you can download my album from mininova. Be sure to redistribute to everyone you know and don't forget to keep record of it so I can... retribute you, yes, in the future.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>Your friendly artist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes RIAA 's business model is so 20th century... A new future is awaiting us ! In the meanwhile you can download my album from mininova .
Be sure to redistribute to everyone you know and do n't forget to keep record of it so I can... retribute you , yes , in the future.Sincerely,Your friendly artist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes RIAA's business model is so 20th century... A new future is awaiting us!In the meanwhile you can download my album from mininova.
Be sure to redistribute to everyone you know and don't forget to keep record of it so I can... retribute you, yes, in the future.Sincerely,Your friendly artist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382497</id>
	<title>Re:Let's think about this</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1245327660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...</p></div><p>I think the premise behind the damages is not just what she downloaded but the amount she distributed.  If she seeded a lot of files, the amount uploaded would quickly dwarf whatever she personally downloaded.  The real damage is likely X where (The retail value of the songs she downloaded) &lt; X &lt; (The retail value of the songs she distributed).  Not everybody she shared with would have bought the song if piracy weren't an option, but a lot would have.  The RIAA assumes X = (The retail value of the songs she distributed) whereas the people here on slashdot seem to assume X = (The retail value of the songs she downloaded).  Both of these assumptions are rediculous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...I think the premise behind the damages is not just what she downloaded but the amount she distributed .
If she seeded a lot of files , the amount uploaded would quickly dwarf whatever she personally downloaded .
The real damage is likely X where ( The retail value of the songs she downloaded )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...I think the premise behind the damages is not just what she downloaded but the amount she distributed.
If she seeded a lot of files, the amount uploaded would quickly dwarf whatever she personally downloaded.
The real damage is likely X where (The retail value of the songs she downloaded) 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382519</id>
	<title>Every time I consider paying for songs...</title>
	<author>PottedMeat</author>
	<datestamp>1245327780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this kind of idiocy pops up and sets me straight.
<br> <br>
They'll never get a dime from me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this kind of idiocy pops up and sets me straight .
They 'll never get a dime from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this kind of idiocy pops up and sets me straight.
They'll never get a dime from me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382381</id>
	<title>Re:Trial 3</title>
	<author>The\_Wilschon</author>
	<datestamp>1245327000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names\_of\_large\_numbers" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names\_of\_large\_numbers</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names \ _of \ _large \ _numbers [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names\_of\_large\_numbers [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385919</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely Nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you clearly weren't paying attention because the evidence clearly showed a distribution to MediaSentry which is all they needed to prove an infringement of the 17 USC 106(3) right.  Case closed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you clearly were n't paying attention because the evidence clearly showed a distribution to MediaSentry which is all they needed to prove an infringement of the 17 USC 106 ( 3 ) right .
Case closed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you clearly weren't paying attention because the evidence clearly showed a distribution to MediaSentry which is all they needed to prove an infringement of the 17 USC 106(3) right.
Case closed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382243</id>
	<title>$2M?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245326340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$2M for 24 songs?  Sounds like jury tampering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 2M for 24 songs ?
Sounds like jury tampering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$2M for 24 songs?
Sounds like jury tampering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28391845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28392233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28393283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28392879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28386513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28391763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_227219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28386513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28392879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28391965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28386485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28392233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28391845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28391763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28387353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384095
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28393283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28388509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28390055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28389595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28381995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28383549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_227219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28382443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28385459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_227219.28384505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
