<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_19_1550232</id>
	<title>$1.9 Million Award In Thomas Case Raises Constitutional Questions</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245437280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Techdirt points out that the EFF is <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090618/1950315285.shtml">examining the constitutionality</a> of the recent $1.9 million verdict awarded in favor of the RIAA against Jammie Thomas.  While on the surface it may seem that this excessive award should be easy to overturn since grossly excessive punitive damage awards are considered to violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have been ignoring precedent and upholding copyright's importance at any cost.  <i>"Given the size of the statutory damages award, Ms. Thomas-Rasset's legal team will likely be seriously considering a constitutional challenge to the verdict. A large and disproportionate damage award like this raises at least two potential constitutional concerns. First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new') violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution. In evaluating whether an award 'grossly excessive,' courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into 'grossly excessive?' And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Techdirt points out that the EFF is examining the constitutionality of the recent $ 1.9 million verdict awarded in favor of the RIAA against Jammie Thomas .
While on the surface it may seem that this excessive award should be easy to overturn since grossly excessive punitive damage awards are considered to violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution , the Supreme Court seems to have been ignoring precedent and upholding copyright 's importance at any cost .
" Given the size of the statutory damages award , Ms. Thomas-Rasset 's legal team will likely be seriously considering a constitutional challenge to the verdict .
A large and disproportionate damage award like this raises at least two potential constitutional concerns .
First , the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive ' punitive damage awards ( e.g. , $ 2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new ' ) violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution .
In evaluating whether an award 'grossly excessive, ' courts evaluate three criteria : 1 ) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant 's actions , 2 ) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award , and 3 ) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations .
Does a $ 1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into 'grossly excessive ?
' And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages ?
These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset 's attorneys .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Techdirt points out that the EFF is examining the constitutionality of the recent $1.9 million verdict awarded in favor of the RIAA against Jammie Thomas.
While on the surface it may seem that this excessive award should be easy to overturn since grossly excessive punitive damage awards are considered to violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have been ignoring precedent and upholding copyright's importance at any cost.
"Given the size of the statutory damages award, Ms. Thomas-Rasset's legal team will likely be seriously considering a constitutional challenge to the verdict.
A large and disproportionate damage award like this raises at least two potential constitutional concerns.
First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new') violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution.
In evaluating whether an award 'grossly excessive,' courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations.
Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into 'grossly excessive?
' And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages?
These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395219</id>
	<title>Re:I dont get it...</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1245403800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could be charged $750-$150000 per CD as well.  <br> <br>
Of course, in this case it makes more sense.  It's actually plausible that they sold 50 copies of a CD worth $15.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could be charged $ 750- $ 150000 per CD as well .
Of course , in this case it makes more sense .
It 's actually plausible that they sold 50 copies of a CD worth $ 15 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could be charged $750-$150000 per CD as well.
Of course, in this case it makes more sense.
It's actually plausible that they sold 50 copies of a CD worth $15.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396969</id>
	<title>Why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suppose thousands of people from this site were to email the president? True, it wasn't his ruling, but this is prime material to contact the President and your local governors. I'd be willing to bet none of them would publicly endorse this kind of behavior, so give them the opportunity to get tons of feedback from other "real people" and make them respond or ignore it. Why not?</p><p>http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose thousands of people from this site were to email the president ?
True , it was n't his ruling , but this is prime material to contact the President and your local governors .
I 'd be willing to bet none of them would publicly endorse this kind of behavior , so give them the opportunity to get tons of feedback from other " real people " and make them respond or ignore it .
Why not ? http : //www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose thousands of people from this site were to email the president?
True, it wasn't his ruling, but this is prime material to contact the President and your local governors.
I'd be willing to bet none of them would publicly endorse this kind of behavior, so give them the opportunity to get tons of feedback from other "real people" and make them respond or ignore it.
Why not?http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397463</id>
	<title>It's back to chasing ambbulances, guys</title>
	<author>mbstone</author>
	<datestamp>1245415260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the end of the road for NYCL, me, and any other law firm or lawyer who has hung out a shingle offering to defend RIAA defendants.  So far, from having met with many, many college students, parents of college students, and others, the take-away is that most people are freakin' sheep.  And, in hindsight, maybe settling with RIAA like a freakin' sheep was the right thing to have done.</p><p>This was supposed to be the trial in which the defense would be well prepared and all possible defenses would be competently and fully presented.  Maybe this trial was well defended, maybe instead it was badly lawyered, I wasn't there.  What's true is that in the future, nobody in their right mind who is facing a threatened RIAA lawsuit will ever do anything but settle.</p><p>I'll go back to doing other stuff now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the end of the road for NYCL , me , and any other law firm or lawyer who has hung out a shingle offering to defend RIAA defendants .
So far , from having met with many , many college students , parents of college students , and others , the take-away is that most people are freakin ' sheep .
And , in hindsight , maybe settling with RIAA like a freakin ' sheep was the right thing to have done.This was supposed to be the trial in which the defense would be well prepared and all possible defenses would be competently and fully presented .
Maybe this trial was well defended , maybe instead it was badly lawyered , I was n't there .
What 's true is that in the future , nobody in their right mind who is facing a threatened RIAA lawsuit will ever do anything but settle.I 'll go back to doing other stuff now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the end of the road for NYCL, me, and any other law firm or lawyer who has hung out a shingle offering to defend RIAA defendants.
So far, from having met with many, many college students, parents of college students, and others, the take-away is that most people are freakin' sheep.
And, in hindsight, maybe settling with RIAA like a freakin' sheep was the right thing to have done.This was supposed to be the trial in which the defense would be well prepared and all possible defenses would be competently and fully presented.
Maybe this trial was well defended, maybe instead it was badly lawyered, I wasn't there.
What's true is that in the future, nobody in their right mind who is facing a threatened RIAA lawsuit will ever do anything but settle.I'll go back to doing other stuff now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399861</id>
	<title>Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1245528720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The damage to the company is the same regardless of whether she distributed 1,000s of copies for free or charged for them. There is still a percentage of those copies (not 100\%) that constitute lost sales for the company and recording artist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The damage to the company is the same regardless of whether she distributed 1,000s of copies for free or charged for them .
There is still a percentage of those copies ( not 100 \ % ) that constitute lost sales for the company and recording artist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damage to the company is the same regardless of whether she distributed 1,000s of copies for free or charged for them.
There is still a percentage of those copies (not 100\%) that constitute lost sales for the company and recording artist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394287</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>jonsmirl</author>
	<datestamp>1245443940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should have subpoenaed the bands to testify since it was their music that was being infringed.  It would have been very interesting to hear each band's statements about where they stand on having the music copied on the Internet. Say the wrong thing and they'll destroy their fan base.</p><p>Since this is supposed to be about compensating the artists, it would be interesting to have the bands testify on what percentage of these settlements they receive. How can it make sense to award $2M when the artists probably aren't going to see any of it?</p><p>Punitive damages should go to the US Treasury, actual damages should go to the victim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should have subpoenaed the bands to testify since it was their music that was being infringed .
It would have been very interesting to hear each band 's statements about where they stand on having the music copied on the Internet .
Say the wrong thing and they 'll destroy their fan base.Since this is supposed to be about compensating the artists , it would be interesting to have the bands testify on what percentage of these settlements they receive .
How can it make sense to award $ 2M when the artists probably are n't going to see any of it ? Punitive damages should go to the US Treasury , actual damages should go to the victim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should have subpoenaed the bands to testify since it was their music that was being infringed.
It would have been very interesting to hear each band's statements about where they stand on having the music copied on the Internet.
Say the wrong thing and they'll destroy their fan base.Since this is supposed to be about compensating the artists, it would be interesting to have the bands testify on what percentage of these settlements they receive.
How can it make sense to award $2M when the artists probably aren't going to see any of it?Punitive damages should go to the US Treasury, actual damages should go to the victim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397399</id>
	<title>striking down law vs. re-writing law</title>
	<author>reiisi</author>
	<datestamp>1245414720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been cases where a court has re-interpreted a law and thus effectively re-written the law.</p><p>But we aren't asking for a re-interpretation.</p><p>We want the court to tell Congress (and the lobbies ) to either go back to the drawing board or do without this particular attempt to regulate "right" behavior.</p><p>Preferably the latter.</p><p>(Sure seems to be an awful lot of money in attempts to legislate "right" behavior these days.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been cases where a court has re-interpreted a law and thus effectively re-written the law.But we are n't asking for a re-interpretation.We want the court to tell Congress ( and the lobbies ) to either go back to the drawing board or do without this particular attempt to regulate " right " behavior.Preferably the latter .
( Sure seems to be an awful lot of money in attempts to legislate " right " behavior these days .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been cases where a court has re-interpreted a law and thus effectively re-written the law.But we aren't asking for a re-interpretation.We want the court to tell Congress (and the lobbies ) to either go back to the drawing board or do without this particular attempt to regulate "right" behavior.Preferably the latter.
(Sure seems to be an awful lot of money in attempts to legislate "right" behavior these days.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396303</id>
	<title>She perjured.</title>
	<author>rach3l</author>
	<datestamp>1245408480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She perjured. Ergo, my interest in Jammie's case has dried up. She should be held in contempt of court.</p><p>And what's the difference between an inability to afford the RIAA's settlement, and the ridiculous damages? She will declare bankruptcy either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She perjured .
Ergo , my interest in Jammie 's case has dried up .
She should be held in contempt of court.And what 's the difference between an inability to afford the RIAA 's settlement , and the ridiculous damages ?
She will declare bankruptcy either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She perjured.
Ergo, my interest in Jammie's case has dried up.
She should be held in contempt of court.And what's the difference between an inability to afford the RIAA's settlement, and the ridiculous damages?
She will declare bankruptcy either way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393955</id>
	<title>Where do you get this business about the Sup.Ct.?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm perplexed by the statement about the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the area of knocking down excessive "punitive awards" is well established, and would most assuredly lead to the RIAA's statutory damages theory being crushed. See <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/04/free-software-foundation-files-brief.html" title="blogspot.com">amicus curiae brief</a> [blogspot.com], which summarizes and discusses the applicable authorities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm perplexed by the statement about the US Supreme Court .
The Supreme Court 's jurisprudence in the area of knocking down excessive " punitive awards " is well established , and would most assuredly lead to the RIAA 's statutory damages theory being crushed .
See amicus curiae brief [ blogspot.com ] , which summarizes and discusses the applicable authorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm perplexed by the statement about the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the area of knocking down excessive "punitive awards" is well established, and would most assuredly lead to the RIAA's statutory damages theory being crushed.
See amicus curiae brief [blogspot.com], which summarizes and discusses the applicable authorities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394043</id>
	<title>The system in France</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245443100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know most feel the damages should be a fair price for the music but that system has no downside except for the mass downloaders. In France for example the fine for being caught hoping the turnstiles for the Metro trains is the price of a ticket. The end result is hardly anyone is fined and virtually everyone under the age of 25 hops the turnstiles rather than pay. The damages are laughable in this case which doesn't help their cause but the only way for the providers to survive is to make most people hesitate to download. Imagine shoplifting, yes I know all the digital arguments but say if you only had to pay for items you were caught taking and there was no jail time or record of the crime. How many people would shoplift? The numbers are high already so the numbers would explode and the stores would go out of business over night. The damages need to be more reasonable but if there's nothing punitive then there's no deterrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know most feel the damages should be a fair price for the music but that system has no downside except for the mass downloaders .
In France for example the fine for being caught hoping the turnstiles for the Metro trains is the price of a ticket .
The end result is hardly anyone is fined and virtually everyone under the age of 25 hops the turnstiles rather than pay .
The damages are laughable in this case which does n't help their cause but the only way for the providers to survive is to make most people hesitate to download .
Imagine shoplifting , yes I know all the digital arguments but say if you only had to pay for items you were caught taking and there was no jail time or record of the crime .
How many people would shoplift ?
The numbers are high already so the numbers would explode and the stores would go out of business over night .
The damages need to be more reasonable but if there 's nothing punitive then there 's no deterrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know most feel the damages should be a fair price for the music but that system has no downside except for the mass downloaders.
In France for example the fine for being caught hoping the turnstiles for the Metro trains is the price of a ticket.
The end result is hardly anyone is fined and virtually everyone under the age of 25 hops the turnstiles rather than pay.
The damages are laughable in this case which doesn't help their cause but the only way for the providers to survive is to make most people hesitate to download.
Imagine shoplifting, yes I know all the digital arguments but say if you only had to pay for items you were caught taking and there was no jail time or record of the crime.
How many people would shoplift?
The numbers are high already so the numbers would explode and the stores would go out of business over night.
The damages need to be more reasonable but if there's nothing punitive then there's no deterrent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394165</id>
	<title>YOU FAIL It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245443520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Juugernaut e1ther UP MY TOYS. I'M</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Juugernaut e1ther UP MY TOYS .
I 'M [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Juugernaut e1ther UP MY TOYS.
I'M [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393983</id>
	<title>Misapplication of the law</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245442920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened to infringement needing to have some sort of commercial or otherwise monetary gain?  P2P sharing is (generally) not for monetary gain.  Regardless of whether it's right or wrong to do so, the intent of large damages is to discourage commercial copyright infringement, not to pick on the little people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to infringement needing to have some sort of commercial or otherwise monetary gain ?
P2P sharing is ( generally ) not for monetary gain .
Regardless of whether it 's right or wrong to do so , the intent of large damages is to discourage commercial copyright infringement , not to pick on the little people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to infringement needing to have some sort of commercial or otherwise monetary gain?
P2P sharing is (generally) not for monetary gain.
Regardless of whether it's right or wrong to do so, the intent of large damages is to discourage commercial copyright infringement, not to pick on the little people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394957</id>
	<title>Random thoughts</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245402900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, you Americans (whom I otherwise keep in high regard), with all your "right to bear arms" explained as a way to resist the govt. when it becomes too powerful, seem to take a lot of cock up your asses lately.  The corporations are playing you like fiddle, and there is no sign of even indignation - there should be an upheaval, Iran-style, and they don't even have that constitutionally-given right to have assault rifles at home, like you guys do.</p><p>Also: Jammie Thomas has more balls than most men I know. In a country submerged by cynicism and hedonism, it's a miracle there's one person trying to fight for what's right. Not necessarily for the common good (though that would have been the consequence), but taking charge of her own life in a grand way. Good for you, Jammie, you're a great role model, and not allowing yourself to be a victim must feel fantastic.</p><p>America, your future is in the hands of the oil industry, Monsanto, the RIAA/MPAA and the various corporate psychopaths. Enjoy the fucking ride! Unless, I dare hope, America wakes up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , you Americans ( whom I otherwise keep in high regard ) , with all your " right to bear arms " explained as a way to resist the govt .
when it becomes too powerful , seem to take a lot of cock up your asses lately .
The corporations are playing you like fiddle , and there is no sign of even indignation - there should be an upheaval , Iran-style , and they do n't even have that constitutionally-given right to have assault rifles at home , like you guys do.Also : Jammie Thomas has more balls than most men I know .
In a country submerged by cynicism and hedonism , it 's a miracle there 's one person trying to fight for what 's right .
Not necessarily for the common good ( though that would have been the consequence ) , but taking charge of her own life in a grand way .
Good for you , Jammie , you 're a great role model , and not allowing yourself to be a victim must feel fantastic.America , your future is in the hands of the oil industry , Monsanto , the RIAA/MPAA and the various corporate psychopaths .
Enjoy the fucking ride !
Unless , I dare hope , America wakes up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, you Americans (whom I otherwise keep in high regard), with all your "right to bear arms" explained as a way to resist the govt.
when it becomes too powerful, seem to take a lot of cock up your asses lately.
The corporations are playing you like fiddle, and there is no sign of even indignation - there should be an upheaval, Iran-style, and they don't even have that constitutionally-given right to have assault rifles at home, like you guys do.Also: Jammie Thomas has more balls than most men I know.
In a country submerged by cynicism and hedonism, it's a miracle there's one person trying to fight for what's right.
Not necessarily for the common good (though that would have been the consequence), but taking charge of her own life in a grand way.
Good for you, Jammie, you're a great role model, and not allowing yourself to be a victim must feel fantastic.America, your future is in the hands of the oil industry, Monsanto, the RIAA/MPAA and the various corporate psychopaths.
Enjoy the fucking ride!
Unless, I dare hope, America wakes up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395751</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1245405900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take it a step further...<br> <br>

Post a site with these band's and artist's names and boycott their live performances and albums.<br> <br>

I'm pretty much not going to listen to any of those bands anymore.  I can live without them.<br> <br>

The damages here are just as much their fault as anyone else's, they certainly aren't stepping up to the plate to protect their consumer's rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take it a step further.. . Post a site with these band 's and artist 's names and boycott their live performances and albums .
I 'm pretty much not going to listen to any of those bands anymore .
I can live without them .
The damages here are just as much their fault as anyone else 's , they certainly are n't stepping up to the plate to protect their consumer 's rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take it a step further... 

Post a site with these band's and artist's names and boycott their live performances and albums.
I'm pretty much not going to listen to any of those bands anymore.
I can live without them.
The damages here are just as much their fault as anyone else's, they certainly aren't stepping up to the plate to protect their consumer's rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395283</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245403980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That, or we can send a message to the singers that makes them think twice before signing their songs over.  With the glory of the internet, they have options other than signing up with the big labels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That , or we can send a message to the singers that makes them think twice before signing their songs over .
With the glory of the internet , they have options other than signing up with the big labels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, or we can send a message to the singers that makes them think twice before signing their songs over.
With the glory of the internet, they have options other than signing up with the big labels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394019</id>
	<title>One way Ms. Thomas-Rasset could pay for it</title>
	<author>sjonke</author>
	<datestamp>1245443040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paint her legal team and sell them as new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paint her legal team and sell them as new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paint her legal team and sell them as new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395851</id>
	<title>Someone had to be made an example</title>
	<author>KudyardRipling</author>
	<datestamp>1245406380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the extent that money is borrowed into existence and lent at interest and the USA economy has (d)evolved past agriculture, manufacturing and soon past services, the only commodity that is left to back the currency is intellectual property. Basically, she was found 'liable of messing with that which backs the currency' and was made an example.</p><p>She appears to be a visibly recognizable (and therefore a reasonable expectation of protected status) minority. Where are the outcries from the appropriate ethnic defense lobbies? If this is going where I think it is going, then it appears that Big IP has trumped the protected ethnic lobby by reason of the <b>GREEN</b> thing.</p><p>I wonder if those jurors were either involved in creating IP and/or have retirement or other investments in IP companies. Why is that not cited as conflict of interests?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the extent that money is borrowed into existence and lent at interest and the USA economy has ( d ) evolved past agriculture , manufacturing and soon past services , the only commodity that is left to back the currency is intellectual property .
Basically , she was found 'liable of messing with that which backs the currency ' and was made an example.She appears to be a visibly recognizable ( and therefore a reasonable expectation of protected status ) minority .
Where are the outcries from the appropriate ethnic defense lobbies ?
If this is going where I think it is going , then it appears that Big IP has trumped the protected ethnic lobby by reason of the GREEN thing.I wonder if those jurors were either involved in creating IP and/or have retirement or other investments in IP companies .
Why is that not cited as conflict of interests ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the extent that money is borrowed into existence and lent at interest and the USA economy has (d)evolved past agriculture, manufacturing and soon past services, the only commodity that is left to back the currency is intellectual property.
Basically, she was found 'liable of messing with that which backs the currency' and was made an example.She appears to be a visibly recognizable (and therefore a reasonable expectation of protected status) minority.
Where are the outcries from the appropriate ethnic defense lobbies?
If this is going where I think it is going, then it appears that Big IP has trumped the protected ethnic lobby by reason of the GREEN thing.I wonder if those jurors were either involved in creating IP and/or have retirement or other investments in IP companies.
Why is that not cited as conflict of interests?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141</id>
	<title>Cruel and Unusual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245443400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you USians have that little clause that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment"?  1.9M for an average person is their whole life earnings.  She could have stole a CD from a store with 24 songs on it and got a slap on the wrist.  What makes it so different that it is done on a computer?  This cruel punishment should also apply to the people down there who take a pee in the bushes on their way home from the bar and are branded "sex-offenders" for the rest of their life.  The US is hysterical and real people are being burnt as witches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you USians have that little clause that prohibits " cruel and unusual punishment " ?
1.9M for an average person is their whole life earnings .
She could have stole a CD from a store with 24 songs on it and got a slap on the wrist .
What makes it so different that it is done on a computer ?
This cruel punishment should also apply to the people down there who take a pee in the bushes on their way home from the bar and are branded " sex-offenders " for the rest of their life .
The US is hysterical and real people are being burnt as witches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you USians have that little clause that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment"?
1.9M for an average person is their whole life earnings.
She could have stole a CD from a store with 24 songs on it and got a slap on the wrist.
What makes it so different that it is done on a computer?
This cruel punishment should also apply to the people down there who take a pee in the bushes on their way home from the bar and are branded "sex-offenders" for the rest of their life.
The US is hysterical and real people are being burnt as witches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393783</id>
	<title>Here's the real costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>24 songs<br>99 cents per song<br>100 leechers on P2P, per song</p><p>24 x $0.99 x 100 = $2376.</p><p>Still excessive, but not life-threatening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>24 songs99 cents per song100 leechers on P2P , per song24 x $ 0.99 x 100 = $ 2376.Still excessive , but not life-threatening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>24 songs99 cents per song100 leechers on P2P, per song24 x $0.99 x 100 = $2376.Still excessive, but not life-threatening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398011</id>
	<title>put the jam-ie on the toast-ie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There should be mandatory jail sentences for people with fucked up names like "Jammie". I'm tired of hearing about her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be mandatory jail sentences for people with fucked up names like " Jammie " .
I 'm tired of hearing about her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be mandatory jail sentences for people with fucked up names like "Jammie".
I'm tired of hearing about her.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395363</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1245404340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I suggest flooding their myspace pages with questions about why they are supporting this decision as well as the broader RIAA actions (who they have actively supported). (If they aren't vocally against it, they they are for it)</i></p><p><i>How about anything else? Something more public? Maybe trying to get a major media outlet to interview these bands about this decision? They are a bunch of cowards hiding behind the RIAA; the human faces behind the corporate mask. Our agressive response to this really should be in raising ire against these bands. Someone please tell me that I'm not hopelessly naive in thinking these bands can't possibly want actions like this to continue.</i></p><p>I love it!</p><p>Frankly, I believe most of these artists are ashamed of what happens in their names. They are artists after all, and probably tend toward the touchy-feely end of the political spectrum.</p><p>Why are they not speaking out? Because they cannot bite the hand that feeds. And they have fallen into the mistaken notion that the RIAA is the hand that feeds. By reminding them that we are their customers, their fans, their base, we should be able to jar them out of their complacent acceptance of a broken system which is probably as offensive to them, on some level, as it is to us.</p><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial\_personality\_disorder" title="wikipedia.org">DPD</a> [wikipedia.org] sufferers at the helms of the labels and RIAA are the ones damaging the music consumer market. It is important for the musicians to realize that this harm is being done. Ultimately, the RIAA and labels are the employees of the artists. Getting the artists to put them in their place, by making it clear that the RIAA and labels are harming the artists' customers, is critical to restoring a productive and healthy copyright system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest flooding their myspace pages with questions about why they are supporting this decision as well as the broader RIAA actions ( who they have actively supported ) .
( If they are n't vocally against it , they they are for it ) How about anything else ?
Something more public ?
Maybe trying to get a major media outlet to interview these bands about this decision ?
They are a bunch of cowards hiding behind the RIAA ; the human faces behind the corporate mask .
Our agressive response to this really should be in raising ire against these bands .
Someone please tell me that I 'm not hopelessly naive in thinking these bands ca n't possibly want actions like this to continue.I love it ! Frankly , I believe most of these artists are ashamed of what happens in their names .
They are artists after all , and probably tend toward the touchy-feely end of the political spectrum.Why are they not speaking out ?
Because they can not bite the hand that feeds .
And they have fallen into the mistaken notion that the RIAA is the hand that feeds .
By reminding them that we are their customers , their fans , their base , we should be able to jar them out of their complacent acceptance of a broken system which is probably as offensive to them , on some level , as it is to us.The DPD [ wikipedia.org ] sufferers at the helms of the labels and RIAA are the ones damaging the music consumer market .
It is important for the musicians to realize that this harm is being done .
Ultimately , the RIAA and labels are the employees of the artists .
Getting the artists to put them in their place , by making it clear that the RIAA and labels are harming the artists ' customers , is critical to restoring a productive and healthy copyright system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest flooding their myspace pages with questions about why they are supporting this decision as well as the broader RIAA actions (who they have actively supported).
(If they aren't vocally against it, they they are for it)How about anything else?
Something more public?
Maybe trying to get a major media outlet to interview these bands about this decision?
They are a bunch of cowards hiding behind the RIAA; the human faces behind the corporate mask.
Our agressive response to this really should be in raising ire against these bands.
Someone please tell me that I'm not hopelessly naive in thinking these bands can't possibly want actions like this to continue.I love it!Frankly, I believe most of these artists are ashamed of what happens in their names.
They are artists after all, and probably tend toward the touchy-feely end of the political spectrum.Why are they not speaking out?
Because they cannot bite the hand that feeds.
And they have fallen into the mistaken notion that the RIAA is the hand that feeds.
By reminding them that we are their customers, their fans, their base, we should be able to jar them out of their complacent acceptance of a broken system which is probably as offensive to them, on some level, as it is to us.The DPD [wikipedia.org] sufferers at the helms of the labels and RIAA are the ones damaging the music consumer market.
It is important for the musicians to realize that this harm is being done.
Ultimately, the RIAA and labels are the employees of the artists.
Getting the artists to put them in their place, by making it clear that the RIAA and labels are harming the artists' customers, is critical to restoring a productive and healthy copyright system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395063</id>
	<title>The worth of a human life in the United States</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1245403260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On average, has a general value to society of around $600,000.</p><p>To award 1.9 million dollars is to say that her file sharing is<br>was bad as killing 3 people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On average , has a general value to society of around $ 600,000.To award 1.9 million dollars is to say that her file sharing iswas bad as killing 3 people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On average, has a general value to society of around $600,000.To award 1.9 million dollars is to say that her file sharing iswas bad as killing 3 people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394675</id>
	<title>Re:Hit the RIAA where it hurts</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245402000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better, stop supporting RIAA artists. Go see live shows of your local bands, many of them are excellent and will sell their CDs for $5-$10 apeice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better , stop supporting RIAA artists .
Go see live shows of your local bands , many of them are excellent and will sell their CDs for $ 5- $ 10 apeice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better, stop supporting RIAA artists.
Go see live shows of your local bands, many of them are excellent and will sell their CDs for $5-$10 apeice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395199</id>
	<title>Re:Cruel and Unusual</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1245403740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>people are being burnt as witches</p></div><p>Funny you should say that.  The last time people were being burned as witches, religious extremists were running the government.  What a coincidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>people are being burnt as witchesFunny you should say that .
The last time people were being burned as witches , religious extremists were running the government .
What a coincidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people are being burnt as witchesFunny you should say that.
The last time people were being burned as witches, religious extremists were running the government.
What a coincidence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393967</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I never bought CDs in the first place.  The RIAA is not concerned with the welfare of its "Clients" it is only concerned with the lining of its own pockets.  They care little for who they destroy in the name of "Justice" when their justice is just bullying those who cannot defend themselves.  Its like putting someone to death for parking in a handycap space.</p><p>Seriously.  This woman, and by extension her children, will never again live a normal life.  The purpose of the justice system is to impress on those who break the law the seriousness of their infractions, NOT to doom them to "Prison without chains".  She will never again have a financially stable life.  She will never again be able to do anything but stare at the sheer weight that the twisted law has put on her shoulders.  Her children will NEVER go to college if they are not given a free ride, which is more and more difficult to do in this world, and because of one small infraction(Yes, an INDIVIDUAL doing this is a small infraction even if it is part of a larger problem, the actions of the whole cannot be lumped on the shoulders of any single individual) she will be in all senses of the word, dead.</p><p>But so long as the wheels are greased by the right people laws will never be written to curb this kind of gross abuse of the system.  All in all she's liable for what?  5-10 dollars per song when everything is taken into account?  Even with a list that long it barely makes it into the realm of theft and far from the minimum of grand theft.</p><p>And all the while the artists, who this is supposedly done in the name of, are receiving how much of this money?  How many dollars actually makes it back to them when a case is won?  I'm doubting its very much after the lawyers exorbitant salary, the money used to grease the right wheels on capitol hill and the money that flat out goes to the RIAA as "Payment" for a "Service rendered".  I don't think they care if they get to buy two sports cars that year instead of one.  Or line a little more of their pool with gold.</p><p>The Day the RIAA closes its doors... is going to be a good day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I never bought CDs in the first place .
The RIAA is not concerned with the welfare of its " Clients " it is only concerned with the lining of its own pockets .
They care little for who they destroy in the name of " Justice " when their justice is just bullying those who can not defend themselves .
Its like putting someone to death for parking in a handycap space.Seriously .
This woman , and by extension her children , will never again live a normal life .
The purpose of the justice system is to impress on those who break the law the seriousness of their infractions , NOT to doom them to " Prison without chains " .
She will never again have a financially stable life .
She will never again be able to do anything but stare at the sheer weight that the twisted law has put on her shoulders .
Her children will NEVER go to college if they are not given a free ride , which is more and more difficult to do in this world , and because of one small infraction ( Yes , an INDIVIDUAL doing this is a small infraction even if it is part of a larger problem , the actions of the whole can not be lumped on the shoulders of any single individual ) she will be in all senses of the word , dead.But so long as the wheels are greased by the right people laws will never be written to curb this kind of gross abuse of the system .
All in all she 's liable for what ?
5-10 dollars per song when everything is taken into account ?
Even with a list that long it barely makes it into the realm of theft and far from the minimum of grand theft.And all the while the artists , who this is supposedly done in the name of , are receiving how much of this money ?
How many dollars actually makes it back to them when a case is won ?
I 'm doubting its very much after the lawyers exorbitant salary , the money used to grease the right wheels on capitol hill and the money that flat out goes to the RIAA as " Payment " for a " Service rendered " .
I do n't think they care if they get to buy two sports cars that year instead of one .
Or line a little more of their pool with gold.The Day the RIAA closes its doors... is going to be a good day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I never bought CDs in the first place.
The RIAA is not concerned with the welfare of its "Clients" it is only concerned with the lining of its own pockets.
They care little for who they destroy in the name of "Justice" when their justice is just bullying those who cannot defend themselves.
Its like putting someone to death for parking in a handycap space.Seriously.
This woman, and by extension her children, will never again live a normal life.
The purpose of the justice system is to impress on those who break the law the seriousness of their infractions, NOT to doom them to "Prison without chains".
She will never again have a financially stable life.
She will never again be able to do anything but stare at the sheer weight that the twisted law has put on her shoulders.
Her children will NEVER go to college if they are not given a free ride, which is more and more difficult to do in this world, and because of one small infraction(Yes, an INDIVIDUAL doing this is a small infraction even if it is part of a larger problem, the actions of the whole cannot be lumped on the shoulders of any single individual) she will be in all senses of the word, dead.But so long as the wheels are greased by the right people laws will never be written to curb this kind of gross abuse of the system.
All in all she's liable for what?
5-10 dollars per song when everything is taken into account?
Even with a list that long it barely makes it into the realm of theft and far from the minimum of grand theft.And all the while the artists, who this is supposedly done in the name of, are receiving how much of this money?
How many dollars actually makes it back to them when a case is won?
I'm doubting its very much after the lawyers exorbitant salary, the money used to grease the right wheels on capitol hill and the money that flat out goes to the RIAA as "Payment" for a "Service rendered".
I don't think they care if they get to buy two sports cars that year instead of one.
Or line a little more of their pool with gold.The Day the RIAA closes its doors... is going to be a good day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394801</id>
	<title>FIGHT BACK - Waste EMI</title>
	<author>StatCan</author>
	<datestamp>1245402420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to Robert Fripps Blog
<a href="http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?artist=&amp;show=&amp;member=3&amp;entry=8114" title="dgmlive.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?artist=&amp;show=&amp;member=3&amp;entry=8114</a> [dgmlive.com]

EMI Are selling King Crimson's songs without having a license an hence are infringing.


If only 1\% of US based slasdotters purchased one of their tunes.... and applying this precedent.... with additional damages because it was for money.... a thousand of listeners could wipe out EMI and finally an artist would get something!</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Robert Fripps Blog http : //www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm ? artist = &amp;show = &amp;member = 3&amp;entry = 8114 [ dgmlive.com ] EMI Are selling King Crimson 's songs without having a license an hence are infringing .
If only 1 \ % of US based slasdotters purchased one of their tunes.... and applying this precedent.... with additional damages because it was for money.... a thousand of listeners could wipe out EMI and finally an artist would get something !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Robert Fripps Blog
http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?artist=&amp;show=&amp;member=3&amp;entry=8114 [dgmlive.com]

EMI Are selling King Crimson's songs without having a license an hence are infringing.
If only 1\% of US based slasdotters purchased one of their tunes.... and applying this precedent.... with additional damages because it was for money.... a thousand of listeners could wipe out EMI and finally an artist would get something!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28434721</id>
	<title>Re:Where do you get this business about the Sup.Ct</title>
	<author>whiledo</author>
	<datestamp>1245692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the area of knocking down excessive "punitive awards" is well established, and would most assuredly lead to the RIAA's statutory damages theory being crushed.</p></div><p>Here we go again.  Look, Ray, you seem to be a nice and intelligent guy.  But if you're wrong on this one, too, (and I don't mean wrong on how it <b>should</b> be decided but wrong on how it <b>is</b> decided) will you please drop the whole 100\% "I'm certain the RIAA is on the ropes" routine you've had at just about every stage of the Thomas trial?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Supreme Court 's jurisprudence in the area of knocking down excessive " punitive awards " is well established , and would most assuredly lead to the RIAA 's statutory damages theory being crushed.Here we go again .
Look , Ray , you seem to be a nice and intelligent guy .
But if you 're wrong on this one , too , ( and I do n't mean wrong on how it should be decided but wrong on how it is decided ) will you please drop the whole 100 \ % " I 'm certain the RIAA is on the ropes " routine you 've had at just about every stage of the Thomas trial ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the area of knocking down excessive "punitive awards" is well established, and would most assuredly lead to the RIAA's statutory damages theory being crushed.Here we go again.
Look, Ray, you seem to be a nice and intelligent guy.
But if you're wrong on this one, too, (and I don't mean wrong on how it should be decided but wrong on how it is decided) will you please drop the whole 100\% "I'm certain the RIAA is on the ropes" routine you've had at just about every stage of the Thomas trial?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395521</id>
	<title>Re:Cruel and Unusual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245405000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it ain't changing.  That's why it's generally best to avoid that country as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it ai n't changing .
That 's why it 's generally best to avoid that country as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it ain't changing.
That's why it's generally best to avoid that country as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398991</id>
	<title>Horray for the RIAA</title>
	<author>happy*nix</author>
	<datestamp>1245429780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off I do not work for the RIAA.</p><p>America needs to wake up and realize the damage these PIRATES are doing to the economy. If they cannot pay the fines then they should be imprisoned for the equivalent number of years it would take for them to have earned the amount of money required for their fine.</p><p>In this case it is a simple calculation: Average Hourly wage in US: $18.46 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm)<br>Fine: $80,000 per song * 24 = $1.92 million<br>Jail time: ($80,000 * 24 songs) / $18.46 per hour<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4334 days or 11.87 years in prison</p><p>Obviously America does not understand the vast natural resource and source of wealth music represents.</p><p>Lets take a look quick look at just on source of music distribution, the iTunes store.</p><p>As of February 2008 Apple has sold over 4 billion songs ( <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/02/26itunes.html" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/02/26itunes.html</a> [apple.com]) we know that the legal value of each digital copy those songs to be worth $80,000.<br>That is 320 trillion dollars worth of goods people, since just April of 2003 !!!!<br>Now consider that a song is copyright protected for the lifespan of the artist plus 150 years (let round that to 180 years). Now lets look at the math again.<br>Yearly value: $320 trillion / 5 years = $64 trillion per year<br>Value of the music that existed on February 2008 over the life of the copyright:<br>$64 trillion * 180 years = $11.52 quadrillion dollars</p><p>An that would be if no new songs were recorded over the next 180 years.</p><p>How important is that number?<br>Well in 2008 the GDP of the world was a paltry $69.49 trillion. (CIA fact book, all amounts are in USD) Which means that one can safely say that the value of music that existed Feburary 2008 is worth more than the sum of the GDP of the WORLD over the last 200+ years.<br>Not that the RIAA needs to brag, but evidently the music industry was responsible for the lion's share of the Worlds GDP in 2008.</p><p>Now you can understand just how much of a threat piracy is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off I do not work for the RIAA.America needs to wake up and realize the damage these PIRATES are doing to the economy .
If they can not pay the fines then they should be imprisoned for the equivalent number of years it would take for them to have earned the amount of money required for their fine.In this case it is a simple calculation : Average Hourly wage in US : $ 18.46 ( http : //www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm ) Fine : $ 80,000 per song * 24 = $ 1.92 millionJail time : ( $ 80,000 * 24 songs ) / $ 18.46 per hour                       4334 days or 11.87 years in prisonObviously America does not understand the vast natural resource and source of wealth music represents.Lets take a look quick look at just on source of music distribution , the iTunes store.As of February 2008 Apple has sold over 4 billion songs ( http : //www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/02/26itunes.html [ apple.com ] ) we know that the legal value of each digital copy those songs to be worth $ 80,000.That is 320 trillion dollars worth of goods people , since just April of 2003 ! ! !
! Now consider that a song is copyright protected for the lifespan of the artist plus 150 years ( let round that to 180 years ) .
Now lets look at the math again.Yearly value : $ 320 trillion / 5 years = $ 64 trillion per yearValue of the music that existed on February 2008 over the life of the copyright : $ 64 trillion * 180 years = $ 11.52 quadrillion dollarsAn that would be if no new songs were recorded over the next 180 years.How important is that number ? Well in 2008 the GDP of the world was a paltry $ 69.49 trillion .
( CIA fact book , all amounts are in USD ) Which means that one can safely say that the value of music that existed Feburary 2008 is worth more than the sum of the GDP of the WORLD over the last 200 + years.Not that the RIAA needs to brag , but evidently the music industry was responsible for the lion 's share of the Worlds GDP in 2008.Now you can understand just how much of a threat piracy is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off I do not work for the RIAA.America needs to wake up and realize the damage these PIRATES are doing to the economy.
If they cannot pay the fines then they should be imprisoned for the equivalent number of years it would take for them to have earned the amount of money required for their fine.In this case it is a simple calculation: Average Hourly wage in US: $18.46 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm)Fine: $80,000 per song * 24 = $1.92 millionJail time: ($80,000 * 24 songs) / $18.46 per hour
                      4334 days or 11.87 years in prisonObviously America does not understand the vast natural resource and source of wealth music represents.Lets take a look quick look at just on source of music distribution, the iTunes store.As of February 2008 Apple has sold over 4 billion songs ( http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/02/26itunes.html [apple.com]) we know that the legal value of each digital copy those songs to be worth $80,000.That is 320 trillion dollars worth of goods people, since just April of 2003 !!!
!Now consider that a song is copyright protected for the lifespan of the artist plus 150 years (let round that to 180 years).
Now lets look at the math again.Yearly value: $320 trillion / 5 years = $64 trillion per yearValue of the music that existed on February 2008 over the life of the copyright:$64 trillion * 180 years = $11.52 quadrillion dollarsAn that would be if no new songs were recorded over the next 180 years.How important is that number?Well in 2008 the GDP of the world was a paltry $69.49 trillion.
(CIA fact book, all amounts are in USD) Which means that one can safely say that the value of music that existed Feburary 2008 is worth more than the sum of the GDP of the WORLD over the last 200+ years.Not that the RIAA needs to brag, but evidently the music industry was responsible for the lion's share of the Worlds GDP in 2008.Now you can understand just how much of a threat piracy is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393869</id>
	<title>The flipside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that she's been sentenced to be an undischargeable bankrupt, is there actually anything more they can do to her in the civil courts? What's to stop her from ripping and sharing a hundred thousand songs from CDs at the library? What more can they actually do that they haven't, over a pissy 24 of them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that she 's been sentenced to be an undischargeable bankrupt , is there actually anything more they can do to her in the civil courts ?
What 's to stop her from ripping and sharing a hundred thousand songs from CDs at the library ?
What more can they actually do that they have n't , over a pissy 24 of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that she's been sentenced to be an undischargeable bankrupt, is there actually anything more they can do to her in the civil courts?
What's to stop her from ripping and sharing a hundred thousand songs from CDs at the library?
What more can they actually do that they haven't, over a pissy 24 of them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393747</id>
	<title>So, what's the constitution have to say about it?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1245442080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amendment 8:</p><p><i>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.</i></p><p>Courts have held that damages awarded in civil suits are not "fines".  Was this case a criminal or civil process?</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amendment 8 : Excessive bail shall not be required , nor excessive fines imposed , nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.Courts have held that damages awarded in civil suits are not " fines " .
Was this case a criminal or civil process ? -jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amendment 8:Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.Courts have held that damages awarded in civil suits are not "fines".
Was this case a criminal or civil process?-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393531</id>
	<title>There's no way to think she didn't do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But this definitely should be examined. These asinine penalties for a non-commercial copyright infringement is just insane. Hell, even for commercial copyright infringement... $1.9 million for someone selling essentially two copied CD's? Does that sound right to anyone other than someone who works for the RIAA directly or indirectly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But this definitely should be examined .
These asinine penalties for a non-commercial copyright infringement is just insane .
Hell , even for commercial copyright infringement... $ 1.9 million for someone selling essentially two copied CD 's ?
Does that sound right to anyone other than someone who works for the RIAA directly or indirectly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this definitely should be examined.
These asinine penalties for a non-commercial copyright infringement is just insane.
Hell, even for commercial copyright infringement... $1.9 million for someone selling essentially two copied CD's?
Does that sound right to anyone other than someone who works for the RIAA directly or indirectly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399961</id>
	<title>Re:Thomas-Aide?</title>
	<author>Yogiz</author>
	<datestamp>1245530400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So RIAA gets the money twice and the artist still get nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So RIAA gets the money twice and the artist still get nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So RIAA gets the money twice and the artist still get nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397951</id>
	<title>Re:An argument in favor of excessive punitive dama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;The RIAA faces a somewhat analogous situation</p><p>Really?  Oh yeah, everyone who downloaded that song from her, when they played it, burst into flames - ala Ford Pinto rear end collision.</p><p>The 8th amendment prohibits excessive punishment, fines.</p><p>The plaintiff should have to prove the number of times sounds were download from the defendant's computer. Not guesstimate. Prove. Period. Anything else simply proves everyone else's point - big corps run America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; The RIAA faces a somewhat analogous situationReally ?
Oh yeah , everyone who downloaded that song from her , when they played it , burst into flames - ala Ford Pinto rear end collision.The 8th amendment prohibits excessive punishment , fines.The plaintiff should have to prove the number of times sounds were download from the defendant 's computer .
Not guesstimate .
Prove. Period .
Anything else simply proves everyone else 's point - big corps run America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;The RIAA faces a somewhat analogous situationReally?
Oh yeah, everyone who downloaded that song from her, when they played it, burst into flames - ala Ford Pinto rear end collision.The 8th amendment prohibits excessive punishment, fines.The plaintiff should have to prove the number of times sounds were download from the defendant's computer.
Not guesstimate.
Prove. Period.
Anything else simply proves everyone else's point - big corps run America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393907</id>
	<title>YOUQ FAIL It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FrreBSD is already</htmltext>
<tokenext>FrreBSD is already</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FrreBSD is already</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393861</id>
	<title>I dont get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can they legally justify this fine when people who download the music, copy it unto disks and then sell it at car boot sales etc., only get a slap on the wrists if caught (for small quantities anyway- i.e. a dozen or so disks). Is the crime somehow worse if it's all done online?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can they legally justify this fine when people who download the music , copy it unto disks and then sell it at car boot sales etc. , only get a slap on the wrists if caught ( for small quantities anyway- i.e .
a dozen or so disks ) .
Is the crime somehow worse if it 's all done online ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can they legally justify this fine when people who download the music, copy it unto disks and then sell it at car boot sales etc., only get a slap on the wrists if caught (for small quantities anyway- i.e.
a dozen or so disks).
Is the crime somehow worse if it's all done online?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396697</id>
	<title>US Debt Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245410340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is clearly the long-planned solution to debt owed by the United States to China.</p><p>Once these damages are accepted as established, the RIAA and the US Government can start suing large scale file sharing sites overseas. The resulting billion / trillion dollar fines well be settled against whatever debt is owed by the US to that sovereign nation. Why else would the current administration be placing RIAA Lawyers in charge of the Justice department?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is clearly the long-planned solution to debt owed by the United States to China.Once these damages are accepted as established , the RIAA and the US Government can start suing large scale file sharing sites overseas .
The resulting billion / trillion dollar fines well be settled against whatever debt is owed by the US to that sovereign nation .
Why else would the current administration be placing RIAA Lawyers in charge of the Justice department ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is clearly the long-planned solution to debt owed by the United States to China.Once these damages are accepted as established, the RIAA and the US Government can start suing large scale file sharing sites overseas.
The resulting billion / trillion dollar fines well be settled against whatever debt is owed by the US to that sovereign nation.
Why else would the current administration be placing RIAA Lawyers in charge of the Justice department?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28409061</id>
	<title>Probably last act of the RIAA</title>
	<author>scurvyj</author>
	<datestamp>1245578640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The original sum was $200,000. Now that the corruption of the system has been shown, the new absolutely ridiculous figure is just irrelevant.  This is probably the last thing that the RIAA will ever do, for - even though for some reason people refuse to champion Jammie Thomas, I dont know why I guess people are just dickheads - the backlash from this will be the end of those financing them.  I don't buy CD's anymore.  I doubt anyone here does.  I doubt I ever will again.   What's that?  You're a poor starving artist who relies on me?  Yeah, but you're SHIT.  You write crap music.  That's why I give paypal/ccbill  donations to THAT guy over there, and only for the songs of his that I like, the rest of his material is very mediocre.  Yeah you're an artist.  That doesn't mean you NECESSARILY work or deserve an income.  And can somebody please fly a remote drone through the RIAA's head office just to drive the point home, PLEASE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original sum was $ 200,000 .
Now that the corruption of the system has been shown , the new absolutely ridiculous figure is just irrelevant .
This is probably the last thing that the RIAA will ever do , for - even though for some reason people refuse to champion Jammie Thomas , I dont know why I guess people are just dickheads - the backlash from this will be the end of those financing them .
I do n't buy CD 's anymore .
I doubt anyone here does .
I doubt I ever will again .
What 's that ?
You 're a poor starving artist who relies on me ?
Yeah , but you 're SHIT .
You write crap music .
That 's why I give paypal/ccbill donations to THAT guy over there , and only for the songs of his that I like , the rest of his material is very mediocre .
Yeah you 're an artist .
That does n't mean you NECESSARILY work or deserve an income .
And can somebody please fly a remote drone through the RIAA 's head office just to drive the point home , PLEASE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original sum was $200,000.
Now that the corruption of the system has been shown, the new absolutely ridiculous figure is just irrelevant.
This is probably the last thing that the RIAA will ever do, for - even though for some reason people refuse to champion Jammie Thomas, I dont know why I guess people are just dickheads - the backlash from this will be the end of those financing them.
I don't buy CD's anymore.
I doubt anyone here does.
I doubt I ever will again.
What's that?
You're a poor starving artist who relies on me?
Yeah, but you're SHIT.
You write crap music.
That's why I give paypal/ccbill  donations to THAT guy over there, and only for the songs of his that I like, the rest of his material is very mediocre.
Yeah you're an artist.
That doesn't mean you NECESSARILY work or deserve an income.
And can somebody please fly a remote drone through the RIAA's head office just to drive the point home, PLEASE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396257</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>Dorkmaster Flek</author>
	<datestamp>1245408240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the advent of the Internet and P2P technologies, the playing field has never been more level for all artists.  If an artist truly cares about not supporting this ridiculous campaign against their own fans, they have never been in a better position to do something about it than now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the advent of the Internet and P2P technologies , the playing field has never been more level for all artists .
If an artist truly cares about not supporting this ridiculous campaign against their own fans , they have never been in a better position to do something about it than now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the advent of the Internet and P2P technologies, the playing field has never been more level for all artists.
If an artist truly cares about not supporting this ridiculous campaign against their own fans, they have never been in a better position to do something about it than now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</id>
	<title>Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA always talks about how they are just protecting the interests of the artists. It stands to reason that this is a reflexive property.</p><p>If that is valid (and I certainly believe the first part of the supposition above is <i>highly</i> questionable), then here are the people you should hold accountable for this travesty of justice; the artists on her list:</p><ul><li>Guns N Roses ("Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain")</li><li>Janet Jackson ("Let's What Awhile")</li><li>Goo Goo Dolls ("Iris")</li><li>Vanessa Williams ("Save the Best for Last")</li><li>Aerosmith ("Cryin")</li><li>Gloria Estefan ("Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You")</li><li>Green Day ("Basket Case")</li><li>Journey ("Faithfully"; "Don't Stop Believing")</li><li>Destiny Child ("Bills, Bills, Bills")</li><li>Sara McLachlan ("Possession"; "Building a Mystery")</li><li>Richard Marx ("Now and Forever")</li><li>Linkin Park ("One Step Closer")</li><li>Sheryl Crow ("Run Baby Run")</li><li>Def Leppard ("Pour Some Sugar on Me")</li><li>No Doubt ("Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People")</li><li>Reba McEntire ("One Honest Heart")</li><li>Bryan Adams ("Somebody")</li></ul><p>I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums. I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music, and if they are in such financial hardship, they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA always talks about how they are just protecting the interests of the artists .
It stands to reason that this is a reflexive property.If that is valid ( and I certainly believe the first part of the supposition above is highly questionable ) , then here are the people you should hold accountable for this travesty of justice ; the artists on her list : Guns N Roses ( " Welcome to the Jungle " ; " November Rain " ) Janet Jackson ( " Let 's What Awhile " ) Goo Goo Dolls ( " Iris " ) Vanessa Williams ( " Save the Best for Last " ) Aerosmith ( " Cryin " ) Gloria Estefan ( " Here We Are " ; " Coming Out of the Heart " ; " Rhythm is Gon na Get You " ) Green Day ( " Basket Case " ) Journey ( " Faithfully " ; " Do n't Stop Believing " ) Destiny Child ( " Bills , Bills , Bills " ) Sara McLachlan ( " Possession " ; " Building a Mystery " ) Richard Marx ( " Now and Forever " ) Linkin Park ( " One Step Closer " ) Sheryl Crow ( " Run Baby Run " ) Def Leppard ( " Pour Some Sugar on Me " ) No Doubt ( " Bathwater " ; " Hella Good " ; " Different People " ) Reba McEntire ( " One Honest Heart " ) Bryan Adams ( " Somebody " ) I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums .
I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music , and if they are in such financial hardship , they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA always talks about how they are just protecting the interests of the artists.
It stands to reason that this is a reflexive property.If that is valid (and I certainly believe the first part of the supposition above is highly questionable), then here are the people you should hold accountable for this travesty of justice; the artists on her list:Guns N Roses ("Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain")Janet Jackson ("Let's What Awhile")Goo Goo Dolls ("Iris")Vanessa Williams ("Save the Best for Last")Aerosmith ("Cryin")Gloria Estefan ("Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You")Green Day ("Basket Case")Journey ("Faithfully"; "Don't Stop Believing")Destiny Child ("Bills, Bills, Bills")Sara McLachlan ("Possession"; "Building a Mystery")Richard Marx ("Now and Forever")Linkin Park ("One Step Closer")Sheryl Crow ("Run Baby Run")Def Leppard ("Pour Some Sugar on Me")No Doubt ("Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People")Reba McEntire ("One Honest Heart")Bryan Adams ("Somebody")I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums.
I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music, and if they are in such financial hardship, they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399911</id>
	<title>The original EFF story...</title>
	<author>DuranDuran</author>
	<datestamp>1245529500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why couldn't the OP link to the Eff story directly?</p><p><a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/record-labels-awarde" title="eff.org">http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/record-labels-awarde</a> [eff.org]</p><p>I appreciate Techdirt 'getting the word out' and all, but their article hardly adds anything to what they include of the original piece.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why could n't the OP link to the Eff story directly ? http : //www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/record-labels-awarde [ eff.org ] I appreciate Techdirt 'getting the word out ' and all , but their article hardly adds anything to what they include of the original piece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why couldn't the OP link to the Eff story directly?http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/record-labels-awarde [eff.org]I appreciate Techdirt 'getting the word out' and all, but their article hardly adds anything to what they include of the original piece.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394283</id>
	<title>Limit to trebel damages and use criminal courts</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245443880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Limit the civil awards in cases like these - copying widely sold information in this case a song - should be limited to 3 times the typical sale price.</p><p>If the we as a society determine that the "crime" of copyright infringement is so severe that it requires tougher sanctions, then make willful infringement a criminal offense.</p><p>This will do two things:</p><p>1) it will give the defendants many more rights and raise the bar to prosecution<br>2) it will gain more public attention and the people will rise up and demand that low-level infringement be decriminalized.  Unless of course society does think it should be a crime.</p><p>In any case, civil damages beyond actual damages shouldn't be much higher than 3x.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Limit the civil awards in cases like these - copying widely sold information in this case a song - should be limited to 3 times the typical sale price.If the we as a society determine that the " crime " of copyright infringement is so severe that it requires tougher sanctions , then make willful infringement a criminal offense.This will do two things : 1 ) it will give the defendants many more rights and raise the bar to prosecution2 ) it will gain more public attention and the people will rise up and demand that low-level infringement be decriminalized .
Unless of course society does think it should be a crime.In any case , civil damages beyond actual damages should n't be much higher than 3x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Limit the civil awards in cases like these - copying widely sold information in this case a song - should be limited to 3 times the typical sale price.If the we as a society determine that the "crime" of copyright infringement is so severe that it requires tougher sanctions, then make willful infringement a criminal offense.This will do two things:1) it will give the defendants many more rights and raise the bar to prosecution2) it will gain more public attention and the people will rise up and demand that low-level infringement be decriminalized.
Unless of course society does think it should be a crime.In any case, civil damages beyond actual damages shouldn't be much higher than 3x.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779</id>
	<title>Thomas-Aide?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps all those artists could do a benefit concert for Ms. Thomas and raise enough money to pay off the RIAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps all those artists could do a benefit concert for Ms. Thomas and raise enough money to pay off the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps all those artists could do a benefit concert for Ms. Thomas and raise enough money to pay off the RIAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395105</id>
	<title>Re:Our country is run by the right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245403440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF? By and large "the right" wants the government to gtfo and leave us alone.  I woulds hazard a guess that  strict constitutionalist judges (AKA "the right") would be more likely to strike this down then "living constitutionalist"judges (AKA "the left").<br>But really, the issues are much broader then the concepts of the right and left can hold..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
By and large " the right " wants the government to gtfo and leave us alone .
I woulds hazard a guess that strict constitutionalist judges ( AKA " the right " ) would be more likely to strike this down then " living constitutionalist " judges ( AKA " the left " ) .But really , the issues are much broader then the concepts of the right and left can hold. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
By and large "the right" wants the government to gtfo and leave us alone.
I woulds hazard a guess that  strict constitutionalist judges (AKA "the right") would be more likely to strike this down then "living constitutionalist"judges (AKA "the left").But really, the issues are much broader then the concepts of the right and left can hold..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397071</id>
	<title>Re:Another Strategy</title>
	<author>rodarson2k</author>
	<datestamp>1245412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooo someone starts a publishing and record company of their own, reveals themself as a non-evil alternative, develops a backlog of undistributed/unpublished works with a certain amount of demand, and then eventually convinces walmart/amazon/etc to carry their product lines because of the pent-up demand.</p><p>Business model validated, except good luck convincing people to sign up their creative works to languish in obscurity.<br>You could even merge with On-Demand printing technology and internet-based distribution, which would get you some budding artists, one of whom could easily write the next Harry Potter.</p><p>I'm getting closer and closer to not posting this idea and going off to start a business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooo someone starts a publishing and record company of their own , reveals themself as a non-evil alternative , develops a backlog of undistributed/unpublished works with a certain amount of demand , and then eventually convinces walmart/amazon/etc to carry their product lines because of the pent-up demand.Business model validated , except good luck convincing people to sign up their creative works to languish in obscurity.You could even merge with On-Demand printing technology and internet-based distribution , which would get you some budding artists , one of whom could easily write the next Harry Potter.I 'm getting closer and closer to not posting this idea and going off to start a business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooo someone starts a publishing and record company of their own, reveals themself as a non-evil alternative, develops a backlog of undistributed/unpublished works with a certain amount of demand, and then eventually convinces walmart/amazon/etc to carry their product lines because of the pent-up demand.Business model validated, except good luck convincing people to sign up their creative works to languish in obscurity.You could even merge with On-Demand printing technology and internet-based distribution, which would get you some budding artists, one of whom could easily write the next Harry Potter.I'm getting closer and closer to not posting this idea and going off to start a business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394231</id>
	<title>What The Fuck Country</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245443760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions</p><p>Reprehensibility?  That's sure to be objectively defined and fairly applied.  Is it illegal to be reprehensible now?</p><p>2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award</p><p>Seems to me that this difference should always be $0.</p><p>3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations.</p><p>We have these things separated out for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant 's actionsReprehensibility ?
That 's sure to be objectively defined and fairly applied .
Is it illegal to be reprehensible now ? 2 ) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive awardSeems to me that this difference should always be $ 0.3 ) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations.We have these things separated out for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actionsReprehensibility?
That's sure to be objectively defined and fairly applied.
Is it illegal to be reprehensible now?2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive awardSeems to me that this difference should always be $0.3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations.We have these things separated out for a reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393841</id>
	<title>Answers to All Three Tests</title>
	<author>Bryan Gividen</author>
	<datestamp>1245442380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions</i>
<br>File sharing with the intent to avoid paying for a product or help others circumvent paying for a product is, at least to some degree, reprehensible. (I am assuming objectivity and being reasonable.) However, from the facts of this particular case, it doesn't seem that the act is so blatantly reprehensible that it warrants a life-sentence worth of monetary damages.<br> <br>
<i>2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award</i>
<br>This seems huge to me. Though I don't have the facts on this case and might judge differently if I did, it seems that the RIAA will have an incredibly hard time showing that the damages they incurred are even one a hundredth of the punitive damages. The 24 songs this woman had available would have to have been WIDELY disseminated to reach that kind of number. It will be interesting to see what kind of evidence they produce to address this question.<br> <br>
<i>3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations.</i>
<br>This is where the Eighth Amendment has tangential application. (None that takes direct legal effect, but still affects the approach that the courts' take.) This is obviously an incredibly excessive fine. Punitive damages, as the name obviously indicates, act to "punish" the individual for bad behavior. Two-million dollars as punishment for twenty-four files could very easily be considered excessive, egregious, unconscionable, or any other term for "whacked out" that I can think of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant 's actions File sharing with the intent to avoid paying for a product or help others circumvent paying for a product is , at least to some degree , reprehensible .
( I am assuming objectivity and being reasonable .
) However , from the facts of this particular case , it does n't seem that the act is so blatantly reprehensible that it warrants a life-sentence worth of monetary damages .
2 ) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award This seems huge to me .
Though I do n't have the facts on this case and might judge differently if I did , it seems that the RIAA will have an incredibly hard time showing that the damages they incurred are even one a hundredth of the punitive damages .
The 24 songs this woman had available would have to have been WIDELY disseminated to reach that kind of number .
It will be interesting to see what kind of evidence they produce to address this question .
3 ) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations .
This is where the Eighth Amendment has tangential application .
( None that takes direct legal effect , but still affects the approach that the courts ' take .
) This is obviously an incredibly excessive fine .
Punitive damages , as the name obviously indicates , act to " punish " the individual for bad behavior .
Two-million dollars as punishment for twenty-four files could very easily be considered excessive , egregious , unconscionable , or any other term for " whacked out " that I can think of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions
File sharing with the intent to avoid paying for a product or help others circumvent paying for a product is, at least to some degree, reprehensible.
(I am assuming objectivity and being reasonable.
) However, from the facts of this particular case, it doesn't seem that the act is so blatantly reprehensible that it warrants a life-sentence worth of monetary damages.
2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award
This seems huge to me.
Though I don't have the facts on this case and might judge differently if I did, it seems that the RIAA will have an incredibly hard time showing that the damages they incurred are even one a hundredth of the punitive damages.
The 24 songs this woman had available would have to have been WIDELY disseminated to reach that kind of number.
It will be interesting to see what kind of evidence they produce to address this question.
3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations.
This is where the Eighth Amendment has tangential application.
(None that takes direct legal effect, but still affects the approach that the courts' take.
) This is obviously an incredibly excessive fine.
Punitive damages, as the name obviously indicates, act to "punish" the individual for bad behavior.
Two-million dollars as punishment for twenty-four files could very easily be considered excessive, egregious, unconscionable, or any other term for "whacked out" that I can think of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393577</id>
	<title>Duh...</title>
	<author>mdf356</author>
	<datestamp>1245441420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it's <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090615/ts\_nm/us\_exxon\_award" title="yahoo.com">large damages against a company</a> [yahoo.com] the Supremes know it's not good.  But statutory damages to an individual that lines the pockets of business, that's great! (For 5 of 9 anyways).  Summary: businesses good, people bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it 's large damages against a company [ yahoo.com ] the Supremes know it 's not good .
But statutory damages to an individual that lines the pockets of business , that 's great !
( For 5 of 9 anyways ) .
Summary : businesses good , people bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it's large damages against a company [yahoo.com] the Supremes know it's not good.
But statutory damages to an individual that lines the pockets of business, that's great!
(For 5 of 9 anyways).
Summary: businesses good, people bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395163</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is wrong with you people!!!!</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1245403620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I could lite a big enough match on the way out, I would leave the U.S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I could lite a big enough match on the way out , I would leave the U.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I could lite a big enough match on the way out, I would leave the U.S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393769</id>
	<title>Precedant recently set by the Supremes</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1245442140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't the supreme's just set a precedent for excessive damage awards when they whacked the exxon valdez award a couples years back? Why not use that ratio as precedent for all such future damage awards?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't the supreme 's just set a precedent for excessive damage awards when they whacked the exxon valdez award a couples years back ?
Why not use that ratio as precedent for all such future damage awards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't the supreme's just set a precedent for excessive damage awards when they whacked the exxon valdez award a couples years back?
Why not use that ratio as precedent for all such future damage awards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396625</id>
	<title>Re:Where do you get this business about the Sup.Ct</title>
	<author>OSPolicy</author>
	<datestamp>1245410040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Punitive awards come from the jury.  Juries do not hold hearings, have access to experts, or otherwise have the ability of a legislature to make the best decisions.  Juries are also not elected by the public to carry out public policy.  For those reasons, excessive punitive damages are subject to challenge.  Exxon Val is one of many examples.  End of discussion of punitive damages, wholly irelevant to this case because no punitive damages have been awarded.</p><p>Beginning of discussion that is actually on point, which is a discussion of statutory damages:</p><p>Statutory damages are damages whose amount is prescribed and proscribed by the legislature.  Legislatures can hold hearings, can hire experts, can consider a wide range of facts and circumstances that may not be present in any single particular case, and have been elected by the public to define public policy.  The fact that they can do those things does not mean that they do, or that they do them competently, however, the fact that they can is what gives statutory damages a status different from the status of punitive damages.</p><p>Fairness to a defendant is one of the things that the legislature considers.  However, it also considers fairness to the plaintiff, deterrent, and judicial economy, to name but a few.  (It also considers who has paid into the re-election kitty and in what amount.  If you want to be the first person to point out that the system is imperfect and contains elements of corruption, you're too late.)  In order to legally do what she did, which is make the songs available to anyone with access to an internet connection, Thomas would have had to negotiate and pay for a fixed-price perpetual license for unlimited worldwide distribution of those songs.  What price would the record companies have negotiated for that?  Congress thought it over and came up with the wide range of $750-$150K and left it to the jury to fix a specific price in specific cases.</p><p>There are demonstrably songs for which such a license would be worth more than $150K, and songs for which $750 would be ludicrously high.  However, Congress established that range to achieve a range of policy goals.  Because those are statutory, meaning that they are specified in the statute, they are not subject to the challenges that a punitive damages award might draw.  Comparisons to Exxon are misplaced.  Because the money is not paid to the government, references to the 8th Amendment's prohibition against "excessive fines" is likewise unavailing.</p><p>If you want the Supremes, or any other court, to overturn an award of *statutory damages*, you must prevail on one of two points.  First, you could successfully argue that there was abuse of discretion.  For various technical reasons, this will not work.  Second, you could argue that Congress erred in setting the bounds on damages.  In that case, you must argue for having judges rewrite the law or do what postings in other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. forums would decry as "legislating from the bench."  Those are the choices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Punitive awards come from the jury .
Juries do not hold hearings , have access to experts , or otherwise have the ability of a legislature to make the best decisions .
Juries are also not elected by the public to carry out public policy .
For those reasons , excessive punitive damages are subject to challenge .
Exxon Val is one of many examples .
End of discussion of punitive damages , wholly irelevant to this case because no punitive damages have been awarded.Beginning of discussion that is actually on point , which is a discussion of statutory damages : Statutory damages are damages whose amount is prescribed and proscribed by the legislature .
Legislatures can hold hearings , can hire experts , can consider a wide range of facts and circumstances that may not be present in any single particular case , and have been elected by the public to define public policy .
The fact that they can do those things does not mean that they do , or that they do them competently , however , the fact that they can is what gives statutory damages a status different from the status of punitive damages.Fairness to a defendant is one of the things that the legislature considers .
However , it also considers fairness to the plaintiff , deterrent , and judicial economy , to name but a few .
( It also considers who has paid into the re-election kitty and in what amount .
If you want to be the first person to point out that the system is imperfect and contains elements of corruption , you 're too late .
) In order to legally do what she did , which is make the songs available to anyone with access to an internet connection , Thomas would have had to negotiate and pay for a fixed-price perpetual license for unlimited worldwide distribution of those songs .
What price would the record companies have negotiated for that ?
Congress thought it over and came up with the wide range of $ 750- $ 150K and left it to the jury to fix a specific price in specific cases.There are demonstrably songs for which such a license would be worth more than $ 150K , and songs for which $ 750 would be ludicrously high .
However , Congress established that range to achieve a range of policy goals .
Because those are statutory , meaning that they are specified in the statute , they are not subject to the challenges that a punitive damages award might draw .
Comparisons to Exxon are misplaced .
Because the money is not paid to the government , references to the 8th Amendment 's prohibition against " excessive fines " is likewise unavailing.If you want the Supremes , or any other court , to overturn an award of * statutory damages * , you must prevail on one of two points .
First , you could successfully argue that there was abuse of discretion .
For various technical reasons , this will not work .
Second , you could argue that Congress erred in setting the bounds on damages .
In that case , you must argue for having judges rewrite the law or do what postings in other / .
forums would decry as " legislating from the bench .
" Those are the choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Punitive awards come from the jury.
Juries do not hold hearings, have access to experts, or otherwise have the ability of a legislature to make the best decisions.
Juries are also not elected by the public to carry out public policy.
For those reasons, excessive punitive damages are subject to challenge.
Exxon Val is one of many examples.
End of discussion of punitive damages, wholly irelevant to this case because no punitive damages have been awarded.Beginning of discussion that is actually on point, which is a discussion of statutory damages:Statutory damages are damages whose amount is prescribed and proscribed by the legislature.
Legislatures can hold hearings, can hire experts, can consider a wide range of facts and circumstances that may not be present in any single particular case, and have been elected by the public to define public policy.
The fact that they can do those things does not mean that they do, or that they do them competently, however, the fact that they can is what gives statutory damages a status different from the status of punitive damages.Fairness to a defendant is one of the things that the legislature considers.
However, it also considers fairness to the plaintiff, deterrent, and judicial economy, to name but a few.
(It also considers who has paid into the re-election kitty and in what amount.
If you want to be the first person to point out that the system is imperfect and contains elements of corruption, you're too late.
)  In order to legally do what she did, which is make the songs available to anyone with access to an internet connection, Thomas would have had to negotiate and pay for a fixed-price perpetual license for unlimited worldwide distribution of those songs.
What price would the record companies have negotiated for that?
Congress thought it over and came up with the wide range of $750-$150K and left it to the jury to fix a specific price in specific cases.There are demonstrably songs for which such a license would be worth more than $150K, and songs for which $750 would be ludicrously high.
However, Congress established that range to achieve a range of policy goals.
Because those are statutory, meaning that they are specified in the statute, they are not subject to the challenges that a punitive damages award might draw.
Comparisons to Exxon are misplaced.
Because the money is not paid to the government, references to the 8th Amendment's prohibition against "excessive fines" is likewise unavailing.If you want the Supremes, or any other court, to overturn an award of *statutory damages*, you must prevail on one of two points.
First, you could successfully argue that there was abuse of discretion.
For various technical reasons, this will not work.
Second, you could argue that Congress erred in setting the bounds on damages.
In that case, you must argue for having judges rewrite the law or do what postings in other /.
forums would decry as "legislating from the bench.
"  Those are the choices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394003</id>
	<title>What a sad joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a sad joke the judicial system is.</p><p>Is that supposed to be "justice"? I think by anyone's definition that is just plain stupid.</p><p>Not to mention pointless. The fine might as well be for a Gajillion dollars, 'cause she ain't got that either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a sad joke the judicial system is.Is that supposed to be " justice " ?
I think by anyone 's definition that is just plain stupid.Not to mention pointless .
The fine might as well be for a Gajillion dollars , 'cause she ai n't got that either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a sad joke the judicial system is.Is that supposed to be "justice"?
I think by anyone's definition that is just plain stupid.Not to mention pointless.
The fine might as well be for a Gajillion dollars, 'cause she ain't got that either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395527</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>hot soldering iron</author>
	<datestamp>1245405000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they've taken everything from you, you have nothing left to lose. If you destroy her future, she has nothing left to lose if she resorts to violence and kills their families, and burns their homes. But that lesson will come too late. People kill for a LOT less than the complete loss of their financial future and eternal servitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they 've taken everything from you , you have nothing left to lose .
If you destroy her future , she has nothing left to lose if she resorts to violence and kills their families , and burns their homes .
But that lesson will come too late .
People kill for a LOT less than the complete loss of their financial future and eternal servitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they've taken everything from you, you have nothing left to lose.
If you destroy her future, she has nothing left to lose if she resorts to violence and kills their families, and burns their homes.
But that lesson will come too late.
People kill for a LOT less than the complete loss of their financial future and eternal servitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393709</id>
	<title>Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1245441960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question is not whether or not she downloaded the songs, it should be whether or not she did it with the intent of providing the same to others. I could support damages equal to the market value (plus <i>reasonable</i> punitive damages) of what she obtained iff (sic) she didn't upload anything but to suggest that this woman is even in the same league as someone who sells thousands of copied CDs is just silly. A common belief here is that the jury came down hard on her because she lied in court, but isn't perjury a criminal matter and shouldn't it have no bearing on the damages levied against her for a few dozen MP3s?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is not whether or not she downloaded the songs , it should be whether or not she did it with the intent of providing the same to others .
I could support damages equal to the market value ( plus reasonable punitive damages ) of what she obtained iff ( sic ) she did n't upload anything but to suggest that this woman is even in the same league as someone who sells thousands of copied CDs is just silly .
A common belief here is that the jury came down hard on her because she lied in court , but is n't perjury a criminal matter and should n't it have no bearing on the damages levied against her for a few dozen MP3s ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is not whether or not she downloaded the songs, it should be whether or not she did it with the intent of providing the same to others.
I could support damages equal to the market value (plus reasonable punitive damages) of what she obtained iff (sic) she didn't upload anything but to suggest that this woman is even in the same league as someone who sells thousands of copied CDs is just silly.
A common belief here is that the jury came down hard on her because she lied in court, but isn't perjury a criminal matter and shouldn't it have no bearing on the damages levied against her for a few dozen MP3s?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399045</id>
	<title>Bankruptcy?</title>
	<author>Gresyth</author>
	<datestamp>1245430500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>After the appeals and such run out, she may or may not be able to file bankruptcy.

IANAL, but i found these bits of info interesting.

1)The jury found Thomas-Rasset's conduct to be willful, which means that statutory damages under the Copyright Act can range from $750 per infringement up to $150,000.
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]


2)Debts arising from copyright infringement judgments are generally dischargeable
in personal bankruptcy proceedings unless the creditor (i.e., the copyright owner) can
prove that the judgment constitutes a debt for a "willful and malicious injury" within the
meaning of 11 U.S.C.  523(a)(6). Moreover, because the legal standards for "willful and
malicious injury" differ from those governing "willful infringement" under the Copyright
Act, even a willful infringement judgment may be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
<a href="http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA\_v\_ThePeople/P2P\_bktcy\_memo.pdf" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA\_v\_ThePeople/P2P\_bktcy\_memo.pdf</a> [eff.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>After the appeals and such run out , she may or may not be able to file bankruptcy .
IANAL , but i found these bits of info interesting .
1 ) The jury found Thomas-Rasset 's conduct to be willful , which means that statutory damages under the Copyright Act can range from $ 750 per infringement up to $ 150,000 .
http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars [ arstechnica.com ] 2 ) Debts arising from copyright infringement judgments are generally dischargeable in personal bankruptcy proceedings unless the creditor ( i.e. , the copyright owner ) can prove that the judgment constitutes a debt for a " willful and malicious injury " within the meaning of 11 U.S.C .
523 ( a ) ( 6 ) . Moreover , because the legal standards for " willful and malicious injury " differ from those governing " willful infringement " under the Copyright Act , even a willful infringement judgment may be dischargeable in bankruptcy .
http : //w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA \ _v \ _ThePeople/P2P \ _bktcy \ _memo.pdf [ eff.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the appeals and such run out, she may or may not be able to file bankruptcy.
IANAL, but i found these bits of info interesting.
1)The jury found Thomas-Rasset's conduct to be willful, which means that statutory damages under the Copyright Act can range from $750 per infringement up to $150,000.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars [arstechnica.com]


2)Debts arising from copyright infringement judgments are generally dischargeable
in personal bankruptcy proceedings unless the creditor (i.e., the copyright owner) can
prove that the judgment constitutes a debt for a "willful and malicious injury" within the
meaning of 11 U.S.C.
523(a)(6). Moreover, because the legal standards for "willful and
malicious injury" differ from those governing "willful infringement" under the Copyright
Act, even a willful infringement judgment may be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAA\_v\_ThePeople/P2P\_bktcy\_memo.pdf [eff.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397929</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh, Linkin Park? $1.9 million isn't enough. She should get the death penalty for making that trash available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh , Linkin Park ?
$ 1.9 million is n't enough .
She should get the death penalty for making that trash available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh, Linkin Park?
$1.9 million isn't enough.
She should get the death penalty for making that trash available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394161</id>
	<title>Re:It is not over</title>
	<author>reginaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1245443460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be that this ruling is actually an anti-RIAA ruling in disguise?  Rather than making an example of Thomas to promote the RIAA, the judge may be pointing out the absurdity of the legal damages allowed.  Too bad for Thomas though, she is going to be struggling financially from now on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be that this ruling is actually an anti-RIAA ruling in disguise ?
Rather than making an example of Thomas to promote the RIAA , the judge may be pointing out the absurdity of the legal damages allowed .
Too bad for Thomas though , she is going to be struggling financially from now on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be that this ruling is actually an anti-RIAA ruling in disguise?
Rather than making an example of Thomas to promote the RIAA, the judge may be pointing out the absurdity of the legal damages allowed.
Too bad for Thomas though, she is going to be struggling financially from now on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397665</id>
	<title>The question is...</title>
	<author>Fuzzums</author>
	<datestamp>1245417060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is "grossly excessive" in the set of "ridiculous" or "heavily exaggerated"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is " grossly excessive " in the set of " ridiculous " or " heavily exaggerated " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is "grossly excessive" in the set of "ridiculous" or "heavily exaggerated"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396075</id>
	<title>You got to know when to fold them...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245407340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They can appeal it all the way to the supreme court, and it's still going to get shot down; like you said, the whole system is bought and paid for.</i> <p>
Or just maybe Thomas is the iceberg who sank the the Geek's Titanic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can appeal it all the way to the supreme court , and it 's still going to get shot down ; like you said , the whole system is bought and paid for .
Or just maybe Thomas is the iceberg who sank the the Geek 's Titanic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can appeal it all the way to the supreme court, and it's still going to get shot down; like you said, the whole system is bought and paid for.
Or just maybe Thomas is the iceberg who sank the the Geek's Titanic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394769</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1245402300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not theft. Theft is depriving another of physical property of value, including data. The RIAA was not deprived of data in any way. They were deprived of their right to be the sole distributor of that data. That's it. And you punish the RIAA by not buying from artists associated with them and their membership. Thus, the artists on that list are the ones to be most blamed, as I'm sure they'd had to have heard of it, and any one of them could have come forward and said "$1.9M? Holy shit, are you people insane?" But they didn't. So they must think it fair, since they're the whole reason the RIAA has any power to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not theft .
Theft is depriving another of physical property of value , including data .
The RIAA was not deprived of data in any way .
They were deprived of their right to be the sole distributor of that data .
That 's it .
And you punish the RIAA by not buying from artists associated with them and their membership .
Thus , the artists on that list are the ones to be most blamed , as I 'm sure they 'd had to have heard of it , and any one of them could have come forward and said " $ 1.9M ?
Holy shit , are you people insane ?
" But they did n't .
So they must think it fair , since they 're the whole reason the RIAA has any power to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not theft.
Theft is depriving another of physical property of value, including data.
The RIAA was not deprived of data in any way.
They were deprived of their right to be the sole distributor of that data.
That's it.
And you punish the RIAA by not buying from artists associated with them and their membership.
Thus, the artists on that list are the ones to be most blamed, as I'm sure they'd had to have heard of it, and any one of them could have come forward and said "$1.9M?
Holy shit, are you people insane?
" But they didn't.
So they must think it fair, since they're the whole reason the RIAA has any power to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28400349</id>
	<title>The day that music died</title>
	<author>el\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1245493980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A long, long time ago...<br>
I can still remember<br>
How that music used to make me smile.<br>
(...)<br>
Now the half-time air was sweet perfume<br>
While the sergeants played a marching tune.<br> <br>

We all got up to dance,<br>
Oh, but we never got the chance!<br>
`cause the players tried to take the field;<br>
The marching band refused to yield.<br> <br>

Do you recall what was revealed<br>
The day the music died? <br> <br>

Don McLean</htmltext>
<tokenext>A long , long time ago.. . I can still remember How that music used to make me smile .
( ... ) Now the half-time air was sweet perfume While the sergeants played a marching tune .
We all got up to dance , Oh , but we never got the chance !
` cause the players tried to take the field ; The marching band refused to yield .
Do you recall what was revealed The day the music died ?
Don McLean</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A long, long time ago...
I can still remember
How that music used to make me smile.
(...)
Now the half-time air was sweet perfume
While the sergeants played a marching tune.
We all got up to dance,
Oh, but we never got the chance!
`cause the players tried to take the field;
The marching band refused to yield.
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?
Don McLean</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397817</id>
	<title>Re:Another Strategy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You raise in interesting point - why is no one competing with the "record companies/publishers". If Google can make billions with free web search, then surely someone can create a model which fairly compensates (as in 90\% of sales) while the new seller takes 10\%. Cut out the "old world" "record companies/publishers" and the RIAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You raise in interesting point - why is no one competing with the " record companies/publishers " .
If Google can make billions with free web search , then surely someone can create a model which fairly compensates ( as in 90 \ % of sales ) while the new seller takes 10 \ % .
Cut out the " old world " " record companies/publishers " and the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You raise in interesting point - why is no one competing with the "record companies/publishers".
If Google can make billions with free web search, then surely someone can create a model which fairly compensates (as in 90\% of sales) while the new seller takes 10\%.
Cut out the "old world" "record companies/publishers" and the RIAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394197</id>
	<title>Appeal</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245443580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My question is, "Was this case set up for an appeal?"  It seems interesting that the defense made a very simple case at trial,did not oppose bad evidence with vigor and then didn't strenuously go after the jury instructions, which seemed to be missing quite a bit of important details.  Almost was like the battle was forfeit to win the war at a later date.</p><p>Would be interesting to get a few attorneys to comment...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My question is , " Was this case set up for an appeal ?
" It seems interesting that the defense made a very simple case at trial,did not oppose bad evidence with vigor and then did n't strenuously go after the jury instructions , which seemed to be missing quite a bit of important details .
Almost was like the battle was forfeit to win the war at a later date.Would be interesting to get a few attorneys to comment.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My question is, "Was this case set up for an appeal?
"  It seems interesting that the defense made a very simple case at trial,did not oppose bad evidence with vigor and then didn't strenuously go after the jury instructions, which seemed to be missing quite a bit of important details.
Almost was like the battle was forfeit to win the war at a later date.Would be interesting to get a few attorneys to comment...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394577</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1245444900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sigh. Ok, here is your crash course on the music business. The bands themselves rarely (unless they are mega-stars resigning or renegotiating a contact) own the rights to the songs, and the labels can do whatever they want with them. I can guarantee you every good artist knows that suing your fans is not a great business strategy. And considering the artists will never see a dime of this money, I am sure they would all have a much different opinion of the outcome than music label executives would. Don't blame the artists for what the music labels do. The artists make the music, the music labels screw it up from that point on. If you truly want to support an artist, go to their live shows and buy merchandise, or their CD directly from the band. Most bands see less than 75 cents of profit from every $15 CD sold, and the labels have some creative bookkeeping designed to take back any profits actually made from music sales from the band. And certainly don't punish the artists for what a jury of her peers decided what Ms. Thomas has to pay. Blame the law and the music labels for letting it get to this in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh .
Ok , here is your crash course on the music business .
The bands themselves rarely ( unless they are mega-stars resigning or renegotiating a contact ) own the rights to the songs , and the labels can do whatever they want with them .
I can guarantee you every good artist knows that suing your fans is not a great business strategy .
And considering the artists will never see a dime of this money , I am sure they would all have a much different opinion of the outcome than music label executives would .
Do n't blame the artists for what the music labels do .
The artists make the music , the music labels screw it up from that point on .
If you truly want to support an artist , go to their live shows and buy merchandise , or their CD directly from the band .
Most bands see less than 75 cents of profit from every $ 15 CD sold , and the labels have some creative bookkeeping designed to take back any profits actually made from music sales from the band .
And certainly do n't punish the artists for what a jury of her peers decided what Ms. Thomas has to pay .
Blame the law and the music labels for letting it get to this in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh.
Ok, here is your crash course on the music business.
The bands themselves rarely (unless they are mega-stars resigning or renegotiating a contact) own the rights to the songs, and the labels can do whatever they want with them.
I can guarantee you every good artist knows that suing your fans is not a great business strategy.
And considering the artists will never see a dime of this money, I am sure they would all have a much different opinion of the outcome than music label executives would.
Don't blame the artists for what the music labels do.
The artists make the music, the music labels screw it up from that point on.
If you truly want to support an artist, go to their live shows and buy merchandise, or their CD directly from the band.
Most bands see less than 75 cents of profit from every $15 CD sold, and the labels have some creative bookkeeping designed to take back any profits actually made from music sales from the band.
And certainly don't punish the artists for what a jury of her peers decided what Ms. Thomas has to pay.
Blame the law and the music labels for letting it get to this in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065</id>
	<title>Another Strategy</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ish</author>
	<datestamp>1245407280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have any dealings with RIAA type issues, as I am not a musician. However, I deal with publishers, who are fundamentally similar to record companies. I produce copyrighted work that I have to 'assign'  the copyright to the publishers, in order to get my stuff into print (and this is only after going through the blind refereeing process). Moreover, I seldom get paid for my work. As a result, most professors like me hate publishers, but see them as a necessary evil.<br><br>That being said, I also have plenty of friends who are successful musicians -- real record contracts and a smattering of Grammies. Funnily enough, their attitude to their record companies is about the same as mine to publishers -- they stink, but are a necessary evil.<br><br>This parallel though suggest that their may be an alternative strategy available in the current context. Musicians and professors only deal with record companies/publishers, because there is no alternative. The question is why not? The answer is simple, these corporations are really diverse monopolies. "Ah ha!", someone will claim, "this is not so, as there are multiple record companies/publishers, thus there is 'choice', so it is not really a monopoly." However, when the record companies/publishers start to work together (e.g. in  the RIAA), then they ARE working like a monopoly. Not only that, their business model is predicated on a form of extortion -- 'Give us the copyright, or your record does not get released/your paper does not get published'. Couldn't the RIAA and their like be put out of business on these kinds of grounds? Isn't this just the kind of thing that even the most foaming and rabid right winger would support? More to the point, why isn't somebody actually doing this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have any dealings with RIAA type issues , as I am not a musician .
However , I deal with publishers , who are fundamentally similar to record companies .
I produce copyrighted work that I have to 'assign ' the copyright to the publishers , in order to get my stuff into print ( and this is only after going through the blind refereeing process ) .
Moreover , I seldom get paid for my work .
As a result , most professors like me hate publishers , but see them as a necessary evil.That being said , I also have plenty of friends who are successful musicians -- real record contracts and a smattering of Grammies .
Funnily enough , their attitude to their record companies is about the same as mine to publishers -- they stink , but are a necessary evil.This parallel though suggest that their may be an alternative strategy available in the current context .
Musicians and professors only deal with record companies/publishers , because there is no alternative .
The question is why not ?
The answer is simple , these corporations are really diverse monopolies .
" Ah ha !
" , someone will claim , " this is not so , as there are multiple record companies/publishers , thus there is 'choice ' , so it is not really a monopoly .
" However , when the record companies/publishers start to work together ( e.g .
in the RIAA ) , then they ARE working like a monopoly .
Not only that , their business model is predicated on a form of extortion -- 'Give us the copyright , or your record does not get released/your paper does not get published' .
Could n't the RIAA and their like be put out of business on these kinds of grounds ?
Is n't this just the kind of thing that even the most foaming and rabid right winger would support ?
More to the point , why is n't somebody actually doing this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have any dealings with RIAA type issues, as I am not a musician.
However, I deal with publishers, who are fundamentally similar to record companies.
I produce copyrighted work that I have to 'assign'  the copyright to the publishers, in order to get my stuff into print (and this is only after going through the blind refereeing process).
Moreover, I seldom get paid for my work.
As a result, most professors like me hate publishers, but see them as a necessary evil.That being said, I also have plenty of friends who are successful musicians -- real record contracts and a smattering of Grammies.
Funnily enough, their attitude to their record companies is about the same as mine to publishers -- they stink, but are a necessary evil.This parallel though suggest that their may be an alternative strategy available in the current context.
Musicians and professors only deal with record companies/publishers, because there is no alternative.
The question is why not?
The answer is simple, these corporations are really diverse monopolies.
"Ah ha!
", someone will claim, "this is not so, as there are multiple record companies/publishers, thus there is 'choice', so it is not really a monopoly.
" However, when the record companies/publishers start to work together (e.g.
in  the RIAA), then they ARE working like a monopoly.
Not only that, their business model is predicated on a form of extortion -- 'Give us the copyright, or your record does not get released/your paper does not get published'.
Couldn't the RIAA and their like be put out of business on these kinds of grounds?
Isn't this just the kind of thing that even the most foaming and rabid right winger would support?
More to the point, why isn't somebody actually doing this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394327</id>
	<title>Texas civil damages capped.</title>
	<author>kybred</author>
	<datestamp>1245444060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Counterpoint this $1.9 million judgement to <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/061909dnmetjabarisettle.2ed869e.html" title="dallasnews.com">this</a> [dallasnews.com]:<p><div class="quote"><p>Jabari, a 300-pound gorilla, escaped from his enclosure and went on an angry rampage through the zoo. Police shot and killed him on the zoo grounds, but not before he seriously injured Reichert, Heard and 3-year-old Rivers Heard.
</p><p>
The Dallas City Council, which oversees the zoo, is scheduled to approve a $500,000 financial settlement with Heard and Reichert during a special meeting Friday at City Hall. The money is meant to compensate the women and their children for their physical injuries and emotional trauma.
</p><p>
State law caps civil damage awards against a city government at $500,000.</p></div><p>So the RIAA gets nearly $2 Million, while these people with <i>real</i> physical and emotional injuries get 25\% of that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Counterpoint this $ 1.9 million judgement to this [ dallasnews.com ] : Jabari , a 300-pound gorilla , escaped from his enclosure and went on an angry rampage through the zoo .
Police shot and killed him on the zoo grounds , but not before he seriously injured Reichert , Heard and 3-year-old Rivers Heard .
The Dallas City Council , which oversees the zoo , is scheduled to approve a $ 500,000 financial settlement with Heard and Reichert during a special meeting Friday at City Hall .
The money is meant to compensate the women and their children for their physical injuries and emotional trauma .
State law caps civil damage awards against a city government at $ 500,000.So the RIAA gets nearly $ 2 Million , while these people with real physical and emotional injuries get 25 \ % of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Counterpoint this $1.9 million judgement to this [dallasnews.com]:Jabari, a 300-pound gorilla, escaped from his enclosure and went on an angry rampage through the zoo.
Police shot and killed him on the zoo grounds, but not before he seriously injured Reichert, Heard and 3-year-old Rivers Heard.
The Dallas City Council, which oversees the zoo, is scheduled to approve a $500,000 financial settlement with Heard and Reichert during a special meeting Friday at City Hall.
The money is meant to compensate the women and their children for their physical injuries and emotional trauma.
State law caps civil damage awards against a city government at $500,000.So the RIAA gets nearly $2 Million, while these people with real physical and emotional injuries get 25\% of that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395195</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245403740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter that the artists get very little from the music industry - in the end, it was their choice and the artists mentioned in the OP are filthy rich, so I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. But the main point is that these artists (or "artists")<br>a) Create profits for the labels.<br>b) Give legitimacy to the labels.</p><p>As long as they stay quiet and collect their money, they are responsible. So, yeah, name and shame is definitely a good tactic to follow.</p><p>For your information, not ALL musicians decided to suck on the RIAA's teet. There is plenty of excellent artists that decided to be independent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter that the artists get very little from the music industry - in the end , it was their choice and the artists mentioned in the OP are filthy rich , so I have a hard time feeling sorry for them .
But the main point is that these artists ( or " artists " ) a ) Create profits for the labels.b ) Give legitimacy to the labels.As long as they stay quiet and collect their money , they are responsible .
So , yeah , name and shame is definitely a good tactic to follow.For your information , not ALL musicians decided to suck on the RIAA 's teet .
There is plenty of excellent artists that decided to be independent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter that the artists get very little from the music industry - in the end, it was their choice and the artists mentioned in the OP are filthy rich, so I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.
But the main point is that these artists (or "artists")a) Create profits for the labels.b) Give legitimacy to the labels.As long as they stay quiet and collect their money, they are responsible.
So, yeah, name and shame is definitely a good tactic to follow.For your information, not ALL musicians decided to suck on the RIAA's teet.
There is plenty of excellent artists that decided to be independent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394881</id>
	<title>Re:Answers to All Three Tests</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1245402720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except they're not punitive, they're statutory. that might be enough for the courts to shrug and say "Not our business, talk to the legislators."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except they 're not punitive , they 're statutory .
that might be enough for the courts to shrug and say " Not our business , talk to the legislators .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except they're not punitive, they're statutory.
that might be enough for the courts to shrug and say "Not our business, talk to the legislators.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393463</id>
	<title>Failed once, will fail again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depressing as hell, but the system is bought, paid for, and bent beyond repair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depressing as hell , but the system is bought , paid for , and bent beyond repair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depressing as hell, but the system is bought, paid for, and bent beyond repair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394539</id>
	<title>Re:Our country is run by the right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245444780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The definition of "conservative" has really changed a lot since I was young.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The definition of " conservative " has really changed a lot since I was young .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The definition of "conservative" has really changed a lot since I was young.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394925</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is wrong with you people!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245402840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nearly everywhere else....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly everywhere else... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly everywhere else....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394107</id>
	<title>Irrelevant to Due Process</title>
	<author>GrifterCC</author>
	<datestamp>1245443340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a lawyer.<br> <br>The EFF is going to run out of rope really fast.  BMW v. Gore said it was about factors, but it was really about notice.  Could BMW really expect such a dramatically large punitive-damages award?  Maybe not, for the conduct alleged.  Here, legally speaking, Jammie had notice: there was a statute putting her on notice of the fact that a jury could award these damages if it wanted.<br> <br>Anyway, with the Court's current composition, arguing that BMW v. Gore should be expanded to statutory damages is a non-starter.  That opinion barely made it through as it was.  Just look at the dissents--Ginsberg, joined by Rehnquist?  The Court's only gotten more government-friendly since then.<br> <br>I don't know much adjudicatory criminal procedure; maybe the 8th Amendment is the way to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a lawyer .
The EFF is going to run out of rope really fast .
BMW v. Gore said it was about factors , but it was really about notice .
Could BMW really expect such a dramatically large punitive-damages award ?
Maybe not , for the conduct alleged .
Here , legally speaking , Jammie had notice : there was a statute putting her on notice of the fact that a jury could award these damages if it wanted .
Anyway , with the Court 's current composition , arguing that BMW v. Gore should be expanded to statutory damages is a non-starter .
That opinion barely made it through as it was .
Just look at the dissents--Ginsberg , joined by Rehnquist ?
The Court 's only gotten more government-friendly since then .
I do n't know much adjudicatory criminal procedure ; maybe the 8th Amendment is the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a lawyer.
The EFF is going to run out of rope really fast.
BMW v. Gore said it was about factors, but it was really about notice.
Could BMW really expect such a dramatically large punitive-damages award?
Maybe not, for the conduct alleged.
Here, legally speaking, Jammie had notice: there was a statute putting her on notice of the fact that a jury could award these damages if it wanted.
Anyway, with the Court's current composition, arguing that BMW v. Gore should be expanded to statutory damages is a non-starter.
That opinion barely made it through as it was.
Just look at the dissents--Ginsberg, joined by Rehnquist?
The Court's only gotten more government-friendly since then.
I don't know much adjudicatory criminal procedure; maybe the 8th Amendment is the way to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395089</id>
	<title>Re:Thomas-Aide?</title>
	<author>evilkasper</author>
	<datestamp>1245403380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps all those artists can find a way to publish their music without the recording industry. Didn't Amazon just team up with a company that was meant to allow Indie bands sell their music through Amazon? (for a cut of the pie of course) It's pretty damn obvious IMHO that the RIAA is not out to protect the artist so much as extort their fans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps all those artists can find a way to publish their music without the recording industry .
Did n't Amazon just team up with a company that was meant to allow Indie bands sell their music through Amazon ?
( for a cut of the pie of course ) It 's pretty damn obvious IMHO that the RIAA is not out to protect the artist so much as extort their fans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps all those artists can find a way to publish their music without the recording industry.
Didn't Amazon just team up with a company that was meant to allow Indie bands sell their music through Amazon?
(for a cut of the pie of course) It's pretty damn obvious IMHO that the RIAA is not out to protect the artist so much as extort their fans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393853</id>
	<title>The amount shoudn't be set by a stupid-ass jury!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the hell gave a jury of dumb-asses the authority to set the amount of the fine?   What a bunch of ignorant incompetent couch potatoes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell gave a jury of dumb-asses the authority to set the amount of the fine ?
What a bunch of ignorant incompetent couch potatoes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell gave a jury of dumb-asses the authority to set the amount of the fine?
What a bunch of ignorant incompetent couch potatoes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398791</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is wrong with you people!!!!</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1245427500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Antarctica.  It's absolutely free of laws.  The only law that governs the entire continent is "There shall be no laws here."  Dress warm though, it's a little chilly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Antarctica .
It 's absolutely free of laws .
The only law that governs the entire continent is " There shall be no laws here .
" Dress warm though , it 's a little chilly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Antarctica.
It's absolutely free of laws.
The only law that governs the entire continent is "There shall be no laws here.
"  Dress warm though, it's a little chilly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393575</id>
	<title>It is not over</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1245441420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA has been making very telling statements after the verdict.  They realize that with a judgment like this public reaction is more than just turning on them.  The fact that it is also hurting their brands (Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner Bros) is also worrying them.  Eventually they will cave or lose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA has been making very telling statements after the verdict .
They realize that with a judgment like this public reaction is more than just turning on them .
The fact that it is also hurting their brands ( Sony , EMI , Universal , Warner Bros ) is also worrying them .
Eventually they will cave or lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA has been making very telling statements after the verdict.
They realize that with a judgment like this public reaction is more than just turning on them.
The fact that it is also hurting their brands (Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner Bros) is also worrying them.
Eventually they will cave or lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395549</id>
	<title>where are the gun nuts when u need em?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245405060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>insteead of shooting up a school or a church why dont one of you maniacs got shoot up the RIAA building? Track down the people in charge and murder them instead of the innocent in the schools and churches!<br>Seems a much better use of ammunition, and you WILL be a famous hero to some in this country, instead of a pariah and a monster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>insteead of shooting up a school or a church why dont one of you maniacs got shoot up the RIAA building ?
Track down the people in charge and murder them instead of the innocent in the schools and churches ! Seems a much better use of ammunition , and you WILL be a famous hero to some in this country , instead of a pariah and a monster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>insteead of shooting up a school or a church why dont one of you maniacs got shoot up the RIAA building?
Track down the people in charge and murder them instead of the innocent in the schools and churches!Seems a much better use of ammunition, and you WILL be a famous hero to some in this country, instead of a pariah and a monster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393653</id>
	<title>Re:Failed once, will fail again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Depressing as hell, but the system is bought, paid for, and bent beyond repair.</p></div><p>Absolutely it is.  When you have ex-RIAA lawyers getting assigned to high Department of Justice positions by this administration, what chance does Jammie Thomas think she has?  They can appeal it all the way to the supreme court, and it's still going to get shot down; like you said, the whole system is bought and paid for.</p><p>The saddest part about it is that it's not just the judicial system.  Our Congressmen have literally been bought and paid for by big business lobbyists for years now.  Depressing indeed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depressing as hell , but the system is bought , paid for , and bent beyond repair.Absolutely it is .
When you have ex-RIAA lawyers getting assigned to high Department of Justice positions by this administration , what chance does Jammie Thomas think she has ?
They can appeal it all the way to the supreme court , and it 's still going to get shot down ; like you said , the whole system is bought and paid for.The saddest part about it is that it 's not just the judicial system .
Our Congressmen have literally been bought and paid for by big business lobbyists for years now .
Depressing indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depressing as hell, but the system is bought, paid for, and bent beyond repair.Absolutely it is.
When you have ex-RIAA lawyers getting assigned to high Department of Justice positions by this administration, what chance does Jammie Thomas think she has?
They can appeal it all the way to the supreme court, and it's still going to get shot down; like you said, the whole system is bought and paid for.The saddest part about it is that it's not just the judicial system.
Our Congressmen have literally been bought and paid for by big business lobbyists for years now.
Depressing indeed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147</id>
	<title>WTF is wrong with you people!!!!</title>
	<author>sherpajohn</author>
	<datestamp>1245443460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trillions in bailouts to banks that wasted the untold fortunes of the average person's retirement funds in vain attempts they knew should have failed to make the rich beyond need bankers even more fucking rich, and the courts have a audacity to award the perveyors of packaged pop poop almost $100k per song shared? You people are totally fucked in the head. If it gets like this in Canada I am leaving - but where can I go that's not that inasane? Jeebus jumpin jehosiphat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trillions in bailouts to banks that wasted the untold fortunes of the average person 's retirement funds in vain attempts they knew should have failed to make the rich beyond need bankers even more fucking rich , and the courts have a audacity to award the perveyors of packaged pop poop almost $ 100k per song shared ?
You people are totally fucked in the head .
If it gets like this in Canada I am leaving - but where can I go that 's not that inasane ?
Jeebus jumpin jehosiphat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trillions in bailouts to banks that wasted the untold fortunes of the average person's retirement funds in vain attempts they knew should have failed to make the rich beyond need bankers even more fucking rich, and the courts have a audacity to award the perveyors of packaged pop poop almost $100k per song shared?
You people are totally fucked in the head.
If it gets like this in Canada I am leaving - but where can I go that's not that inasane?
Jeebus jumpin jehosiphat!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395793</id>
	<title>Pyrrhic Victory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245406020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA managed to win themselves an unreasonably large amount of money, true.  But, they have achieved little in doing so.  First, they are risking Supreme Court exposure by requesting such a large sum.  The added time and money required for a fight on the Supreme Court will only devalue the ridiculous sum they've earned, assuming they manage a victory.  If they lose, they drastically reduce the effectiveness of their existing legal strategy.</p><p>Second, while they are fighting these legal and political battles, internet piracy continues to grow.  The DRM mechanisms with which they had hoped to combat piracy have failed.  The victories they won against Napster and Kazaa have only succeeded in making the newer applications more robust.  The anti-piracy advertisements and campaigns haven't decreased piracy.</p><p>Third, politically they've bought themselves a lot.  But, any moderately intelligent politician will do whatever they can to remain in favor of their constituents.  The more the RIAA asks from the government, the more a connection to the RIAA becomes a liability, especially if public opinion sides against the RIAA.</p><p>In general, I think that the RIAA is struggling against the tide.  Technological change does not occur according to anyone's schedule.  When a new technology appears, you have to adapt to it as quickly as possible.  The Music Industry still has not developed a successful means of dealing with the internet.  So far, iTunes has been the only success.  It says a lot when a Computer Hardware and Software manufacturer is the only successful intersection of music and the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA managed to win themselves an unreasonably large amount of money , true .
But , they have achieved little in doing so .
First , they are risking Supreme Court exposure by requesting such a large sum .
The added time and money required for a fight on the Supreme Court will only devalue the ridiculous sum they 've earned , assuming they manage a victory .
If they lose , they drastically reduce the effectiveness of their existing legal strategy.Second , while they are fighting these legal and political battles , internet piracy continues to grow .
The DRM mechanisms with which they had hoped to combat piracy have failed .
The victories they won against Napster and Kazaa have only succeeded in making the newer applications more robust .
The anti-piracy advertisements and campaigns have n't decreased piracy.Third , politically they 've bought themselves a lot .
But , any moderately intelligent politician will do whatever they can to remain in favor of their constituents .
The more the RIAA asks from the government , the more a connection to the RIAA becomes a liability , especially if public opinion sides against the RIAA.In general , I think that the RIAA is struggling against the tide .
Technological change does not occur according to anyone 's schedule .
When a new technology appears , you have to adapt to it as quickly as possible .
The Music Industry still has not developed a successful means of dealing with the internet .
So far , iTunes has been the only success .
It says a lot when a Computer Hardware and Software manufacturer is the only successful intersection of music and the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA managed to win themselves an unreasonably large amount of money, true.
But, they have achieved little in doing so.
First, they are risking Supreme Court exposure by requesting such a large sum.
The added time and money required for a fight on the Supreme Court will only devalue the ridiculous sum they've earned, assuming they manage a victory.
If they lose, they drastically reduce the effectiveness of their existing legal strategy.Second, while they are fighting these legal and political battles, internet piracy continues to grow.
The DRM mechanisms with which they had hoped to combat piracy have failed.
The victories they won against Napster and Kazaa have only succeeded in making the newer applications more robust.
The anti-piracy advertisements and campaigns haven't decreased piracy.Third, politically they've bought themselves a lot.
But, any moderately intelligent politician will do whatever they can to remain in favor of their constituents.
The more the RIAA asks from the government, the more a connection to the RIAA becomes a liability, especially if public opinion sides against the RIAA.In general, I think that the RIAA is struggling against the tide.
Technological change does not occur according to anyone's schedule.
When a new technology appears, you have to adapt to it as quickly as possible.
The Music Industry still has not developed a successful means of dealing with the internet.
So far, iTunes has been the only success.
It says a lot when a Computer Hardware and Software manufacturer is the only successful intersection of music and the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396797</id>
	<title>Re:Another Strategy</title>
	<author>OSPolicy</author>
	<datestamp>1245410880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Monopoly" has a specific legal meaning.  One of the key elements is pricing power, which means that the monopolist can raise his price above what he would be able to charge in a competitive market.  As the RIAA is organized, it does not have pricing power over any records, CDs, etc., so it cannot be a monopoly.  It can be a cartel that illegally exercises market power; that's more of an anti-trust issue.  However, that would require a court to define the set of people who infringe music copyrights as a market and there are good reasons not to do that.  However, I've heard it discussed and it may happen.  I'm not here with an opinion, just a definition.</p><p>As to the extortion charge, the situation you describe is merely the quid pro quo on which all of commerce is based.  Wal-Mart does the same thing:  "Give us $0.75 or you're never gettin' outta here alive with that candy bar!"  Real property works the same way: "Give me the rights to quiet enjoyment of the house, garage, AND the yard or I'm not buying the property!"  So you trade the copyright and the text of a paper or a book for something that you want more.  If you don't like it, don't publish, self-publish, or go with a less reputable publisher, but then feel the pain when you come up for tenure and promotion.  Having seen the (utter and total lack of) success of at least one applicant apply for a job in the Mathematics Department on the basis of his "publications" in the editorial column of his local newspaper, I'd say you're doing the right thing for your career in trading away the copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Monopoly " has a specific legal meaning .
One of the key elements is pricing power , which means that the monopolist can raise his price above what he would be able to charge in a competitive market .
As the RIAA is organized , it does not have pricing power over any records , CDs , etc. , so it can not be a monopoly .
It can be a cartel that illegally exercises market power ; that 's more of an anti-trust issue .
However , that would require a court to define the set of people who infringe music copyrights as a market and there are good reasons not to do that .
However , I 've heard it discussed and it may happen .
I 'm not here with an opinion , just a definition.As to the extortion charge , the situation you describe is merely the quid pro quo on which all of commerce is based .
Wal-Mart does the same thing : " Give us $ 0.75 or you 're never gettin ' outta here alive with that candy bar !
" Real property works the same way : " Give me the rights to quiet enjoyment of the house , garage , AND the yard or I 'm not buying the property !
" So you trade the copyright and the text of a paper or a book for something that you want more .
If you do n't like it , do n't publish , self-publish , or go with a less reputable publisher , but then feel the pain when you come up for tenure and promotion .
Having seen the ( utter and total lack of ) success of at least one applicant apply for a job in the Mathematics Department on the basis of his " publications " in the editorial column of his local newspaper , I 'd say you 're doing the right thing for your career in trading away the copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Monopoly" has a specific legal meaning.
One of the key elements is pricing power, which means that the monopolist can raise his price above what he would be able to charge in a competitive market.
As the RIAA is organized, it does not have pricing power over any records, CDs, etc., so it cannot be a monopoly.
It can be a cartel that illegally exercises market power; that's more of an anti-trust issue.
However, that would require a court to define the set of people who infringe music copyrights as a market and there are good reasons not to do that.
However, I've heard it discussed and it may happen.
I'm not here with an opinion, just a definition.As to the extortion charge, the situation you describe is merely the quid pro quo on which all of commerce is based.
Wal-Mart does the same thing:  "Give us $0.75 or you're never gettin' outta here alive with that candy bar!
"  Real property works the same way: "Give me the rights to quiet enjoyment of the house, garage, AND the yard or I'm not buying the property!
"  So you trade the copyright and the text of a paper or a book for something that you want more.
If you don't like it, don't publish, self-publish, or go with a less reputable publisher, but then feel the pain when you come up for tenure and promotion.
Having seen the (utter and total lack of) success of at least one applicant apply for a job in the Mathematics Department on the basis of his "publications" in the editorial column of his local newspaper, I'd say you're doing the right thing for your career in trading away the copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394705</id>
	<title>Here are 2 plans which will profit</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1245402060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are a ''product'' so the best way to punish producers is massive boycott. It is totally lawful too.</p><p>If they see one stadium empty, they will be shocked. Imagine seeing 10 stadiums empty, we would see massive resignation of record company execs, liquidation of RIAA etc.</p><p>It is all up to their listeners. Especially Green Day listeners thinking they are socially something. Green Day is a 'rock' band and rock bands are the stadium fillers.</p><p>One question while we speak about Green Day... Do you think paying 2 million dollars on behalf of someone hurt them? Lets think in evil corporate way... How many tens of millions of dollars in publicity, image you can get by just paying 2M dollars? Also do you have the 'from left pocket to right pocket' saying there?</p><p>Their producers, management doesn't even get this idea?</p><p>1) Pay 2 M dollars on behalf of the woman<br>2) Publicly denounce RIAA and fight with your record company for being member of RIAA<br>3) Profit 10x in terms of PR and sales boost.</p><p>or...</p><p>Metallica. Why were we mad to Lars again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are a ''product' ' so the best way to punish producers is massive boycott .
It is totally lawful too.If they see one stadium empty , they will be shocked .
Imagine seeing 10 stadiums empty , we would see massive resignation of record company execs , liquidation of RIAA etc.It is all up to their listeners .
Especially Green Day listeners thinking they are socially something .
Green Day is a 'rock ' band and rock bands are the stadium fillers.One question while we speak about Green Day... Do you think paying 2 million dollars on behalf of someone hurt them ?
Lets think in evil corporate way... How many tens of millions of dollars in publicity , image you can get by just paying 2M dollars ?
Also do you have the 'from left pocket to right pocket ' saying there ? Their producers , management does n't even get this idea ? 1 ) Pay 2 M dollars on behalf of the woman2 ) Publicly denounce RIAA and fight with your record company for being member of RIAA3 ) Profit 10x in terms of PR and sales boost.or...Metallica .
Why were we mad to Lars again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are a ''product'' so the best way to punish producers is massive boycott.
It is totally lawful too.If they see one stadium empty, they will be shocked.
Imagine seeing 10 stadiums empty, we would see massive resignation of record company execs, liquidation of RIAA etc.It is all up to their listeners.
Especially Green Day listeners thinking they are socially something.
Green Day is a 'rock' band and rock bands are the stadium fillers.One question while we speak about Green Day... Do you think paying 2 million dollars on behalf of someone hurt them?
Lets think in evil corporate way... How many tens of millions of dollars in publicity, image you can get by just paying 2M dollars?
Also do you have the 'from left pocket to right pocket' saying there?Their producers, management doesn't even get this idea?1) Pay 2 M dollars on behalf of the woman2) Publicly denounce RIAA and fight with your record company for being member of RIAA3) Profit 10x in terms of PR and sales boost.or...Metallica.
Why were we mad to Lars again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395425</id>
	<title>The War on Filesharing: Domestic Wars Redux</title>
	<author>geriborg</author>
	<datestamp>1245404520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the 1980s, the Supreme Court carved out all sorts of "exceptions" to the Fourth Amendment, to support the "state of emergency" created by the "War on Drugs." Now, with these due process issues, the same erosion of Constitutional protections is proclaimed against the War on Filesharing, soon to come to SCOTUS. (Much of the same rhetorical frame is used, in both). My guess is that they will do as the Rehnquist Court did for the Drug War: Intensify it.

See my article over at CTHEORY: "Domestic Wars Redux: Obama, Digital Prohibition and the New Reefer Madness." http://ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=607 &gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 1980s , the Supreme Court carved out all sorts of " exceptions " to the Fourth Amendment , to support the " state of emergency " created by the " War on Drugs .
" Now , with these due process issues , the same erosion of Constitutional protections is proclaimed against the War on Filesharing , soon to come to SCOTUS .
( Much of the same rhetorical frame is used , in both ) .
My guess is that they will do as the Rehnquist Court did for the Drug War : Intensify it .
See my article over at CTHEORY : " Domestic Wars Redux : Obama , Digital Prohibition and the New Reefer Madness .
" http : //ctheory.net/articles.aspx ? id = 607 &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 1980s, the Supreme Court carved out all sorts of "exceptions" to the Fourth Amendment, to support the "state of emergency" created by the "War on Drugs.
" Now, with these due process issues, the same erosion of Constitutional protections is proclaimed against the War on Filesharing, soon to come to SCOTUS.
(Much of the same rhetorical frame is used, in both).
My guess is that they will do as the Rehnquist Court did for the Drug War: Intensify it.
See my article over at CTHEORY: "Domestic Wars Redux: Obama, Digital Prohibition and the New Reefer Madness.
" http://ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=607 &gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28420657</id>
	<title>How much goes to the judge under the table?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1245680280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much are they sliding to the judge under the table?<br>They have money to throw at the judge, to make sure to set a precedent, they are fueled by the big music and even movie companies to make this case a precedent. There will be money exchanging hands here for sure...also there is an obscene lack of introspective insight into the technology realm, maybe they could site the judge awarding such an amount, is due to the fact he does not even know what the songs are really worth! Isn't there a law against that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much are they sliding to the judge under the table ? They have money to throw at the judge , to make sure to set a precedent , they are fueled by the big music and even movie companies to make this case a precedent .
There will be money exchanging hands here for sure...also there is an obscene lack of introspective insight into the technology realm , maybe they could site the judge awarding such an amount , is due to the fact he does not even know what the songs are really worth !
Is n't there a law against that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much are they sliding to the judge under the table?They have money to throw at the judge, to make sure to set a precedent, they are fueled by the big music and even movie companies to make this case a precedent.
There will be money exchanging hands here for sure...also there is an obscene lack of introspective insight into the technology realm, maybe they could site the judge awarding such an amount, is due to the fact he does not even know what the songs are really worth!
Isn't there a law against that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394719</id>
	<title>Re:Enough, Give it up.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245402120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RIAA != music. Spend your music money on your local artists, they NEED it. Does Snoop Dawg really need a new yacht that badly? Chances are, the drummer in your local band has more talent in his little finger than Lars Ulrich has in his whole body.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA ! = music .
Spend your music money on your local artists , they NEED it .
Does Snoop Dawg really need a new yacht that badly ?
Chances are , the drummer in your local band has more talent in his little finger than Lars Ulrich has in his whole body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA != music.
Spend your music money on your local artists, they NEED it.
Does Snoop Dawg really need a new yacht that badly?
Chances are, the drummer in your local band has more talent in his little finger than Lars Ulrich has in his whole body.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397103</id>
	<title>The moral of this story is:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you violate copyright, copyright will violate you.</p><p>Or, as they said in ancient Rome, "dura lex, sed lex" ("the law is harsh, but it is the law").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you violate copyright , copyright will violate you.Or , as they said in ancient Rome , " dura lex , sed lex " ( " the law is harsh , but it is the law " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you violate copyright, copyright will violate you.Or, as they said in ancient Rome, "dura lex, sed lex" ("the law is harsh, but it is the law").</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396123</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1245407520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums. I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music, and if they are in such financial hardship, they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table.</i></p><p>Don't forget to rip it to MP3 first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums .
I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music , and if they are in such financial hardship , they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table.Do n't forget to rip it to MP3 first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums.
I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music, and if they are in such financial hardship, they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table.Don't forget to rip it to MP3 first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393541</id>
	<title>You have to wonder...</title>
	<author>twilightzero</author>
	<datestamp>1245441300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if her lawyers planned or even steered this way since it may be a more fruitful avenue to pursue in the end.  Either way it's absolutely absurd and obscene.  It's pretty obvious this whole house of cards the recording industry has made will fall, the question is just which attack will make it finally crumble?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if her lawyers planned or even steered this way since it may be a more fruitful avenue to pursue in the end .
Either way it 's absolutely absurd and obscene .
It 's pretty obvious this whole house of cards the recording industry has made will fall , the question is just which attack will make it finally crumble ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if her lawyers planned or even steered this way since it may be a more fruitful avenue to pursue in the end.
Either way it's absolutely absurd and obscene.
It's pretty obvious this whole house of cards the recording industry has made will fall, the question is just which attack will make it finally crumble?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395981</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is wrong with you people!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245406920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can go to Afghanistan, Irak or Iran.  They seem to be more reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can go to Afghanistan , Irak or Iran .
They seem to be more reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can go to Afghanistan, Irak or Iran.
They seem to be more reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395059</id>
	<title>Re:Hit the RIAA where it hurts</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1245403260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That advice didn't work so well for Jammie, now did it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That advice did n't work so well for Jammie , now did it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That advice didn't work so well for Jammie, now did it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28400271</id>
	<title>Re:Thomas-Aide?</title>
	<author>whrde</author>
	<datestamp>1245492600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can't because they don't own their own voices, music or performance rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't because they do n't own their own voices , music or performance rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't because they don't own their own voices, music or performance rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28407311</id>
	<title>RIAA counselor anonymously hails victory...</title>
	<author>tbg58</author>
	<datestamp>1245515760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...under the nom de plume "Pyrrhus".</htmltext>
<tokenext>...under the nom de plume " Pyrrhus " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...under the nom de plume "Pyrrhus".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395125</id>
	<title>Re:Our country is run by the right.</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1245403500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exxon spent a lot of money cleaning up.  Given the punitive damages, they could have just put their feet up and consider their debt to society paid.  Since society prefers to encourage companies to clean up after themselves, it makes sense to reduce the award accordingly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exxon spent a lot of money cleaning up .
Given the punitive damages , they could have just put their feet up and consider their debt to society paid .
Since society prefers to encourage companies to clean up after themselves , it makes sense to reduce the award accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exxon spent a lot of money cleaning up.
Given the punitive damages, they could have just put their feet up and consider their debt to society paid.
Since society prefers to encourage companies to clean up after themselves, it makes sense to reduce the award accordingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394691</id>
	<title>Re:So, what's the constitution have to say about i</title>
	<author>PortHaven</author>
	<datestamp>1245402060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, since they're changing copyright law from civil to criminal. I think we should raise arms and destroy RIAA as an Enemy of the People threatening the Constitution and the peace of the state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since they 're changing copyright law from civil to criminal .
I think we should raise arms and destroy RIAA as an Enemy of the People threatening the Constitution and the peace of the state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since they're changing copyright law from civil to criminal.
I think we should raise arms and destroy RIAA as an Enemy of the People threatening the Constitution and the peace of the state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393739</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>korekrash</author>
	<datestamp>1245442080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um, huh?  Dude, it's THEFT.  I just don't understand this outlook.  It's called the music BUSINESS for a reason.  Blame the artists?  Should Best Buy be blamed if I walk in and steal some electronics?  And should we blame Sony if the item I steal is a VAIO laptop?  That makes NO sense....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , huh ?
Dude , it 's THEFT .
I just do n't understand this outlook .
It 's called the music BUSINESS for a reason .
Blame the artists ?
Should Best Buy be blamed if I walk in and steal some electronics ?
And should we blame Sony if the item I steal is a VAIO laptop ?
That makes NO sense... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, huh?
Dude, it's THEFT.
I just don't understand this outlook.
It's called the music BUSINESS for a reason.
Blame the artists?
Should Best Buy be blamed if I walk in and steal some electronics?
And should we blame Sony if the item I steal is a VAIO laptop?
That makes NO sense....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396437</id>
	<title>Re:Cruel and Unusual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the theft she was charged with, it's the "making availiable". The RIAA equate her not to a shoplifter stealing a single CD, but to the guy in the alley with a trunk full of "fell off a truck" merchandise.</p><p>Still not worth a 2 million fine though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the theft she was charged with , it 's the " making availiable " .
The RIAA equate her not to a shoplifter stealing a single CD , but to the guy in the alley with a trunk full of " fell off a truck " merchandise.Still not worth a 2 million fine though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the theft she was charged with, it's the "making availiable".
The RIAA equate her not to a shoplifter stealing a single CD, but to the guy in the alley with a trunk full of "fell off a truck" merchandise.Still not worth a 2 million fine though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395097</id>
	<title>The award is not a penalty.</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1245403380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The case is not a criminal case.  The award is not a punishment.  The case does not a class action suit with hundreds of injured participants.  The award is recovery.  The highest price of the 24 items on sites offering them for download should be considered as the "loss".  Court and legal costs should be added.  The total should then be the amount of the reward.</p><p>I find it interesting how folks in the government complain how class action lawsuits have unjust awards that are destroying corporations but seem fine with individuals getting raped by a corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The case is not a criminal case .
The award is not a punishment .
The case does not a class action suit with hundreds of injured participants .
The award is recovery .
The highest price of the 24 items on sites offering them for download should be considered as the " loss " .
Court and legal costs should be added .
The total should then be the amount of the reward.I find it interesting how folks in the government complain how class action lawsuits have unjust awards that are destroying corporations but seem fine with individuals getting raped by a corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The case is not a criminal case.
The award is not a punishment.
The case does not a class action suit with hundreds of injured participants.
The award is recovery.
The highest price of the 24 items on sites offering them for download should be considered as the "loss".
Court and legal costs should be added.
The total should then be the amount of the reward.I find it interesting how folks in the government complain how class action lawsuits have unjust awards that are destroying corporations but seem fine with individuals getting raped by a corporation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394635</id>
	<title>Re:Our country is run by the right.</title>
	<author>PortHaven</author>
	<datestamp>1245445080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Riigghttt.....</p><p>Correct me if I am wrong. But it's Obama that has appointed like 5 RIAA lawyers to prominent posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Riigghttt.....Correct me if I am wrong .
But it 's Obama that has appointed like 5 RIAA lawyers to prominent posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Riigghttt.....Correct me if I am wrong.
But it's Obama that has appointed like 5 RIAA lawyers to prominent posts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398493</id>
	<title>Re:Thomas-Aide?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245424260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate all those bands, but I would pay to go if there was beer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate all those bands , but I would pay to go if there was beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate all those bands, but I would pay to go if there was beer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395255</id>
	<title>Re:Our country is run by the right.</title>
	<author>Bassman59</author>
	<datestamp>1245403860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Correct me if I am wrong. But it's Obama that has appointed like 5 RIAA lawyers to prominent posts.</p></div><p>Do not make the mistake of assuming that an attorney actually believes in his client's case. His job is to defend that client in the most effective way possible. Anything less is legal malpractice.</p><p>I mean, look: Everybody thought David Boies was a hero after winning that Microsoft case. But don't forget he also defended IBM during their anti-trust case. He represented the former Enron CFO, and is representing the noted crook Conrad Black.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I am wrong .
But it 's Obama that has appointed like 5 RIAA lawyers to prominent posts.Do not make the mistake of assuming that an attorney actually believes in his client 's case .
His job is to defend that client in the most effective way possible .
Anything less is legal malpractice.I mean , look : Everybody thought David Boies was a hero after winning that Microsoft case .
But do n't forget he also defended IBM during their anti-trust case .
He represented the former Enron CFO , and is representing the noted crook Conrad Black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I am wrong.
But it's Obama that has appointed like 5 RIAA lawyers to prominent posts.Do not make the mistake of assuming that an attorney actually believes in his client's case.
His job is to defend that client in the most effective way possible.
Anything less is legal malpractice.I mean, look: Everybody thought David Boies was a hero after winning that Microsoft case.
But don't forget he also defended IBM during their anti-trust case.
He represented the former Enron CFO, and is representing the noted crook Conrad Black.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394217</id>
	<title>Re:So, what's the constitution have to say about i</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245443700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 8th has been dead for a long while.  The death knell was when the electric chair was ruled as not being 'unusual' because it was used in the USA, and therefore legal (it's okay to be cruel or unusual, apparently, just not both).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 8th has been dead for a long while .
The death knell was when the electric chair was ruled as not being 'unusual ' because it was used in the USA , and therefore legal ( it 's okay to be cruel or unusual , apparently , just not both ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 8th has been dead for a long while.
The death knell was when the electric chair was ruled as not being 'unusual' because it was used in the USA, and therefore legal (it's okay to be cruel or unusual, apparently, just not both).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393819</id>
	<title>Hit the RIAA where it hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People,</p><p>Just stop buying products from the RIAA.  Find a way to pay the artists directly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  This way, the artists will actually start to get some money.<br>As long as we fund the RIAA, these corrupt organizations will have the cash to hurt us all.</p><p>Cut out the middle man.</p><p>AC<br>PS F@ck the RIAA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People,Just stop buying products from the RIAA .
Find a way to pay the artists directly ... This way , the artists will actually start to get some money.As long as we fund the RIAA , these corrupt organizations will have the cash to hurt us all.Cut out the middle man.ACPS F @ ck the RIAA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People,Just stop buying products from the RIAA.
Find a way to pay the artists directly ...  This way, the artists will actually start to get some money.As long as we fund the RIAA, these corrupt organizations will have the cash to hurt us all.Cut out the middle man.ACPS F@ck the RIAA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393935</id>
	<title>How much of the $80,000 per song to the artist?</title>
	<author>MasterOfGoingFaster</author>
	<datestamp>1245442740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, $1.92 million divided by 24 songs = $80,000 per song.  I wonder what the artists received per song?  I hope this triggers a review of the true costs and show how much the artists get.</p><p>I wonder if this might show that RIAA members are actually scamming the artists and don't deserve the damages rewarded.</p><p>Question for Lawyer types:  If I buy an item from you for $1, then sell them for $5000 each, should damages be affected by the huge disparity is cost vs price?</p><p>As for me, I'll continue to boycott buying anything from Sony, etc.  It is against my moral code to support companies that behave in such an evil fashion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , $ 1.92 million divided by 24 songs = $ 80,000 per song .
I wonder what the artists received per song ?
I hope this triggers a review of the true costs and show how much the artists get.I wonder if this might show that RIAA members are actually scamming the artists and do n't deserve the damages rewarded.Question for Lawyer types : If I buy an item from you for $ 1 , then sell them for $ 5000 each , should damages be affected by the huge disparity is cost vs price ? As for me , I 'll continue to boycott buying anything from Sony , etc .
It is against my moral code to support companies that behave in such an evil fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, $1.92 million divided by 24 songs = $80,000 per song.
I wonder what the artists received per song?
I hope this triggers a review of the true costs and show how much the artists get.I wonder if this might show that RIAA members are actually scamming the artists and don't deserve the damages rewarded.Question for Lawyer types:  If I buy an item from you for $1, then sell them for $5000 each, should damages be affected by the huge disparity is cost vs price?As for me, I'll continue to boycott buying anything from Sony, etc.
It is against my moral code to support companies that behave in such an evil fashion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396155</id>
	<title>But The Songs Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245407700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the songs suck? She should have to pay a lot less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the songs suck ?
She should have to pay a lot less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the songs suck?
She should have to pay a lot less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394789</id>
	<title>That Old Document?</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1245402420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought we were past worrying about the Constitution.  Nobody pays attention to that dusty old relic except to pay lip service to it.  I don't think the average congress critter has ever even read it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we were past worrying about the Constitution .
Nobody pays attention to that dusty old relic except to pay lip service to it .
I do n't think the average congress critter has ever even read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we were past worrying about the Constitution.
Nobody pays attention to that dusty old relic except to pay lip service to it.
I don't think the average congress critter has ever even read it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396977</id>
	<title>Re:Another Strategy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Daunte Stallworth gets 30 days in jail for Killing someone with his car while under the infulence and gets 30 days in jail.<br>Thats less than Michael Vick got for killing dogs. (yes I love dogs but do not put them above humans).<br>This poor women has 24 songs for download and she gets fined $1.9M.</p><p>Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore.<br>Hail the almighty dollar.<br>Who needs morals when you have Money.  The newage philosphy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Daunte Stallworth gets 30 days in jail for Killing someone with his car while under the infulence and gets 30 days in jail.Thats less than Michael Vick got for killing dogs .
( yes I love dogs but do not put them above humans ) .This poor women has 24 songs for download and she gets fined $ 1.9M.Dorothy , we 're not in Kansas anymore.Hail the almighty dollar.Who needs morals when you have Money .
The newage philosphy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daunte Stallworth gets 30 days in jail for Killing someone with his car while under the infulence and gets 30 days in jail.Thats less than Michael Vick got for killing dogs.
(yes I love dogs but do not put them above humans).This poor women has 24 songs for download and she gets fined $1.9M.Dorothy, we're not in Kansas anymore.Hail the almighty dollar.Who needs morals when you have Money.
The newage philosphy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396561</id>
	<title>City owned zoo is an exception</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245409740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are caps when a government is the defendant.  This came out with the Bonfire tragedy at Texas A&amp;M University some years back.</p><p>The Dallas Zoo is, surprisingly, owned by the City of Dallas.</p><p>There are states with caps on civil damages.  I don't know if Texas is one of them.  Anyone? Bueller?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are caps when a government is the defendant .
This came out with the Bonfire tragedy at Texas A&amp;M University some years back.The Dallas Zoo is , surprisingly , owned by the City of Dallas.There are states with caps on civil damages .
I do n't know if Texas is one of them .
Anyone ? Bueller ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are caps when a government is the defendant.
This came out with the Bonfire tragedy at Texas A&amp;M University some years back.The Dallas Zoo is, surprisingly, owned by the City of Dallas.There are states with caps on civil damages.
I don't know if Texas is one of them.
Anyone? Bueller?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399937</id>
	<title>The more I think about this ..</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1245529980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more I think about this verdict, the more it feels like a judicial setup for the RIAA.</p><p>By following a number of assertions to the letter, the judge arrived at a figure that was blatantly ridiculous.</p><p>By doing so, it practically guaranteed the following:</p><p>- progression to the next level up<br>- universal disgust for the RIAA<br>- an increased likelihood for the followup challenge to this verdict to fail.</p><p>It feels to me as following the method for testing a theory: stretch it to breaking point and see where it comes apart.  OK, I may assign subtlety where none exists, but the verdict has resulted in adding oil to the fire, and a couple of gallons of alcohol.</p><p>Let's hope that sanity now prevails.  This judgement has (IMHO) made that more likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I think about this verdict , the more it feels like a judicial setup for the RIAA.By following a number of assertions to the letter , the judge arrived at a figure that was blatantly ridiculous.By doing so , it practically guaranteed the following : - progression to the next level up- universal disgust for the RIAA- an increased likelihood for the followup challenge to this verdict to fail.It feels to me as following the method for testing a theory : stretch it to breaking point and see where it comes apart .
OK , I may assign subtlety where none exists , but the verdict has resulted in adding oil to the fire , and a couple of gallons of alcohol.Let 's hope that sanity now prevails .
This judgement has ( IMHO ) made that more likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I think about this verdict, the more it feels like a judicial setup for the RIAA.By following a number of assertions to the letter, the judge arrived at a figure that was blatantly ridiculous.By doing so, it practically guaranteed the following:- progression to the next level up- universal disgust for the RIAA- an increased likelihood for the followup challenge to this verdict to fail.It feels to me as following the method for testing a theory: stretch it to breaking point and see where it comes apart.
OK, I may assign subtlety where none exists, but the verdict has resulted in adding oil to the fire, and a couple of gallons of alcohol.Let's hope that sanity now prevails.
This judgement has (IMHO) made that more likely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393557</id>
	<title>Make it a 1.9 trillion...same payout</title>
	<author>cockpitcomp</author>
	<datestamp>1245441360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does a mere mortal actually pay a judgment like this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does a mere mortal actually pay a judgment like this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does a mere mortal actually pay a judgment like this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394129</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>evilkasper</author>
	<datestamp>1245443400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As you can get all these songs for 99&#194; on itunes $1.9m seems a little much. The other problem I have is that the prosecution only proved that they were able to download from the defendant.  I don't agree that people should be able to take what they want, but I hate the RIAA because they've made a business model out of mocking our legal system and profiting from it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As you can get all these songs for 99   on itunes $ 1.9m seems a little much .
The other problem I have is that the prosecution only proved that they were able to download from the defendant .
I do n't agree that people should be able to take what they want , but I hate the RIAA because they 've made a business model out of mocking our legal system and profiting from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you can get all these songs for 99Â on itunes $1.9m seems a little much.
The other problem I have is that the prosecution only proved that they were able to download from the defendant.
I don't agree that people should be able to take what they want, but I hate the RIAA because they've made a business model out of mocking our legal system and profiting from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394427</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the real costs</title>
	<author>squallbsr</author>
	<datestamp>1245444480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its actually less than $0.99 per song due to the profit margins that Apple/Amazon/etc has on the music.<br>
<br>
Lets say:<br>
<br>
24 songs<br>
74 cents per song<br>
100 leechers on P2P, per song<br>
<br>
24 x $0.74 x 100 = $1776.<br>
<br>
This is even more reasonable...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its actually less than $ 0.99 per song due to the profit margins that Apple/Amazon/etc has on the music .
Lets say : 24 songs 74 cents per song 100 leechers on P2P , per song 24 x $ 0.74 x 100 = $ 1776 .
This is even more reasonable.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its actually less than $0.99 per song due to the profit margins that Apple/Amazon/etc has on the music.
Lets say:

24 songs
74 cents per song
100 leechers on P2P, per song

24 x $0.74 x 100 = $1776.
This is even more reasonable...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396197</id>
	<title>Re:Texas civil damages capped.</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1245407940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad example.</p><p>You shouldn't be holding 300 pound gorillas in a zoo enclosure in the first place.  How would you like it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad example.You should n't be holding 300 pound gorillas in a zoo enclosure in the first place .
How would you like it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad example.You shouldn't be holding 300 pound gorillas in a zoo enclosure in the first place.
How would you like it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395501</id>
	<title>Re:Thomas-Aide?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245404880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and the concert should be called "Fuck the RIAA-benefit".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and the concert should be called " Fuck the RIAA-benefit " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and the concert should be called "Fuck the RIAA-benefit".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395305</id>
	<title>Re:Cruel and Unusual</title>
	<author>Kidro</author>
	<datestamp>1245404100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't simply about her stealing music. It's about her giving stolen music away to thousands of others. If you want to use a physical comparison, she didn't steal two CD's, she stole thousands and gave them away. Or she stole two and willingly allowed thousands of people to make copies.

Outrage at something you don't bother to learn the basic facts of is impotent. The fact that you were modded "insightful" shows you aren't alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't simply about her stealing music .
It 's about her giving stolen music away to thousands of others .
If you want to use a physical comparison , she did n't steal two CD 's , she stole thousands and gave them away .
Or she stole two and willingly allowed thousands of people to make copies .
Outrage at something you do n't bother to learn the basic facts of is impotent .
The fact that you were modded " insightful " shows you are n't alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't simply about her stealing music.
It's about her giving stolen music away to thousands of others.
If you want to use a physical comparison, she didn't steal two CD's, she stole thousands and gave them away.
Or she stole two and willingly allowed thousands of people to make copies.
Outrage at something you don't bother to learn the basic facts of is impotent.
The fact that you were modded "insightful" shows you aren't alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396251</id>
	<title>Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1245408180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But this definitely should be examined. These asinine penalties for a non-commercial copyright infringement is just insane. Hell, even for commercial copyright infringement... $1.9 million for someone selling essentially two copied CD's? Does that sound right to anyone other than someone who works for the RIAA directly or indirectly?</p></div><p>Here's what the problem is: This woman was one of millions sharing music. Since she was one of millions, and there is a limited number of downloads, there have most likely been very few downloads off her computer, and only a very small number of each song. But, statutory damages is statutory damages, no relation to the actual damage. <br> <br>
Now two or three years ago a CD with the final mix of U2's newest CD "disappeared". If somehow that CD had ended up at Sony, and Sony had, without any regard for copyright, started pressing and selling this CD, and had sold five million copies for loads of money, goes what statutory damages would be: Between $750 and $150,000 per protected work. <br> <br>
For a bit more madness: Just checked; I have one album with 37 Chopin Preludes &amp; Etudes, about one hour of music. I have one album with a \_single\_ song of one hour. The first is 37 protected works, the other is 1 protected work. Mathematica sells for more than &pound;1000 and is \_one\_ protected work. Nothing against Chopin, but would anyone reasonably claim that making a copy of a CD with Chopin music is 37 times worse than copying Mathematica?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But this definitely should be examined .
These asinine penalties for a non-commercial copyright infringement is just insane .
Hell , even for commercial copyright infringement... $ 1.9 million for someone selling essentially two copied CD 's ?
Does that sound right to anyone other than someone who works for the RIAA directly or indirectly ? Here 's what the problem is : This woman was one of millions sharing music .
Since she was one of millions , and there is a limited number of downloads , there have most likely been very few downloads off her computer , and only a very small number of each song .
But , statutory damages is statutory damages , no relation to the actual damage .
Now two or three years ago a CD with the final mix of U2 's newest CD " disappeared " .
If somehow that CD had ended up at Sony , and Sony had , without any regard for copyright , started pressing and selling this CD , and had sold five million copies for loads of money , goes what statutory damages would be : Between $ 750 and $ 150,000 per protected work .
For a bit more madness : Just checked ; I have one album with 37 Chopin Preludes &amp; Etudes , about one hour of music .
I have one album with a \ _single \ _ song of one hour .
The first is 37 protected works , the other is 1 protected work .
Mathematica sells for more than   1000 and is \ _one \ _ protected work .
Nothing against Chopin , but would anyone reasonably claim that making a copy of a CD with Chopin music is 37 times worse than copying Mathematica ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this definitely should be examined.
These asinine penalties for a non-commercial copyright infringement is just insane.
Hell, even for commercial copyright infringement... $1.9 million for someone selling essentially two copied CD's?
Does that sound right to anyone other than someone who works for the RIAA directly or indirectly?Here's what the problem is: This woman was one of millions sharing music.
Since she was one of millions, and there is a limited number of downloads, there have most likely been very few downloads off her computer, and only a very small number of each song.
But, statutory damages is statutory damages, no relation to the actual damage.
Now two or three years ago a CD with the final mix of U2's newest CD "disappeared".
If somehow that CD had ended up at Sony, and Sony had, without any regard for copyright, started pressing and selling this CD, and had sold five million copies for loads of money, goes what statutory damages would be: Between $750 and $150,000 per protected work.
For a bit more madness: Just checked; I have one album with 37 Chopin Preludes &amp; Etudes, about one hour of music.
I have one album with a \_single\_ song of one hour.
The first is 37 protected works, the other is 1 protected work.
Mathematica sells for more than £1000 and is \_one\_ protected work.
Nothing against Chopin, but would anyone reasonably claim that making a copy of a CD with Chopin music is 37 times worse than copying Mathematica?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399853</id>
	<title>Re:Texas civil damages capped.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245528600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So the RIAA gets nearly $2 Million, while these people with real physical and emotional injuries get 25\% of that.</i> </p><p>For fuck's sake, would you prefer to win $2 Million judgement and see a few thousand if you are lucky, OR, settle a case for $500,000 and actually get $500,000?  Perhaps browse down a little bit on the math story or brush up on critical reasoning.  Maybe some in the jury were thinking what half the people here are thinking:  the greater the judgement, the less likely it will stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the RIAA gets nearly $ 2 Million , while these people with real physical and emotional injuries get 25 \ % of that .
For fuck 's sake , would you prefer to win $ 2 Million judgement and see a few thousand if you are lucky , OR , settle a case for $ 500,000 and actually get $ 500,000 ?
Perhaps browse down a little bit on the math story or brush up on critical reasoning .
Maybe some in the jury were thinking what half the people here are thinking : the greater the judgement , the less likely it will stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the RIAA gets nearly $2 Million, while these people with real physical and emotional injuries get 25\% of that.
For fuck's sake, would you prefer to win $2 Million judgement and see a few thousand if you are lucky, OR, settle a case for $500,000 and actually get $500,000?
Perhaps browse down a little bit on the math story or brush up on critical reasoning.
Maybe some in the jury were thinking what half the people here are thinking:  the greater the judgement, the less likely it will stick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396173</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1245407820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Green Day claims to be so socially progressive but here they are waiting to collect $80,000 for one song from a mother of four.</p></div><p>1. I have yet to hear of any of the artists receiving any of the money from settlements or judgments.</p><p>2. In all likelihood, they don't own the copyright to any of their songs.  It's all signed away to the record company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Green Day claims to be so socially progressive but here they are waiting to collect $ 80,000 for one song from a mother of four.1 .
I have yet to hear of any of the artists receiving any of the money from settlements or judgments.2 .
In all likelihood , they do n't own the copyright to any of their songs .
It 's all signed away to the record company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Green Day claims to be so socially progressive but here they are waiting to collect $80,000 for one song from a mother of four.1.
I have yet to hear of any of the artists receiving any of the money from settlements or judgments.2.
In all likelihood, they don't own the copyright to any of their songs.
It's all signed away to the record company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394909</id>
	<title>An argument in favor of excessive punitive damages</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1245402780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I'm going to say here, I do not say specifically in context to the Jammie Thomas case - I do think this seems rather unreasonable for what she did. But, there is a larger question - is it ever reasonable to have punative damages that are much larger than the actual damage? I think that yes, in some cases there are.</p><p>Consider hypothetically any sort of business that profits from any sort of illegal activity - whether that's theft, or building unsafe cars knowing that only 3 out of a 100000 of your customers will actually be injured by the car. If you, as this company, only have to pay actual damages (or only small punitive damages) to those three out of 100000 customers, you might decide it's more profitable to break the laws regarding safety (because you have 99,997 customers who you won't have to pay damages to) and pay the damages, than to build the car the right way and save those three customers from death or injury.</p><p>Or, for theft. Let's say instead of sending thieves to jail (I'm not including copyright violators as thieves here, but people who really bust into people's businesses, houses or cars and take stuff, or pickpockets) we just made the thieves give back what they took, and maybe made them pay an additional $100. If you did that, you'd have a heck of a lot of thieves, because the chances are you'd only get caught thieving maybe 1 in 10. So, 90\% of the time you get to keep what you stole (that is, you profit from it), and maybe 10 percent of the time you have to give it back and pay $100. If that were the case, theft would be highly profitable. So, you put very high punitive damages (in this case, years in jail) on the bad behavior, to make it so that even getting caught once makes it not worth it ever to steal (or at least, that's the theory).</p><p>The RIAA faces a somewhat analogous situation. In reality, they can only catch and sue a vanishingly small number of copyright violators - they can't catch and sue everyone who does it (I have no idea what the real numbers are, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least 1-in-a-million). So, they want to make it hella scary to face their lawsuits, so it's not worth it to risk even getting caught once. The question we have to decide as a society is, do we think copyright infringement is serious enough of a problem, like theft, or selling unsafe products, that it is just to severely punish that.</p><p>I'm not sure that 2 Million dollars is reasonable, but I can't help but thinking that it's gotta be much larger than the actual cost of the tracks that were illegally copied. Maybe something like $200 per song - so that would be damages of like $4,800 in this case. That seems steep enough, seems like, to be a somewhat effective deterrent, while being low enough that someone could reasonably be expected to be able to pay it without totally bankrupting them - you could setup monthly payments - $100/mo for 48 months or something like that. That would be enough damages to make me think twice about sharing out songs. Sure, it's still not super likely I'd be found and sued, but if I was, I'd know that I'd be facing manageable but very unpleasant consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'm going to say here , I do not say specifically in context to the Jammie Thomas case - I do think this seems rather unreasonable for what she did .
But , there is a larger question - is it ever reasonable to have punative damages that are much larger than the actual damage ?
I think that yes , in some cases there are.Consider hypothetically any sort of business that profits from any sort of illegal activity - whether that 's theft , or building unsafe cars knowing that only 3 out of a 100000 of your customers will actually be injured by the car .
If you , as this company , only have to pay actual damages ( or only small punitive damages ) to those three out of 100000 customers , you might decide it 's more profitable to break the laws regarding safety ( because you have 99,997 customers who you wo n't have to pay damages to ) and pay the damages , than to build the car the right way and save those three customers from death or injury.Or , for theft .
Let 's say instead of sending thieves to jail ( I 'm not including copyright violators as thieves here , but people who really bust into people 's businesses , houses or cars and take stuff , or pickpockets ) we just made the thieves give back what they took , and maybe made them pay an additional $ 100 .
If you did that , you 'd have a heck of a lot of thieves , because the chances are you 'd only get caught thieving maybe 1 in 10 .
So , 90 \ % of the time you get to keep what you stole ( that is , you profit from it ) , and maybe 10 percent of the time you have to give it back and pay $ 100 .
If that were the case , theft would be highly profitable .
So , you put very high punitive damages ( in this case , years in jail ) on the bad behavior , to make it so that even getting caught once makes it not worth it ever to steal ( or at least , that 's the theory ) .The RIAA faces a somewhat analogous situation .
In reality , they can only catch and sue a vanishingly small number of copyright violators - they ca n't catch and sue everyone who does it ( I have no idea what the real numbers are , but I would n't be surprised if it was at least 1-in-a-million ) .
So , they want to make it hella scary to face their lawsuits , so it 's not worth it to risk even getting caught once .
The question we have to decide as a society is , do we think copyright infringement is serious enough of a problem , like theft , or selling unsafe products , that it is just to severely punish that.I 'm not sure that 2 Million dollars is reasonable , but I ca n't help but thinking that it 's got ta be much larger than the actual cost of the tracks that were illegally copied .
Maybe something like $ 200 per song - so that would be damages of like $ 4,800 in this case .
That seems steep enough , seems like , to be a somewhat effective deterrent , while being low enough that someone could reasonably be expected to be able to pay it without totally bankrupting them - you could setup monthly payments - $ 100/mo for 48 months or something like that .
That would be enough damages to make me think twice about sharing out songs .
Sure , it 's still not super likely I 'd be found and sued , but if I was , I 'd know that I 'd be facing manageable but very unpleasant consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'm going to say here, I do not say specifically in context to the Jammie Thomas case - I do think this seems rather unreasonable for what she did.
But, there is a larger question - is it ever reasonable to have punative damages that are much larger than the actual damage?
I think that yes, in some cases there are.Consider hypothetically any sort of business that profits from any sort of illegal activity - whether that's theft, or building unsafe cars knowing that only 3 out of a 100000 of your customers will actually be injured by the car.
If you, as this company, only have to pay actual damages (or only small punitive damages) to those three out of 100000 customers, you might decide it's more profitable to break the laws regarding safety (because you have 99,997 customers who you won't have to pay damages to) and pay the damages, than to build the car the right way and save those three customers from death or injury.Or, for theft.
Let's say instead of sending thieves to jail (I'm not including copyright violators as thieves here, but people who really bust into people's businesses, houses or cars and take stuff, or pickpockets) we just made the thieves give back what they took, and maybe made them pay an additional $100.
If you did that, you'd have a heck of a lot of thieves, because the chances are you'd only get caught thieving maybe 1 in 10.
So, 90\% of the time you get to keep what you stole (that is, you profit from it), and maybe 10 percent of the time you have to give it back and pay $100.
If that were the case, theft would be highly profitable.
So, you put very high punitive damages (in this case, years in jail) on the bad behavior, to make it so that even getting caught once makes it not worth it ever to steal (or at least, that's the theory).The RIAA faces a somewhat analogous situation.
In reality, they can only catch and sue a vanishingly small number of copyright violators - they can't catch and sue everyone who does it (I have no idea what the real numbers are, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least 1-in-a-million).
So, they want to make it hella scary to face their lawsuits, so it's not worth it to risk even getting caught once.
The question we have to decide as a society is, do we think copyright infringement is serious enough of a problem, like theft, or selling unsafe products, that it is just to severely punish that.I'm not sure that 2 Million dollars is reasonable, but I can't help but thinking that it's gotta be much larger than the actual cost of the tracks that were illegally copied.
Maybe something like $200 per song - so that would be damages of like $4,800 in this case.
That seems steep enough, seems like, to be a somewhat effective deterrent, while being low enough that someone could reasonably be expected to be able to pay it without totally bankrupting them - you could setup monthly payments - $100/mo for 48 months or something like that.
That would be enough damages to make me think twice about sharing out songs.
Sure, it's still not super likely I'd be found and sued, but if I was, I'd know that I'd be facing manageable but very unpleasant consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396645</id>
	<title>The No Electronic Theft Act</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245410100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What happened to infringement needing to have some sort of commercial or otherwise monetary gain?</i> </p><p>That loophole was closed with the passage of the NET [No Electronic Theft] Act in <b>1997.</b> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">NET Act</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to infringement needing to have some sort of commercial or otherwise monetary gain ?
That loophole was closed with the passage of the NET [ No Electronic Theft ] Act in 1997 .
NET Act [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to infringement needing to have some sort of commercial or otherwise monetary gain?
That loophole was closed with the passage of the NET [No Electronic Theft] Act in 1997.
NET Act [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395085</id>
	<title>Re:Cruel and Unusual</title>
	<author>glebovitz</author>
	<datestamp>1245403380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cruel and unusual punishment applies to criminal law and not civil law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cruel and unusual punishment applies to criminal law and not civil law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cruel and unusual punishment applies to criminal law and not civil law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394045</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>geekyMD</author>
	<datestamp>1245443100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly so!  Green Day claims to be so socially progressive but here they are waiting to collect $80,000 for one song from a mother of four. What a bunch of hypocrites.  Unless someone challenges them on this nothing is going to happen.  Does anyone know of a way to directly impact these bands?</p><p>I suggest flooding their myspace pages with questions about why they are supporting this decision as well as the broader RIAA actions (who they have actively supported).  (If they aren't vocally against it, they they are for it)</p><p>How about anything else?  Something more public?  Maybe trying to get a major media outlet to interview these bands about this decision?  They are a bunch of cowards hiding behind the RIAA; the human faces behind the corporate mask.  Our agressive response to this really should be in raising ire against these bands. Someone please tell me that I'm not hopelessly naive in thinking these bands can't possibly want actions like this to continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly so !
Green Day claims to be so socially progressive but here they are waiting to collect $ 80,000 for one song from a mother of four .
What a bunch of hypocrites .
Unless someone challenges them on this nothing is going to happen .
Does anyone know of a way to directly impact these bands ? I suggest flooding their myspace pages with questions about why they are supporting this decision as well as the broader RIAA actions ( who they have actively supported ) .
( If they are n't vocally against it , they they are for it ) How about anything else ?
Something more public ?
Maybe trying to get a major media outlet to interview these bands about this decision ?
They are a bunch of cowards hiding behind the RIAA ; the human faces behind the corporate mask .
Our agressive response to this really should be in raising ire against these bands .
Someone please tell me that I 'm not hopelessly naive in thinking these bands ca n't possibly want actions like this to continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly so!
Green Day claims to be so socially progressive but here they are waiting to collect $80,000 for one song from a mother of four.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Unless someone challenges them on this nothing is going to happen.
Does anyone know of a way to directly impact these bands?I suggest flooding their myspace pages with questions about why they are supporting this decision as well as the broader RIAA actions (who they have actively supported).
(If they aren't vocally against it, they they are for it)How about anything else?
Something more public?
Maybe trying to get a major media outlet to interview these bands about this decision?
They are a bunch of cowards hiding behind the RIAA; the human faces behind the corporate mask.
Our agressive response to this really should be in raising ire against these bands.
Someone please tell me that I'm not hopelessly naive in thinking these bands can't possibly want actions like this to continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393571</id>
	<title>Re:Failed once, will fail again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245441420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If worse comes to worse, she can declare chapter 13 personal bankruptcy, make a "best effort" attempt to repay the verdict over the next three years (the bankruptcy court will set a reasonable monthly payment based on her income and expenses), and she's relieved of the debt.  She can keep her home, her car, her personal possessions.  It will be a pain in the ass, but she doesn't have to wind up on the street or have jackbooted thugs come into her house and confiscate everything she owns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If worse comes to worse , she can declare chapter 13 personal bankruptcy , make a " best effort " attempt to repay the verdict over the next three years ( the bankruptcy court will set a reasonable monthly payment based on her income and expenses ) , and she 's relieved of the debt .
She can keep her home , her car , her personal possessions .
It will be a pain in the ass , but she does n't have to wind up on the street or have jackbooted thugs come into her house and confiscate everything she owns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If worse comes to worse, she can declare chapter 13 personal bankruptcy, make a "best effort" attempt to repay the verdict over the next three years (the bankruptcy court will set a reasonable monthly payment based on her income and expenses), and she's relieved of the debt.
She can keep her home, her car, her personal possessions.
It will be a pain in the ass, but she doesn't have to wind up on the street or have jackbooted thugs come into her house and confiscate everything she owns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394523</id>
	<title>Re:What a sad joke</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1245444720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one day, the riaa is going to mess with the wrong individual.</p><p>someone who either has power (to match) - OR someone who is so ruined by the lawsuit that they 'go nuclear' and shoot up some place.</p><p>will it take THAT level of harm before the justice system wakes up and stops handing out overly-corporate-friendly and over-the-top judgements?</p><p>what would you or I do if faced with being charged millions of dollars for a handful of SONGS?</p><p>songs, folks.  no one HARMED anyone in any real sense of the word.  yet millions of dollars of state-instituted debt could easy make a TERRORIST out of anyone.</p><p>as was said in the batman movie "madness is like gravity.... all it takes is a little push".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one day , the riaa is going to mess with the wrong individual.someone who either has power ( to match ) - OR someone who is so ruined by the lawsuit that they 'go nuclear ' and shoot up some place.will it take THAT level of harm before the justice system wakes up and stops handing out overly-corporate-friendly and over-the-top judgements ? what would you or I do if faced with being charged millions of dollars for a handful of SONGS ? songs , folks .
no one HARMED anyone in any real sense of the word .
yet millions of dollars of state-instituted debt could easy make a TERRORIST out of anyone.as was said in the batman movie " madness is like gravity.... all it takes is a little push " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one day, the riaa is going to mess with the wrong individual.someone who either has power (to match) - OR someone who is so ruined by the lawsuit that they 'go nuclear' and shoot up some place.will it take THAT level of harm before the justice system wakes up and stops handing out overly-corporate-friendly and over-the-top judgements?what would you or I do if faced with being charged millions of dollars for a handful of SONGS?songs, folks.
no one HARMED anyone in any real sense of the word.
yet millions of dollars of state-instituted debt could easy make a TERRORIST out of anyone.as was said in the batman movie "madness is like gravity.... all it takes is a little push".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393961</id>
	<title>Enough, Give it up.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245442800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we should just stop buying their music all-together.  The RIAA will not last too long if they make $0.00 because no one is buying something that they are not allowed legal rights to any way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we should just stop buying their music all-together .
The RIAA will not last too long if they make $ 0.00 because no one is buying something that they are not allowed legal rights to any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we should just stop buying their music all-together.
The RIAA will not last too long if they make $0.00 because no one is buying something that they are not allowed legal rights to any way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395421</id>
	<title>The money is a smokescreen for...</title>
	<author>Chess Piece Face</author>
	<datestamp>1245404520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...justifying and increasing the ability to track sharing.  They know they won't see any money from this case, but it's a precedent that strengthens their position when they apply for extended snooping powers.  Which in turn allows them to find and shake down more sharers for settlements.  That's where the real money is - fast, easy, minimal lawyer costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...justifying and increasing the ability to track sharing .
They know they wo n't see any money from this case , but it 's a precedent that strengthens their position when they apply for extended snooping powers .
Which in turn allows them to find and shake down more sharers for settlements .
That 's where the real money is - fast , easy , minimal lawyer costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...justifying and increasing the ability to track sharing.
They know they won't see any money from this case, but it's a precedent that strengthens their position when they apply for extended snooping powers.
Which in turn allows them to find and shake down more sharers for settlements.
That's where the real money is - fast, easy, minimal lawyer costs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398869</id>
	<title>Re:Misapplication of the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That died years ago with the DMCA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That died years ago with the DMCA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That died years ago with the DMCA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394837</id>
	<title>Re:It is not over</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1245402540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The judge didn't assign damages. A "jury of her peers" did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge did n't assign damages .
A " jury of her peers " did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge didn't assign damages.
A "jury of her peers" did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394601</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>SEAL</author>
	<datestamp>1245444960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.  I can almost guarantee that the RIAA owns the specific recordings of each song in question.  It's in almost all contracts with artists that are signed by an RIAA label.  They no more own those recordings than you or I.</p><p>Now if we were talking about someone filesharing songs that were bootlegged from a live performance, then your argument would carry more weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
I can almost guarantee that the RIAA owns the specific recordings of each song in question .
It 's in almost all contracts with artists that are signed by an RIAA label .
They no more own those recordings than you or I.Now if we were talking about someone filesharing songs that were bootlegged from a live performance , then your argument would carry more weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
I can almost guarantee that the RIAA owns the specific recordings of each song in question.
It's in almost all contracts with artists that are signed by an RIAA label.
They no more own those recordings than you or I.Now if we were talking about someone filesharing songs that were bootlegged from a live performance, then your argument would carry more weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393761</id>
	<title>My opinion</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1245442140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as somebody who really did not have any interest in this, and am quite willing to pay for music.</p><p>This is complete nonsense and will not even serve the RIAA's interests. This penalty is so far out of line that it is completely fantasy, the risk of being sued for millions of dollars is so abstract and impossible to prepare for that the logical thing to do is ignore it. Also even copying ONE song has in effect bankrupted you, so there is no financial incentive not to copy more.</p><p>If they really wanted to make a deterrent, a civil case where the person is fined about $50 per song would be much more effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as somebody who really did not have any interest in this , and am quite willing to pay for music.This is complete nonsense and will not even serve the RIAA 's interests .
This penalty is so far out of line that it is completely fantasy , the risk of being sued for millions of dollars is so abstract and impossible to prepare for that the logical thing to do is ignore it .
Also even copying ONE song has in effect bankrupted you , so there is no financial incentive not to copy more.If they really wanted to make a deterrent , a civil case where the person is fined about $ 50 per song would be much more effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as somebody who really did not have any interest in this, and am quite willing to pay for music.This is complete nonsense and will not even serve the RIAA's interests.
This penalty is so far out of line that it is completely fantasy, the risk of being sued for millions of dollars is so abstract and impossible to prepare for that the logical thing to do is ignore it.
Also even copying ONE song has in effect bankrupted you, so there is no financial incentive not to copy more.If they really wanted to make a deterrent, a civil case where the person is fined about $50 per song would be much more effective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398945</id>
	<title>Re:Duh...</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1245429300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly:</p><p><em>First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new') violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution.</em></p><p>Totally different situation when it's a corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly : First , the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive ' punitive damage awards ( e.g. , $ 2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new ' ) violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution.Totally different situation when it 's a corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly:First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new') violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution.Totally different situation when it's a corporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394229</id>
	<title>Re:Duh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245443700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say that the court should honor precedent and set the initial judgement exactly as it did the much cited McDonald's case.  That is two days of her profits from the pirated music, then reduce that by 80\%, then settle for what was much likely a lower amount.
<p>
Punitive damages are meant to from doing things again. In this case I will increase my efforts to by local music, or independent, and minimize my interaction with such a dangerous organization as RIAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say that the court should honor precedent and set the initial judgement exactly as it did the much cited McDonald 's case .
That is two days of her profits from the pirated music , then reduce that by 80 \ % , then settle for what was much likely a lower amount .
Punitive damages are meant to from doing things again .
In this case I will increase my efforts to by local music , or independent , and minimize my interaction with such a dangerous organization as RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say that the court should honor precedent and set the initial judgement exactly as it did the much cited McDonald's case.
That is two days of her profits from the pirated music, then reduce that by 80\%, then settle for what was much likely a lower amount.
Punitive damages are meant to from doing things again.
In this case I will increase my efforts to by local music, or independent, and minimize my interaction with such a dangerous organization as RIAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395029</id>
	<title>Re:Cruel and Unusual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245403140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The verdict here is *not* a punishment meted out by the government. It is a civil, not a criminal case. The 1.9 M$ is what the jury decided what was required to "make the plaintiff whole," that is, compensate for the harm done.</p><p>So the phrase you quote simply doesn't apply.</p><p>If Person A does harm to Person B that amounts to Person A's whole lifetime income, Person A can be made to pay their whole lifetime income to Person B.  That's exactly what the jury did here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The verdict here is * not * a punishment meted out by the government .
It is a civil , not a criminal case .
The 1.9 M $ is what the jury decided what was required to " make the plaintiff whole , " that is , compensate for the harm done.So the phrase you quote simply does n't apply.If Person A does harm to Person B that amounts to Person A 's whole lifetime income , Person A can be made to pay their whole lifetime income to Person B. That 's exactly what the jury did here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The verdict here is *not* a punishment meted out by the government.
It is a civil, not a criminal case.
The 1.9 M$ is what the jury decided what was required to "make the plaintiff whole," that is, compensate for the harm done.So the phrase you quote simply doesn't apply.If Person A does harm to Person B that amounts to Person A's whole lifetime income, Person A can be made to pay their whole lifetime income to Person B.  That's exactly what the jury did here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629</id>
	<title>Our country is run by the right.</title>
	<author>JANYAtty.</author>
	<datestamp>1245441600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The exxon valdez jury awarded 5 billion dollars in punitive damages. That oil spill has left a ring around that bay that is clearly visible to this day. The courts reduced this by a factor of 10. Because it would be unfair to make one of the worlds richest and most profitable companies pay for their own f--kups that continue to afflict Alaska. Will this kid get a reduction? No. Becouse the court is a conservative court of 7 justices apointed by republican presidents.
What does it mean that the court is conservative?
The Court sides with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.&#226; That&#226;(TM)s conservative jurisprudence in a nutshell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The exxon valdez jury awarded 5 billion dollars in punitive damages .
That oil spill has left a ring around that bay that is clearly visible to this day .
The courts reduced this by a factor of 10 .
Because it would be unfair to make one of the worlds richest and most profitable companies pay for their own f--kups that continue to afflict Alaska .
Will this kid get a reduction ?
No. Becouse the court is a conservative court of 7 justices apointed by republican presidents .
What does it mean that the court is conservative ?
The Court sides with the prosecution over the defendant , the state over the condemned , the executive branch over the legislative , and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.   That   ( TM ) s conservative jurisprudence in a nutshell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The exxon valdez jury awarded 5 billion dollars in punitive damages.
That oil spill has left a ring around that bay that is clearly visible to this day.
The courts reduced this by a factor of 10.
Because it would be unfair to make one of the worlds richest and most profitable companies pay for their own f--kups that continue to afflict Alaska.
Will this kid get a reduction?
No. Becouse the court is a conservative court of 7 justices apointed by republican presidents.
What does it mean that the court is conservative?
The Court sides with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.â Thatâ(TM)s conservative jurisprudence in a nutshell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394813</id>
	<title>Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame.</title>
	<author>snowraver1</author>
	<datestamp>1245402480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if you walked in and stole a VAIO laptop valued at $1,000, and then on your sentencing date you are told you have to pay back $80 Million to the retailer, you might have a problem with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you walked in and stole a VAIO laptop valued at $ 1,000 , and then on your sentencing date you are told you have to pay back $ 80 Million to the retailer , you might have a problem with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you walked in and stole a VAIO laptop valued at $1,000, and then on your sentencing date you are told you have to pay back $80 Million to the retailer, you might have a problem with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393739</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28434721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28400271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_1550232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28434721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28399961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28400271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28398991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28396075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28397103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28394043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_1550232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28393861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_1550232.28395219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
