<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_1331218</id>
	<title>Of Catty Rants and Copyrights</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246030740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes <i>"A newspaper copies a rant from a girl's MySpace page and reprints it as a 'Letter to the Editor' without her permission. Could the girl sue for copyright violation? This question provoked much more disagreement among legal experts than I expected."</i> Read on for the details.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes " A newspaper copies a rant from a girl 's MySpace page and reprints it as a 'Letter to the Editor ' without her permission .
Could the girl sue for copyright violation ?
This question provoked much more disagreement among legal experts than I expected .
" Read on for the details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes "A newspaper copies a rant from a girl's MySpace page and reprints it as a 'Letter to the Editor' without her permission.
Could the girl sue for copyright violation?
This question provoked much more disagreement among legal experts than I expected.
" Read on for the details.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516141</id>
	<title>Country Mouse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246299360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The appellate judge states as if established in fact:  <p> <i>"The community reacted violently to the publication of the Ode. Appellants received death threats and a shot was fired at the family home, forcing the family to move out of [AnyPlaceUSA]. Due to severe losses, David closed the 20-year-old family business."</i> </p><p>Did the lawyers for both sides stipulate to these "facts"?  Or were they somehow proven in the trial court?  There are at least six assertions here:</p><ol>
<li>The community reacted violently.</li>
<li>Appellants received death threats.</li>
<li>A shot was fired at the family home.</li>
<li>The family [was forced] to move.</li>
<li>The [business suffered] severe losses.</li>
<li>David closed the business.</li>
</ol><p>Numbers 2, 3 and 5 are assertions that should be straightforward to establish evidentially.  Although the precise scenario of the "severe losses" is not laid out.  Did business simply drop precipitously?  Or was there an extended period of tedious sniping back-and-forth, for instance in the local chamber of commerce?  How exactly did the (former) customers learn that the business was connected to the girl's family?  And what kind of business was it, anyway?  What was happening with the business's competition at the same time?  Did one profit at the expense of the other?  Or did the entire local industry fail (a very familiar scenario in small towns)?</p><p>But was the business forced to close (#6) as a direct result of the republication?  The implication is that the family moved due to both safety and economic concerns (#4).  The first of these seems a criminal matter almost impossible to connect back to republication unless the bullet is traced to a gun and the gun to a death threat and the death threat to someone unhinged by a letter to the editor.  In rural America, having a shot fired at a house is more likely to be an incautious sportsman.  Was it deer season?  While moving due to economic reasons is simply a restating of the prior assertion about the business failing.  This is perhaps pertinent to damages, but not to the facts of the case.</p><p>What does it mean for an appellate judge to assert "the community reacted violently"?  Surely there must be prior case law to understand this point?  The implication in the Slashdot article is that this happened in fact and that it was causally related to one poor girl's teenage angst about where she happened to grow up.</p><p>It appears rather to this reader that the judge overreached unnecessarily.  To come to the same decision ("go away little girl, you bother me") there was no reason to rule on the copyright aspects of the case at all.  The judgement can be taken to say that any intentional "publication", no matter how temporary, to an online source permits a newspaper to republish your work.  This doesn't do the newspaper industry any favors.  Fair use is a two-edged sword:</p><p> <i>"Having been published on myspace.com, the Ode was not private."</i> </p><p>Doesn't this apply to everything a newspaper ever publishes?  If there is no copyright protection of the girl's expression of her all-too-typical teenage thoughts, why can't complete articles from this newspaper now be republished at will as letters to the editor on MySpace pages?  Either MySpace is a publication coequal with a newspaper - or it isn't.</p><p>One remains skeptical about the facts in this case.  Surely the bad actions (as described) of the community's high school principal and newspaper publisher would have been even more likely to arouse community ire?  While one could almost take a sensitivity to insult as a defining characteristic of small town life versus city life - similar negative screeds to city life are published every day in city newspapers - one is skeptical that this small town is such a caricature of the girl's description.  In Aesop's fable, it is the Country Mouse who scurries home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The appellate judge states as if established in fact : " The community reacted violently to the publication of the Ode .
Appellants received death threats and a shot was fired at the family home , forcing the family to move out of [ AnyPlaceUSA ] .
Due to severe losses , David closed the 20-year-old family business .
" Did the lawyers for both sides stipulate to these " facts " ?
Or were they somehow proven in the trial court ?
There are at least six assertions here : The community reacted violently .
Appellants received death threats .
A shot was fired at the family home .
The family [ was forced ] to move .
The [ business suffered ] severe losses .
David closed the business .
Numbers 2 , 3 and 5 are assertions that should be straightforward to establish evidentially .
Although the precise scenario of the " severe losses " is not laid out .
Did business simply drop precipitously ?
Or was there an extended period of tedious sniping back-and-forth , for instance in the local chamber of commerce ?
How exactly did the ( former ) customers learn that the business was connected to the girl 's family ?
And what kind of business was it , anyway ?
What was happening with the business 's competition at the same time ?
Did one profit at the expense of the other ?
Or did the entire local industry fail ( a very familiar scenario in small towns ) ? But was the business forced to close ( # 6 ) as a direct result of the republication ?
The implication is that the family moved due to both safety and economic concerns ( # 4 ) .
The first of these seems a criminal matter almost impossible to connect back to republication unless the bullet is traced to a gun and the gun to a death threat and the death threat to someone unhinged by a letter to the editor .
In rural America , having a shot fired at a house is more likely to be an incautious sportsman .
Was it deer season ?
While moving due to economic reasons is simply a restating of the prior assertion about the business failing .
This is perhaps pertinent to damages , but not to the facts of the case.What does it mean for an appellate judge to assert " the community reacted violently " ?
Surely there must be prior case law to understand this point ?
The implication in the Slashdot article is that this happened in fact and that it was causally related to one poor girl 's teenage angst about where she happened to grow up.It appears rather to this reader that the judge overreached unnecessarily .
To come to the same decision ( " go away little girl , you bother me " ) there was no reason to rule on the copyright aspects of the case at all .
The judgement can be taken to say that any intentional " publication " , no matter how temporary , to an online source permits a newspaper to republish your work .
This does n't do the newspaper industry any favors .
Fair use is a two-edged sword : " Having been published on myspace.com , the Ode was not private .
" Does n't this apply to everything a newspaper ever publishes ?
If there is no copyright protection of the girl 's expression of her all-too-typical teenage thoughts , why ca n't complete articles from this newspaper now be republished at will as letters to the editor on MySpace pages ?
Either MySpace is a publication coequal with a newspaper - or it is n't.One remains skeptical about the facts in this case .
Surely the bad actions ( as described ) of the community 's high school principal and newspaper publisher would have been even more likely to arouse community ire ?
While one could almost take a sensitivity to insult as a defining characteristic of small town life versus city life - similar negative screeds to city life are published every day in city newspapers - one is skeptical that this small town is such a caricature of the girl 's description .
In Aesop 's fable , it is the Country Mouse who scurries home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The appellate judge states as if established in fact:   "The community reacted violently to the publication of the Ode.
Appellants received death threats and a shot was fired at the family home, forcing the family to move out of [AnyPlaceUSA].
Due to severe losses, David closed the 20-year-old family business.
" Did the lawyers for both sides stipulate to these "facts"?
Or were they somehow proven in the trial court?
There are at least six assertions here:
The community reacted violently.
Appellants received death threats.
A shot was fired at the family home.
The family [was forced] to move.
The [business suffered] severe losses.
David closed the business.
Numbers 2, 3 and 5 are assertions that should be straightforward to establish evidentially.
Although the precise scenario of the "severe losses" is not laid out.
Did business simply drop precipitously?
Or was there an extended period of tedious sniping back-and-forth, for instance in the local chamber of commerce?
How exactly did the (former) customers learn that the business was connected to the girl's family?
And what kind of business was it, anyway?
What was happening with the business's competition at the same time?
Did one profit at the expense of the other?
Or did the entire local industry fail (a very familiar scenario in small towns)?But was the business forced to close (#6) as a direct result of the republication?
The implication is that the family moved due to both safety and economic concerns (#4).
The first of these seems a criminal matter almost impossible to connect back to republication unless the bullet is traced to a gun and the gun to a death threat and the death threat to someone unhinged by a letter to the editor.
In rural America, having a shot fired at a house is more likely to be an incautious sportsman.
Was it deer season?
While moving due to economic reasons is simply a restating of the prior assertion about the business failing.
This is perhaps pertinent to damages, but not to the facts of the case.What does it mean for an appellate judge to assert "the community reacted violently"?
Surely there must be prior case law to understand this point?
The implication in the Slashdot article is that this happened in fact and that it was causally related to one poor girl's teenage angst about where she happened to grow up.It appears rather to this reader that the judge overreached unnecessarily.
To come to the same decision ("go away little girl, you bother me") there was no reason to rule on the copyright aspects of the case at all.
The judgement can be taken to say that any intentional "publication", no matter how temporary, to an online source permits a newspaper to republish your work.
This doesn't do the newspaper industry any favors.
Fair use is a two-edged sword: "Having been published on myspace.com, the Ode was not private.
" Doesn't this apply to everything a newspaper ever publishes?
If there is no copyright protection of the girl's expression of her all-too-typical teenage thoughts, why can't complete articles from this newspaper now be republished at will as letters to the editor on MySpace pages?
Either MySpace is a publication coequal with a newspaper - or it isn't.One remains skeptical about the facts in this case.
Surely the bad actions (as described) of the community's high school principal and newspaper publisher would have been even more likely to arouse community ire?
While one could almost take a sensitivity to insult as a defining characteristic of small town life versus city life - similar negative screeds to city life are published every day in city newspapers - one is skeptical that this small town is such a caricature of the girl's description.
In Aesop's fable, it is the Country Mouse who scurries home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516153</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1246299420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This was unquestionably an EXTREME violation of <b>journalistic ethics</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>I don't understand. Why would you use those words together like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was unquestionably an EXTREME violation of journalistic ethics I do n't understand .
Why would you use those words together like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was unquestionably an EXTREME violation of journalistic ethics I don't understand.
Why would you use those words together like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519449</id>
	<title>The real tort here appears to be forgery....</title>
	<author>n4djs</author>
	<datestamp>1246268760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the letter was signed by the high school principal as if he was the girl. Nice friendly town, BTW. Identity theft? maybe... copyright infringement? probably...
<br>
I think the person that did this is likely to be out a job once it is all said and done....
<br>

I am not a lawyer... I am just doing this build my typing speed....</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the letter was signed by the high school principal as if he was the girl .
Nice friendly town , BTW .
Identity theft ?
maybe... copyright infringement ?
probably.. . I think the person that did this is likely to be out a job once it is all said and done... . I am not a lawyer... I am just doing this build my typing speed... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the letter was signed by the high school principal as if he was the girl.
Nice friendly town, BTW.
Identity theft?
maybe... copyright infringement?
probably...

I think the person that did this is likely to be out a job once it is all said and done....


I am not a lawyer... I am just doing this build my typing speed....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516557</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>eltonito</author>
	<datestamp>1246300920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PBS article below expands on the details of the case.  Prior to publishing her "letter to the editor" the paper was fully aware that it was a post from Myspace, not a true letter to the editor.  In fact, the editor was the person who added her name to the letter, not the principal as stated in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. piece.  The author was made aware that her now deleted rant would be published as a letter to the editor.  The author was assured by the paper that the "letter" would not run, but then they ran it anyway.</p><p>I think this is a prime "what not to do" example of journalistic ethics.

</p><p> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2009/04/coalinga-newspaper-not-liable-for-running-myspace-rant112.html" title="pbs.org">Media Shift @ PBS</a> [pbs.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PBS article below expands on the details of the case .
Prior to publishing her " letter to the editor " the paper was fully aware that it was a post from Myspace , not a true letter to the editor .
In fact , the editor was the person who added her name to the letter , not the principal as stated in the / .
piece. The author was made aware that her now deleted rant would be published as a letter to the editor .
The author was assured by the paper that the " letter " would not run , but then they ran it anyway.I think this is a prime " what not to do " example of journalistic ethics .
Media Shift @ PBS [ pbs.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PBS article below expands on the details of the case.
Prior to publishing her "letter to the editor" the paper was fully aware that it was a post from Myspace, not a true letter to the editor.
In fact, the editor was the person who added her name to the letter, not the principal as stated in the /.
piece.  The author was made aware that her now deleted rant would be published as a letter to the editor.
The author was assured by the paper that the "letter" would not run, but then they ran it anyway.I think this is a prime "what not to do" example of journalistic ethics.
Media Shift @ PBS [pbs.org] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515553</id>
	<title>I'm curious</title>
	<author>n30na</author>
	<datestamp>1246297140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone have a link to the original rant, and/or what this stuff about her family's business is about?  It's a little confusing without the original context.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone have a link to the original rant , and/or what this stuff about her family 's business is about ?
It 's a little confusing without the original context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone have a link to the original rant, and/or what this stuff about her family's business is about?
It's a little confusing without the original context.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515243</id>
	<title>Nevermind copyright...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246296060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but in addition to any criminal procedings over copyright, etc (libel? - lying about letter to editor) couldn't she also file a civil suit against the principal for the emotional distress and financial damages she and her family have incurred over his actions?</p><p>AFAIK the standard of proof for civil procedings is much lower than for criminal ones... She doesn't need to win a potentially complex copyright case for a judge to agree that she's anyways incurred damages through the deliberate actions of the principal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but in addition to any criminal procedings over copyright , etc ( libel ?
- lying about letter to editor ) could n't she also file a civil suit against the principal for the emotional distress and financial damages she and her family have incurred over his actions ? AFAIK the standard of proof for civil procedings is much lower than for criminal ones... She does n't need to win a potentially complex copyright case for a judge to agree that she 's anyways incurred damages through the deliberate actions of the principal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but in addition to any criminal procedings over copyright, etc (libel?
- lying about letter to editor) couldn't she also file a civil suit against the principal for the emotional distress and financial damages she and her family have incurred over his actions?AFAIK the standard of proof for civil procedings is much lower than for criminal ones... She doesn't need to win a potentially complex copyright case for a judge to agree that she's anyways incurred damages through the deliberate actions of the principal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515189</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246295820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can violate copyrights of an artist or a software company, what do you care about some kid's myspace account?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can violate copyrights of an artist or a software company , what do you care about some kid 's myspace account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can violate copyrights of an artist or a software company, what do you care about some kid's myspace account?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515483</id>
	<title>Everything is protected...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246296840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but copyright is the wrong battle here I think.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But how can someone sue for a copyright violation when there was no copyright?</p></div><p>There is always a copyright.  All works are protected by copyright law, including this very post and yours (yeah I quoted you...if you wanted you could sue me but your case for damages would be weak, but you still have that right).</p><p>You would've figured that out if you RTFA--and you didn't even need to follow a link to do it!  But, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and RTFA is just not done here unless you are weird I guess--especially if you are trying to be first post.</p><p>Anyways, there is a problem with using copyright as the legal weapon in this battle.  Since you are too busy to RTFA, this is why:</p><p>1 the work is NON-registered.  Without registering copyright in a timely manner you are limited to actual, direct monetary damages.<br>2 the "work" is a catty rant on myspace--little to no tangible worth to that being supply exceeds demand by a huge margin and nobody has to pay to see it.<br>3 do the math: 1 plus 2 equals you get nothing in court.  Daddy lost his business?  Sorry.  not actual, direct damages to the creator.  Denied.</p><p>A civil case based on "false light publication" is a better alternative I'd think, as briefly mentioned in the article.  The principal acted in appalling fashion and should lose his job and be sued into oblivion.  Sad how such an immature person of such weak moral character could be in a position of professional responsibility like that.  Perhaps a symptom of low pay and inadequate respect for the job.  The newspaper also did very shoddy work in publishing the letter without verifying the source.  I mean...that seems like a very basic common sense thing to do.  Intent was clearly malicious and meant to deceive.  Strictly speaking if the principal should have prefaced the letter with something like "this is what one of my students thinks about this town" and as a professional kept the contributor anonymous...and disclosed that he/she was the contributor of the letter not the original author.  Teachers always tell students to properly cite works not created by them...it is disgraceful that the principal would not set a proper example.</p><p>Additionally, criminal prosecution should be pursued against those making treats.  Either this girl said something especially offensive or she is right about her town.  People who would utter threats or work to destroy the livelihood of innocent family members not associated with the author's statements hardly deserve to be called human beings.  But, I suppose the author herself might have been a nasty person herself...I can't make those judgements conclusively without knowing the whole story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but copyright is the wrong battle here I think.But how can someone sue for a copyright violation when there was no copyright ? There is always a copyright .
All works are protected by copyright law , including this very post and yours ( yeah I quoted you...if you wanted you could sue me but your case for damages would be weak , but you still have that right ) .You would 've figured that out if you RTFA--and you did n't even need to follow a link to do it !
But , this is / .
and RTFA is just not done here unless you are weird I guess--especially if you are trying to be first post.Anyways , there is a problem with using copyright as the legal weapon in this battle .
Since you are too busy to RTFA , this is why : 1 the work is NON-registered .
Without registering copyright in a timely manner you are limited to actual , direct monetary damages.2 the " work " is a catty rant on myspace--little to no tangible worth to that being supply exceeds demand by a huge margin and nobody has to pay to see it.3 do the math : 1 plus 2 equals you get nothing in court .
Daddy lost his business ?
Sorry. not actual , direct damages to the creator .
Denied.A civil case based on " false light publication " is a better alternative I 'd think , as briefly mentioned in the article .
The principal acted in appalling fashion and should lose his job and be sued into oblivion .
Sad how such an immature person of such weak moral character could be in a position of professional responsibility like that .
Perhaps a symptom of low pay and inadequate respect for the job .
The newspaper also did very shoddy work in publishing the letter without verifying the source .
I mean...that seems like a very basic common sense thing to do .
Intent was clearly malicious and meant to deceive .
Strictly speaking if the principal should have prefaced the letter with something like " this is what one of my students thinks about this town " and as a professional kept the contributor anonymous...and disclosed that he/she was the contributor of the letter not the original author .
Teachers always tell students to properly cite works not created by them...it is disgraceful that the principal would not set a proper example.Additionally , criminal prosecution should be pursued against those making treats .
Either this girl said something especially offensive or she is right about her town .
People who would utter threats or work to destroy the livelihood of innocent family members not associated with the author 's statements hardly deserve to be called human beings .
But , I suppose the author herself might have been a nasty person herself...I ca n't make those judgements conclusively without knowing the whole story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but copyright is the wrong battle here I think.But how can someone sue for a copyright violation when there was no copyright?There is always a copyright.
All works are protected by copyright law, including this very post and yours (yeah I quoted you...if you wanted you could sue me but your case for damages would be weak, but you still have that right).You would've figured that out if you RTFA--and you didn't even need to follow a link to do it!
But, this is /.
and RTFA is just not done here unless you are weird I guess--especially if you are trying to be first post.Anyways, there is a problem with using copyright as the legal weapon in this battle.
Since you are too busy to RTFA, this is why:1 the work is NON-registered.
Without registering copyright in a timely manner you are limited to actual, direct monetary damages.2 the "work" is a catty rant on myspace--little to no tangible worth to that being supply exceeds demand by a huge margin and nobody has to pay to see it.3 do the math: 1 plus 2 equals you get nothing in court.
Daddy lost his business?
Sorry.  not actual, direct damages to the creator.
Denied.A civil case based on "false light publication" is a better alternative I'd think, as briefly mentioned in the article.
The principal acted in appalling fashion and should lose his job and be sued into oblivion.
Sad how such an immature person of such weak moral character could be in a position of professional responsibility like that.
Perhaps a symptom of low pay and inadequate respect for the job.
The newspaper also did very shoddy work in publishing the letter without verifying the source.
I mean...that seems like a very basic common sense thing to do.
Intent was clearly malicious and meant to deceive.
Strictly speaking if the principal should have prefaced the letter with something like "this is what one of my students thinks about this town" and as a professional kept the contributor anonymous...and disclosed that he/she was the contributor of the letter not the original author.
Teachers always tell students to properly cite works not created by them...it is disgraceful that the principal would not set a proper example.Additionally, criminal prosecution should be pursued against those making treats.
Either this girl said something especially offensive or she is right about her town.
People who would utter threats or work to destroy the livelihood of innocent family members not associated with the author's statements hardly deserve to be called human beings.
But, I suppose the author herself might have been a nasty person herself...I can't make those judgements conclusively without knowing the whole story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515349</id>
	<title>For Profit Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246296420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what about the arguement of the newspaper using it for Profit. Newspapers, TV stations, news organizations are for profit endeavors. They used her work for their profit.</p><p>I think she had every right to sue them for a share of those profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what about the arguement of the newspaper using it for Profit .
Newspapers , TV stations , news organizations are for profit endeavors .
They used her work for their profit.I think she had every right to sue them for a share of those profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what about the arguement of the newspaper using it for Profit.
Newspapers, TV stations, news organizations are for profit endeavors.
They used her work for their profit.I think she had every right to sue them for a share of those profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516393</id>
	<title>Re:Hopefully Not Too Redundant</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1246300380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The paper did not commit willful infringement because it was deceived by the principal and friend.<br>Only the principal and his friend committed willful infringement, and that was not for commercial gain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The paper did not commit willful infringement because it was deceived by the principal and friend.Only the principal and his friend committed willful infringement , and that was not for commercial gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paper did not commit willful infringement because it was deceived by the principal and friend.Only the principal and his friend committed willful infringement, and that was not for commercial gain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514931</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the UK I have automatic copyright over everything and anything I write. I don't have to register anything, it doesn't matter if its public or private. There is no fair use law here so they couldn't use that excuse either. If anyone did this in the UK, they would have their asses sued off and they would lose. It's much more black and white here I think. And a good thing that is too from the looks of things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK I have automatic copyright over everything and anything I write .
I do n't have to register anything , it does n't matter if its public or private .
There is no fair use law here so they could n't use that excuse either .
If anyone did this in the UK , they would have their asses sued off and they would lose .
It 's much more black and white here I think .
And a good thing that is too from the looks of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK I have automatic copyright over everything and anything I write.
I don't have to register anything, it doesn't matter if its public or private.
There is no fair use law here so they couldn't use that excuse either.
If anyone did this in the UK, they would have their asses sued off and they would lose.
It's much more black and white here I think.
And a good thing that is too from the looks of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515095</id>
	<title>Court Rules MySpace Posts Aren't Private</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246295340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Following a visit to her hometown of Coalinga California in 2005, Cynthia Moreno <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429677896" title="law.com" rel="nofollow">wrote "An ode to Coalinga,"  and posted it in her MySpace page</a> [law.com]. The Ode opened with "the older I get, the more I realize how much I despise Coalinga" and made a number of negative comments about Coalinga and its inhabitants. The entry was posted for six days before Moreno removed it but that was long enough for  the principal of Coalinga High School to find the ode and forward it to Pamela Pond, editor of the Coalinga Record, who published it in the newspaper's letters section. Local reaction was swift. Moreno's parents say they received death threats, a gun shot was fired at their home and her father's 20-year-old business lost so much money that it was closed and the family moved out of town. Moreno and her family responded by suing for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Now a Fresno based appellate court says <a href="http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2009/f054138.html" title="findlaw.com" rel="nofollow">Moreno had no grounds for her claim of invasion of privacy even if she meant her thoughts for a limited audience</a> [findlaw.com]. "Cynthia's affirmative act made her article available to any person with a computer and, thus, opened it to the public eye," wrote Justice Levy. However, the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was not dismissed and a jury will get to decide if the defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous. In the meantime the editor  who republished the essay has been fired and lawyer Eric Goldman, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, wonders "if the <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/04/republishing\_my.htm" title="ericgoldman.org" rel="nofollow">violent and ostracizing community response to Moreno's post didn't in fact validate some of her critiques</a> [ericgoldman.org]."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Following a visit to her hometown of Coalinga California in 2005 , Cynthia Moreno wrote " An ode to Coalinga , " and posted it in her MySpace page [ law.com ] .
The Ode opened with " the older I get , the more I realize how much I despise Coalinga " and made a number of negative comments about Coalinga and its inhabitants .
The entry was posted for six days before Moreno removed it but that was long enough for the principal of Coalinga High School to find the ode and forward it to Pamela Pond , editor of the Coalinga Record , who published it in the newspaper 's letters section .
Local reaction was swift .
Moreno 's parents say they received death threats , a gun shot was fired at their home and her father 's 20-year-old business lost so much money that it was closed and the family moved out of town .
Moreno and her family responded by suing for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress .
Now a Fresno based appellate court says Moreno had no grounds for her claim of invasion of privacy even if she meant her thoughts for a limited audience [ findlaw.com ] .
" Cynthia 's affirmative act made her article available to any person with a computer and , thus , opened it to the public eye , " wrote Justice Levy .
However , the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was not dismissed and a jury will get to decide if the defendants ' conduct was extreme and outrageous .
In the meantime the editor who republished the essay has been fired and lawyer Eric Goldman , Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law , wonders " if the violent and ostracizing community response to Moreno 's post did n't in fact validate some of her critiques [ ericgoldman.org ] .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following a visit to her hometown of Coalinga California in 2005, Cynthia Moreno wrote "An ode to Coalinga,"  and posted it in her MySpace page [law.com].
The Ode opened with "the older I get, the more I realize how much I despise Coalinga" and made a number of negative comments about Coalinga and its inhabitants.
The entry was posted for six days before Moreno removed it but that was long enough for  the principal of Coalinga High School to find the ode and forward it to Pamela Pond, editor of the Coalinga Record, who published it in the newspaper's letters section.
Local reaction was swift.
Moreno's parents say they received death threats, a gun shot was fired at their home and her father's 20-year-old business lost so much money that it was closed and the family moved out of town.
Moreno and her family responded by suing for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Now a Fresno based appellate court says Moreno had no grounds for her claim of invasion of privacy even if she meant her thoughts for a limited audience [findlaw.com].
"Cynthia's affirmative act made her article available to any person with a computer and, thus, opened it to the public eye," wrote Justice Levy.
However, the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was not dismissed and a jury will get to decide if the defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous.
In the meantime the editor  who republished the essay has been fired and lawyer Eric Goldman, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, wonders "if the violent and ostracizing community response to Moreno's post didn't in fact validate some of her critiques [ericgoldman.org].
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519541</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!!!  If the principal sent it to the newspaper as if it came from her, the newspaper was simply publishing a letter that they received.  It would be unreasonable for a newspaper to have to get permission to print every letter to the editor they print.</p><p>If that was the case, she could sue the principal for libel be cause he wrote the letter which falsely implied that she wanted her opinions published in the newspaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly ! ! !
If the principal sent it to the newspaper as if it came from her , the newspaper was simply publishing a letter that they received .
It would be unreasonable for a newspaper to have to get permission to print every letter to the editor they print.If that was the case , she could sue the principal for libel be cause he wrote the letter which falsely implied that she wanted her opinions published in the newspaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!!!
If the principal sent it to the newspaper as if it came from her, the newspaper was simply publishing a letter that they received.
It would be unreasonable for a newspaper to have to get permission to print every letter to the editor they print.If that was the case, she could sue the principal for libel be cause he wrote the letter which falsely implied that she wanted her opinions published in the newspaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518677</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL</title>
	<author>Travelsonic</author>
	<datestamp>1246266180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't have to register anything, it doesn't matter if its public or private. There is no fair use law here so they couldn't use that excuse either. If anyone did this in the UK, they would have their asses sued off and they would lose.</p></div><p>


Fair Dealings - similar to fair use.  Look it up.  I don't know how it works in the U.K, but in the U.S, works automatically fall under copyright but you still need to register before ever hoping to be able to collect damages.  It isn't as black/white or difinitive as you make it out to be.

</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have to register anything , it does n't matter if its public or private .
There is no fair use law here so they could n't use that excuse either .
If anyone did this in the UK , they would have their asses sued off and they would lose .
Fair Dealings - similar to fair use .
Look it up .
I do n't know how it works in the U.K , but in the U.S , works automatically fall under copyright but you still need to register before ever hoping to be able to collect damages .
It is n't as black/white or difinitive as you make it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have to register anything, it doesn't matter if its public or private.
There is no fair use law here so they couldn't use that excuse either.
If anyone did this in the UK, they would have their asses sued off and they would lose.
Fair Dealings - similar to fair use.
Look it up.
I don't know how it works in the U.K, but in the U.S, works automatically fall under copyright but you still need to register before ever hoping to be able to collect damages.
It isn't as black/white or difinitive as you make it out to be.


	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516595</id>
	<title>I wouldn't like that place either</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1246301100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a place is going to send death threats and boycott a business because what some pissed off college student said, why the hell would anyone want to live there. What a crappy place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a place is going to send death threats and boycott a business because what some pissed off college student said , why the hell would anyone want to live there .
What a crappy place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a place is going to send death threats and boycott a business because what some pissed off college student said, why the hell would anyone want to live there.
What a crappy place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515137</id>
	<title>I too ANAL</title>
	<author>arizwebfoot</author>
	<datestamp>1246295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to be she would be barred from another law suit since she already litigated the issue.  At the time of the initial litigation, you are supposed to bring all the issues at the same time, not piece meal.</p><p>However, this is a case for <b> Super NYCL </b> to weigh in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to be she would be barred from another law suit since she already litigated the issue .
At the time of the initial litigation , you are supposed to bring all the issues at the same time , not piece meal.However , this is a case for Super NYCL to weigh in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to be she would be barred from another law suit since she already litigated the issue.
At the time of the initial litigation, you are supposed to bring all the issues at the same time, not piece meal.However, this is a case for  Super NYCL  to weigh in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521083</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246275600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is at least one legal avenue to consider.</p><p>This was not a letter to the editor by the girl who actually wrote the article. So if the person who sent it added the signature or represented it as a letter TO the EDITOR when it wasn't, you could probably go after them for libel or something along those lines.</p><p>Now if the letter had come from the person, who simply referenced the online commentary, it would be different.</p><p>A good lawyer should be able to come up with the right means of pursuing damages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is at least one legal avenue to consider.This was not a letter to the editor by the girl who actually wrote the article .
So if the person who sent it added the signature or represented it as a letter TO the EDITOR when it was n't , you could probably go after them for libel or something along those lines.Now if the letter had come from the person , who simply referenced the online commentary , it would be different.A good lawyer should be able to come up with the right means of pursuing damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is at least one legal avenue to consider.This was not a letter to the editor by the girl who actually wrote the article.
So if the person who sent it added the signature or represented it as a letter TO the EDITOR when it wasn't, you could probably go after them for libel or something along those lines.Now if the letter had come from the person, who simply referenced the online commentary, it would be different.A good lawyer should be able to come up with the right means of pursuing damages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517215</id>
	<title>So much for the Principal's MIssion Statement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246303440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/Our\%20Schools/Coalinga\%20High\%20School/" title="k12.ca.us" rel="nofollow">http://www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/Our\%20Schools/Coalinga\%20High\%20School/</a> [k12.ca.us] <p><div class="quote"><p>IV. Act responsibly, demonstrating the ability to:<br>
<br>
    a. Invest time, energy and talents to improve the quality of life for themselves, their school, community and the world.<br>
    b. Develop respect for the needs, ideas, opinions and property of others.<br>
    c. Employ initiative and common sense for the good of others and their world.</p></div><p>I see several violations of his own rules.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/Our \ % 20Schools/Coalinga \ % 20High \ % 20School/ [ k12.ca.us ] IV .
Act responsibly , demonstrating the ability to : a. Invest time , energy and talents to improve the quality of life for themselves , their school , community and the world .
b. Develop respect for the needs , ideas , opinions and property of others .
c. Employ initiative and common sense for the good of others and their world.I see several violations of his own rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/Our\%20Schools/Coalinga\%20High\%20School/ [k12.ca.us] IV.
Act responsibly, demonstrating the ability to:

    a. Invest time, energy and talents to improve the quality of life for themselves, their school, community and the world.
b. Develop respect for the needs, ideas, opinions and property of others.
c. Employ initiative and common sense for the good of others and their world.I see several violations of his own rules.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515713</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246297860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom of Speech doesn't not imply Freedom from Consequence.</p><p>A: Her Myspace page was publically browsable.<br>B: She disclosed the statement Publically.<br>C: He public statement ended up being reproduced in an equally publically accessable newspaper, even if under false circumstances.<br>D: Her father suffered the consequences of her actions.</p><p>This would be no different then if she was at the mall telling her friends "This Town Sucks" and youtubing herself. Then CNN gets ahold of the youtube video (regardless of the source) and posts it.</p><p>While you could suggest copyright, voicing an opinion doesn't imply it is a literary work that falls under copyright. No more then this very post. It isn't a literary work, it is my opinion that I happened to type out, no different then typing to copyright it if I had spoken it in a mall.</p><p>The only issue that I can see (in a practical sense) is why is a grown adult principal lurking on a former student's myspace page?! If I was the father I'd be breaking the pervert's legs right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom of Speech does n't not imply Freedom from Consequence.A : Her Myspace page was publically browsable.B : She disclosed the statement Publically.C : He public statement ended up being reproduced in an equally publically accessable newspaper , even if under false circumstances.D : Her father suffered the consequences of her actions.This would be no different then if she was at the mall telling her friends " This Town Sucks " and youtubing herself .
Then CNN gets ahold of the youtube video ( regardless of the source ) and posts it.While you could suggest copyright , voicing an opinion does n't imply it is a literary work that falls under copyright .
No more then this very post .
It is n't a literary work , it is my opinion that I happened to type out , no different then typing to copyright it if I had spoken it in a mall.The only issue that I can see ( in a practical sense ) is why is a grown adult principal lurking on a former student 's myspace page ? !
If I was the father I 'd be breaking the pervert 's legs right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom of Speech doesn't not imply Freedom from Consequence.A: Her Myspace page was publically browsable.B: She disclosed the statement Publically.C: He public statement ended up being reproduced in an equally publically accessable newspaper, even if under false circumstances.D: Her father suffered the consequences of her actions.This would be no different then if she was at the mall telling her friends "This Town Sucks" and youtubing herself.
Then CNN gets ahold of the youtube video (regardless of the source) and posts it.While you could suggest copyright, voicing an opinion doesn't imply it is a literary work that falls under copyright.
No more then this very post.
It isn't a literary work, it is my opinion that I happened to type out, no different then typing to copyright it if I had spoken it in a mall.The only issue that I can see (in a practical sense) is why is a grown adult principal lurking on a former student's myspace page?!
If I was the father I'd be breaking the pervert's legs right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519473</id>
	<title>Re:The wrong issue</title>
	<author>MoFoQ</author>
	<datestamp>1246268820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea, that's what came to my mind first: misrepresentation and libel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea , that 's what came to my mind first : misrepresentation and libel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea, that's what came to my mind first: misrepresentation and libel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515535</id>
	<title>Also public information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246297080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.coalingahighschool.org<br>750 Van Ness Avenue<br>Coalinga, CA  93210<br>Phone: (559) 935-7520<br>Fax: (559) 935-3571</p><p>Principal : Roger Campbell,  rcampbell@chusd.k12.ca.us</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coalingahighschool.org750 Van Ness AvenueCoalinga , CA 93210Phone : ( 559 ) 935-7520Fax : ( 559 ) 935-3571Principal : Roger Campbell , rcampbell @ chusd.k12.ca.us</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coalingahighschool.org750 Van Ness AvenueCoalinga, CA  93210Phone: (559) 935-7520Fax: (559) 935-3571Principal : Roger Campbell,  rcampbell@chusd.k12.ca.us</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518847</id>
	<title>llyda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246266600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more</p><p>http://mazok.ucoz.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>morehttp : //mazok.ucoz.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>morehttp://mazok.ucoz.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28525845</id>
	<title>Remove copyright - save the children!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246359240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case forget the copyright issue - she did publish it on her myspace page open to all...</p><p>HOWEVER apart from that there were two - or arguably one crime(s) being commited against her and her family.</p><p>1 ) The Principal is guilty of slander by fraud.<br>2 ) The Newspaper is potentially guilty of slander. (depends on what she said, exactly)</p><p>In both cases those involved should lose membership of their respective professions for breach of ethics.</p><p>Quite apart from the "ownership of ideas" thing that "Intellectual Property" is concerned with*;- Publishing a toxic rant to a mostly-unknown weblog is roughly equivalent to shouting it out loud to the world... Whereas having it published in a newspaper is more like ranting on live TV. Clearly her intent was not to communicate directly to those who might take offence - And clearly also the Principal acted against his care of duty to her in causing her to seem as if she intended offence.</p><p>* We don't own ideas - they own us. When was the last time an idea gave its life in defence of someone? Would anyone care?<br>Contrarywise; Why is it that ideas have the same or more legal protections than we do? A corporation is essentially just an idea... So are religion, science and democracy.<br>Death isn't final for an idea - it can always be resurrected.<br>If you consider all human culture(ideas) as an extension of evolution (which they are) it is clear that the "we" really arn't the leading exponents of evolution we think we are - Ideas have long overtaken us - they are the first-class citizens now.<br>It seems to me that "human law" should really be about protecting individual humans, rather than our ideas.</p><p>Of course, this distinction gets even stickier when you realise that all judgement depends on values, which are ideas more-or-less implicit in our minds. Finding out you hold a particular value usually only happens when you meet someone who holds another value which is in conflict with it. Also, without a full list of *every* value in a human mind, you can't define what a human mind is. Miss a few and your model will break.<br>You can also figure out values from the bottom up - for example, to a computer, it's values consist mostly of it's ISA + whatever lookup tables are used to transcode data, eg ASCII or unicode. But consider also that every digital computer has at it's heart a core value we do *not* have - that "certainty of information is the most important thing". Without this value you cannot divide a voltage into "true" and "false" voltage levels.<br>Consider another value we share with computers - that "meaning is good" - without which a computer hangs, and neural networks never reorganise themselves to find patterns.</p><p>Now, if you put this together and make an AI - you end up with an entity like us that can embody understanding and play host to ideas.... and for whom death is not a problem...<br>Put this together with law protecting ideas more then individuals, and guess where it goes from there.</p><p>Obviously, we are in a very narrow window in time within which we might save our biological selves from obsolescence, or worse - endless future slavery.</p><p>Clearly - human law (all of it) needs to be fixed to offer protection commensurate with risk of absolute death. As *we* are the most complex devices currently unable to be "saved" from absolute death, then we need more protection then constructs such as ideas and software which is in no danger of absolute annihilation.</p><p>Conversely - the last copy of a manuscript itself become an individual in danger of annihilation, therefore copyright should read as follows:</p><p>All original (completely unmodified) works may be duplicated without restriction.<br>
   Imperfect copies are to be deleted where they offer no self-consistent meaning to differentiate themselves from the original. (clause to protect creativity)<br>
   Wilful plagiarism is to be elevated to a criminal offence with severity dependant on popularity of the incorrectly-attributed c</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case forget the copyright issue - she did publish it on her myspace page open to all...HOWEVER apart from that there were two - or arguably one crime ( s ) being commited against her and her family.1 ) The Principal is guilty of slander by fraud.2 ) The Newspaper is potentially guilty of slander .
( depends on what she said , exactly ) In both cases those involved should lose membership of their respective professions for breach of ethics.Quite apart from the " ownership of ideas " thing that " Intellectual Property " is concerned with * ; - Publishing a toxic rant to a mostly-unknown weblog is roughly equivalent to shouting it out loud to the world... Whereas having it published in a newspaper is more like ranting on live TV .
Clearly her intent was not to communicate directly to those who might take offence - And clearly also the Principal acted against his care of duty to her in causing her to seem as if she intended offence .
* We do n't own ideas - they own us .
When was the last time an idea gave its life in defence of someone ?
Would anyone care ? Contrarywise ; Why is it that ideas have the same or more legal protections than we do ?
A corporation is essentially just an idea... So are religion , science and democracy.Death is n't final for an idea - it can always be resurrected.If you consider all human culture ( ideas ) as an extension of evolution ( which they are ) it is clear that the " we " really ar n't the leading exponents of evolution we think we are - Ideas have long overtaken us - they are the first-class citizens now.It seems to me that " human law " should really be about protecting individual humans , rather than our ideas.Of course , this distinction gets even stickier when you realise that all judgement depends on values , which are ideas more-or-less implicit in our minds .
Finding out you hold a particular value usually only happens when you meet someone who holds another value which is in conflict with it .
Also , without a full list of * every * value in a human mind , you ca n't define what a human mind is .
Miss a few and your model will break.You can also figure out values from the bottom up - for example , to a computer , it 's values consist mostly of it 's ISA + whatever lookup tables are used to transcode data , eg ASCII or unicode .
But consider also that every digital computer has at it 's heart a core value we do * not * have - that " certainty of information is the most important thing " .
Without this value you can not divide a voltage into " true " and " false " voltage levels.Consider another value we share with computers - that " meaning is good " - without which a computer hangs , and neural networks never reorganise themselves to find patterns.Now , if you put this together and make an AI - you end up with an entity like us that can embody understanding and play host to ideas.... and for whom death is not a problem...Put this together with law protecting ideas more then individuals , and guess where it goes from there.Obviously , we are in a very narrow window in time within which we might save our biological selves from obsolescence , or worse - endless future slavery.Clearly - human law ( all of it ) needs to be fixed to offer protection commensurate with risk of absolute death .
As * we * are the most complex devices currently unable to be " saved " from absolute death , then we need more protection then constructs such as ideas and software which is in no danger of absolute annihilation.Conversely - the last copy of a manuscript itself become an individual in danger of annihilation , therefore copyright should read as follows : All original ( completely unmodified ) works may be duplicated without restriction .
Imperfect copies are to be deleted where they offer no self-consistent meaning to differentiate themselves from the original .
( clause to protect creativity ) Wilful plagiarism is to be elevated to a criminal offence with severity dependant on popularity of the incorrectly-attributed c</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case forget the copyright issue - she did publish it on her myspace page open to all...HOWEVER apart from that there were two - or arguably one crime(s) being commited against her and her family.1 ) The Principal is guilty of slander by fraud.2 ) The Newspaper is potentially guilty of slander.
(depends on what she said, exactly)In both cases those involved should lose membership of their respective professions for breach of ethics.Quite apart from the "ownership of ideas" thing that "Intellectual Property" is concerned with*;- Publishing a toxic rant to a mostly-unknown weblog is roughly equivalent to shouting it out loud to the world... Whereas having it published in a newspaper is more like ranting on live TV.
Clearly her intent was not to communicate directly to those who might take offence - And clearly also the Principal acted against his care of duty to her in causing her to seem as if she intended offence.
* We don't own ideas - they own us.
When was the last time an idea gave its life in defence of someone?
Would anyone care?Contrarywise; Why is it that ideas have the same or more legal protections than we do?
A corporation is essentially just an idea... So are religion, science and democracy.Death isn't final for an idea - it can always be resurrected.If you consider all human culture(ideas) as an extension of evolution (which they are) it is clear that the "we" really arn't the leading exponents of evolution we think we are - Ideas have long overtaken us - they are the first-class citizens now.It seems to me that "human law" should really be about protecting individual humans, rather than our ideas.Of course, this distinction gets even stickier when you realise that all judgement depends on values, which are ideas more-or-less implicit in our minds.
Finding out you hold a particular value usually only happens when you meet someone who holds another value which is in conflict with it.
Also, without a full list of *every* value in a human mind, you can't define what a human mind is.
Miss a few and your model will break.You can also figure out values from the bottom up - for example, to a computer, it's values consist mostly of it's ISA + whatever lookup tables are used to transcode data, eg ASCII or unicode.
But consider also that every digital computer has at it's heart a core value we do *not* have - that "certainty of information is the most important thing".
Without this value you cannot divide a voltage into "true" and "false" voltage levels.Consider another value we share with computers - that "meaning is good" - without which a computer hangs, and neural networks never reorganise themselves to find patterns.Now, if you put this together and make an AI - you end up with an entity like us that can embody understanding and play host to ideas.... and for whom death is not a problem...Put this together with law protecting ideas more then individuals, and guess where it goes from there.Obviously, we are in a very narrow window in time within which we might save our biological selves from obsolescence, or worse - endless future slavery.Clearly - human law (all of it) needs to be fixed to offer protection commensurate with risk of absolute death.
As *we* are the most complex devices currently unable to be "saved" from absolute death, then we need more protection then constructs such as ideas and software which is in no danger of absolute annihilation.Conversely - the last copy of a manuscript itself become an individual in danger of annihilation, therefore copyright should read as follows:All original (completely unmodified) works may be duplicated without restriction.
Imperfect copies are to be deleted where they offer no self-consistent meaning to differentiate themselves from the original.
(clause to protect creativity)
   Wilful plagiarism is to be elevated to a criminal offence with severity dependant on popularity of the incorrectly-attributed c</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515445</id>
	<title>Troll</title>
	<author>Rasperin</author>
	<datestamp>1246296660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, this would be a fantastic way to troll someone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , this would be a fantastic way to troll someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, this would be a fantastic way to troll someone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515899</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Bent Mind</author>
	<datestamp>1246298400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps I'm missing something here, very likely as I've only had one cup of coffee this morning.<br> <br>
My understanding from the above is that the newspaper received and published a Letter to the Editor that was signed. I've had several Letters to the Editor published with my name. I've never had the editor contact me to verify my identity. It seems to me that it was the Principle who submitted the letter, and signed the girl's name, that is in the wrong. The brief certainly seems to back this up.<p><div class="quote"><p>The issue presented by this appeal is whether an author who posts an article on myspace.com can state a cause of action for invasion of privacy and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress against a person who submits that article to a newspaper for republication. The trial court concluded not and sustained the demurrer to appellants' complaint without leave to amend.</p></div><p>Ahh, reading further:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The day after Cynthia removed the Ode from her online journal, appellants learned that Campbell [the Principle] had submitted the Ode to the local newspaper, the Coalinga Record, by giving the Ode to his friend, Pamela Pond. Pond was the editor of the Coalinga Record.</p></div><p>So, maybe the newspaper isn't so innocent.<br> <br>
As to the matter of copyright, I see this case did not address it:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Whether the publication of the Ode infringed on any federal copyright protection the Ode may have had (17 U.S.C. &#239;&#189; 101 et seq.) is not before this court and we express no opinion on that issue.</p></div><p>I also do not see a copy of the letter. Fair use might come into play if the purpose of publication was criticism.<br> <br>
IANAL, the above is just my take on what I've read. To add to my opinion, now that the girl and her family are safely moved away from that community, I do hope she has republished her Ode. The reaction of the townspeople to the rants of a high school girl are ample proof that Coalinga is not a desirable place to live.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm missing something here , very likely as I 've only had one cup of coffee this morning .
My understanding from the above is that the newspaper received and published a Letter to the Editor that was signed .
I 've had several Letters to the Editor published with my name .
I 've never had the editor contact me to verify my identity .
It seems to me that it was the Principle who submitted the letter , and signed the girl 's name , that is in the wrong .
The brief certainly seems to back this up.The issue presented by this appeal is whether an author who posts an article on myspace.com can state a cause of action for invasion of privacy and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress against a person who submits that article to a newspaper for republication .
The trial court concluded not and sustained the demurrer to appellants ' complaint without leave to amend.Ahh , reading further : The day after Cynthia removed the Ode from her online journal , appellants learned that Campbell [ the Principle ] had submitted the Ode to the local newspaper , the Coalinga Record , by giving the Ode to his friend , Pamela Pond .
Pond was the editor of the Coalinga Record.So , maybe the newspaper is n't so innocent .
As to the matter of copyright , I see this case did not address it : Whether the publication of the Ode infringed on any federal copyright protection the Ode may have had ( 17 U.S.C .
    101 et seq .
) is not before this court and we express no opinion on that issue.I also do not see a copy of the letter .
Fair use might come into play if the purpose of publication was criticism .
IANAL , the above is just my take on what I 've read .
To add to my opinion , now that the girl and her family are safely moved away from that community , I do hope she has republished her Ode .
The reaction of the townspeople to the rants of a high school girl are ample proof that Coalinga is not a desirable place to live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm missing something here, very likely as I've only had one cup of coffee this morning.
My understanding from the above is that the newspaper received and published a Letter to the Editor that was signed.
I've had several Letters to the Editor published with my name.
I've never had the editor contact me to verify my identity.
It seems to me that it was the Principle who submitted the letter, and signed the girl's name, that is in the wrong.
The brief certainly seems to back this up.The issue presented by this appeal is whether an author who posts an article on myspace.com can state a cause of action for invasion of privacy and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress against a person who submits that article to a newspaper for republication.
The trial court concluded not and sustained the demurrer to appellants' complaint without leave to amend.Ahh, reading further:The day after Cynthia removed the Ode from her online journal, appellants learned that Campbell [the Principle] had submitted the Ode to the local newspaper, the Coalinga Record, by giving the Ode to his friend, Pamela Pond.
Pond was the editor of the Coalinga Record.So, maybe the newspaper isn't so innocent.
As to the matter of copyright, I see this case did not address it:Whether the publication of the Ode infringed on any federal copyright protection the Ode may have had (17 U.S.C.
ï½ 101 et seq.
) is not before this court and we express no opinion on that issue.I also do not see a copy of the letter.
Fair use might come into play if the purpose of publication was criticism.
IANAL, the above is just my take on what I've read.
To add to my opinion, now that the girl and her family are safely moved away from that community, I do hope she has republished her Ode.
The reaction of the townspeople to the rants of a high school girl are ample proof that Coalinga is not a desirable place to live.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516683</id>
	<title>I have mod points but</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1246301460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't find the option for "-1, Mean-Spirited and Douchebaggy"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't find the option for " -1 , Mean-Spirited and Douchebaggy "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't find the option for "-1, Mean-Spirited and Douchebaggy"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515211</id>
	<title>Unfortunate</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1246295940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is people being mean.  Most kids hate their small towns.  Most <i>people</i> hate their small towns (until they reach a certain age, at which point they consider anyone younger than them "newcomers" and feel the town was better without them).  To print a kid's rant in a newspaper is flat out spiteful, unprofessional, and certainly not very adult.</p><p>If a judge could rule in favor of the principal and newspaper being complete asses (which I firmly believe should be possible under the law, and if it's not, let's start a ballot proposition), he should do so, and have them publicly apologize in their own newspaper for being such.</p><p>What the hell with these people.  I'm not even that old, but I'm wise enough to know that 95\% of what a teenager says is emotion and not reason.  Shrug it off, ESPECIALLY if it offends you, as that was likely the intent.  They're teenagers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is people being mean .
Most kids hate their small towns .
Most people hate their small towns ( until they reach a certain age , at which point they consider anyone younger than them " newcomers " and feel the town was better without them ) .
To print a kid 's rant in a newspaper is flat out spiteful , unprofessional , and certainly not very adult.If a judge could rule in favor of the principal and newspaper being complete asses ( which I firmly believe should be possible under the law , and if it 's not , let 's start a ballot proposition ) , he should do so , and have them publicly apologize in their own newspaper for being such.What the hell with these people .
I 'm not even that old , but I 'm wise enough to know that 95 \ % of what a teenager says is emotion and not reason .
Shrug it off , ESPECIALLY if it offends you , as that was likely the intent .
They 're teenagers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is people being mean.
Most kids hate their small towns.
Most people hate their small towns (until they reach a certain age, at which point they consider anyone younger than them "newcomers" and feel the town was better without them).
To print a kid's rant in a newspaper is flat out spiteful, unprofessional, and certainly not very adult.If a judge could rule in favor of the principal and newspaper being complete asses (which I firmly believe should be possible under the law, and if it's not, let's start a ballot proposition), he should do so, and have them publicly apologize in their own newspaper for being such.What the hell with these people.
I'm not even that old, but I'm wise enough to know that 95\% of what a teenager says is emotion and not reason.
Shrug it off, ESPECIALLY if it offends you, as that was likely the intent.
They're teenagers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515839</id>
	<title>Re:Is simple</title>
	<author>saddino</author>
	<datestamp>1246298220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if (you == BALLMER)<br>throw CHAIR;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if ( you = = BALLMER ) throw CHAIR ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if (you == BALLMER)throw CHAIR;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516309</id>
	<title>The important thing you are missing</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1246300020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a school principal downloading a rant form a former student's MySpace page and arranging with a friend to "out" her in the town newspaper</p></div></blockquote><p>The paper's primary defense will be that the infringement was unintentional and caused by deceptive actions of a third party. They received what amounted to a work with forged permission to copy.</p><p>I think she would be better off going after the principal and the friend who helped him for copyright infringement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a school principal downloading a rant form a former student 's MySpace page and arranging with a friend to " out " her in the town newspaperThe paper 's primary defense will be that the infringement was unintentional and caused by deceptive actions of a third party .
They received what amounted to a work with forged permission to copy.I think she would be better off going after the principal and the friend who helped him for copyright infringement , intentional infliction of emotional distress , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a school principal downloading a rant form a former student's MySpace page and arranging with a friend to "out" her in the town newspaperThe paper's primary defense will be that the infringement was unintentional and caused by deceptive actions of a third party.
They received what amounted to a work with forged permission to copy.I think she would be better off going after the principal and the friend who helped him for copyright infringement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515465</id>
	<title>Re:What's wrong with this town?</title>
	<author>RomulusNR</author>
	<datestamp>1246296780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's every small town and suburb in America, that's what's wrong with it. Insular, conservative, hyper-proud, self-important, sluggish, anti-growth, closed-minded, conceited, and delusional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's every small town and suburb in America , that 's what 's wrong with it .
Insular , conservative , hyper-proud , self-important , sluggish , anti-growth , closed-minded , conceited , and delusional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's every small town and suburb in America, that's what's wrong with it.
Insular, conservative, hyper-proud, self-important, sluggish, anti-growth, closed-minded, conceited, and delusional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515451</id>
	<title>Who cares about copyright?</title>
	<author>Muros</author>
	<datestamp>1246296720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should this teacher not be sued for identity theft?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should this teacher not be sued for identity theft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should this teacher not be sued for identity theft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515939</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246298580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judge agrees there is possibly a case against the Principal:</p><p>"Based on these allegations," Levy wrote, "we conclude that reasonable people may differ on whether Campbell's actions were extreme and outrageous. Accordingly, it is for a jury to make this determination."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge agrees there is possibly a case against the Principal : " Based on these allegations , " Levy wrote , " we conclude that reasonable people may differ on whether Campbell 's actions were extreme and outrageous .
Accordingly , it is for a jury to make this determination .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge agrees there is possibly a case against the Principal:"Based on these allegations," Levy wrote, "we conclude that reasonable people may differ on whether Campbell's actions were extreme and outrageous.
Accordingly, it is for a jury to make this determination.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516989</id>
	<title>Re:How often do lawyers really say...</title>
	<author>Jafafa Hots</author>
	<datestamp>1246302600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"programmer saying "this program is bug free, because I'm a programmer." It just doesn't (or at least shouldn't) happen that often"</i></p><p>Well in this case I disagree - it doesn't but SHOULD happen more often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" programmer saying " this program is bug free , because I 'm a programmer .
" It just does n't ( or at least should n't ) happen that often " Well in this case I disagree - it does n't but SHOULD happen more often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"programmer saying "this program is bug free, because I'm a programmer.
" It just doesn't (or at least shouldn't) happen that often"Well in this case I disagree - it doesn't but SHOULD happen more often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515641</id>
	<title>Forget copyright:</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1246297560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A more scary aspect of this is the question of what a school principal is doing creeping through the MySpace accounts of his former students.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A more scary aspect of this is the question of what a school principal is doing creeping through the MySpace accounts of his former students .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A more scary aspect of this is the question of what a school principal is doing creeping through the MySpace accounts of his former students.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518311</id>
	<title>False Light Publicity</title>
	<author>Wowlapalooza</author>
	<datestamp>1246307880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but I think maybe the strongest claim here was "false light publicity", which is a well-established tort theory-of-recovery This is sometimes defined as "publicity that invades a person's privacy by a false statement or representation that places the person in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person." The "false representation" here is that Cynthia Moreno sent a Letter to the Editor, disparaging the whole community -- a very provocative and confrontational act -- which was intended to be seen not only by Internet users (which might very well be a minority of the inhabitants of Coalinga), but by anyone who receives the Coalinga Record, or is shown the Letter to the Editor by any means. In other words, while the content of the Ode is the same regardless, a falsehood is created -- that she deliberately and intentionally used it to provoke and outrage the inhabitants of Coalinga, even the non-Internet-using inhabitants. This was not her doing.</p><p>The Superior Court doesn't even consider this line of reasoning, since it declares "Having been published on myspace.com, the Ode was not private". Yet, one of the decisions it cites while coming to that conclusion involved a subtle distinction between "secret" and "private". In that decision (M. G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623), a Little League team photograph, taken on the baseball field, was included in a television broadcast looking into allegations of sexual abuse by Little League coaches. The team members in that photograph sued for invasion of privacy because it was not "public" knowledge that they were members of the team, until the photograph was broadcast. Because of the broadcast, they were viewed as victims, perpetrators, and/or collaborators in sexual abuse, which led to great mental anguish, etc., hence the lawsuit</p><p>Yet, how are the situations fundamentally different? Cynthia Moreno's "Ode" was on myspace.com for all of 6 days before she took it down (not before her former High School Principal found it, unfortunately for her and her family). While the Little League team in the other case wasn't <b>permanently</b> located on any particular baseball field, if someone had been shooting random photographs of baseball fields at  random places and times, they might have just as easily captured that "team photograph" and it would have been easy to deduce the members of the Little League team from the photographic evidence. Perhaps the judge(s) in this case simply don't understand what a vast wasteland myspace.com is, and how unlikely it is that anyone would find anything of particular interest there, unless they were specifically aiming to find it (as apparently this High School Principal was). Yet again, judges need to get more up to speed with Internet technology and community, in order to render proper decisions in cases that touch on the Internet, even if only indirectly.</p><p>I suppose one (relatively weak) argument could be made that posts to myspace.com are indexed automatically so that, for instance, the Ode might have shown up on a Google search for "Coalinga". But there is no discussion of that "indexing" angle in the court opinion, and no factual evidence, that I can see, that the High School Principal found Cynthia's "Ode" through any kind of index or search engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but I think maybe the strongest claim here was " false light publicity " , which is a well-established tort theory-of-recovery This is sometimes defined as " publicity that invades a person 's privacy by a false statement or representation that places the person in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person .
" The " false representation " here is that Cynthia Moreno sent a Letter to the Editor , disparaging the whole community -- a very provocative and confrontational act -- which was intended to be seen not only by Internet users ( which might very well be a minority of the inhabitants of Coalinga ) , but by anyone who receives the Coalinga Record , or is shown the Letter to the Editor by any means .
In other words , while the content of the Ode is the same regardless , a falsehood is created -- that she deliberately and intentionally used it to provoke and outrage the inhabitants of Coalinga , even the non-Internet-using inhabitants .
This was not her doing.The Superior Court does n't even consider this line of reasoning , since it declares " Having been published on myspace.com , the Ode was not private " .
Yet , one of the decisions it cites while coming to that conclusion involved a subtle distinction between " secret " and " private " .
In that decision ( M. G. v. Time Warner , Inc. ( 2001 ) 89 Cal.App.4th 623 ) , a Little League team photograph , taken on the baseball field , was included in a television broadcast looking into allegations of sexual abuse by Little League coaches .
The team members in that photograph sued for invasion of privacy because it was not " public " knowledge that they were members of the team , until the photograph was broadcast .
Because of the broadcast , they were viewed as victims , perpetrators , and/or collaborators in sexual abuse , which led to great mental anguish , etc. , hence the lawsuitYet , how are the situations fundamentally different ?
Cynthia Moreno 's " Ode " was on myspace.com for all of 6 days before she took it down ( not before her former High School Principal found it , unfortunately for her and her family ) .
While the Little League team in the other case was n't permanently located on any particular baseball field , if someone had been shooting random photographs of baseball fields at random places and times , they might have just as easily captured that " team photograph " and it would have been easy to deduce the members of the Little League team from the photographic evidence .
Perhaps the judge ( s ) in this case simply do n't understand what a vast wasteland myspace.com is , and how unlikely it is that anyone would find anything of particular interest there , unless they were specifically aiming to find it ( as apparently this High School Principal was ) .
Yet again , judges need to get more up to speed with Internet technology and community , in order to render proper decisions in cases that touch on the Internet , even if only indirectly.I suppose one ( relatively weak ) argument could be made that posts to myspace.com are indexed automatically so that , for instance , the Ode might have shown up on a Google search for " Coalinga " .
But there is no discussion of that " indexing " angle in the court opinion , and no factual evidence , that I can see , that the High School Principal found Cynthia 's " Ode " through any kind of index or search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but I think maybe the strongest claim here was "false light publicity", which is a well-established tort theory-of-recovery This is sometimes defined as "publicity that invades a person's privacy by a false statement or representation that places the person in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
" The "false representation" here is that Cynthia Moreno sent a Letter to the Editor, disparaging the whole community -- a very provocative and confrontational act -- which was intended to be seen not only by Internet users (which might very well be a minority of the inhabitants of Coalinga), but by anyone who receives the Coalinga Record, or is shown the Letter to the Editor by any means.
In other words, while the content of the Ode is the same regardless, a falsehood is created -- that she deliberately and intentionally used it to provoke and outrage the inhabitants of Coalinga, even the non-Internet-using inhabitants.
This was not her doing.The Superior Court doesn't even consider this line of reasoning, since it declares "Having been published on myspace.com, the Ode was not private".
Yet, one of the decisions it cites while coming to that conclusion involved a subtle distinction between "secret" and "private".
In that decision (M. G. v. Time Warner, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 623), a Little League team photograph, taken on the baseball field, was included in a television broadcast looking into allegations of sexual abuse by Little League coaches.
The team members in that photograph sued for invasion of privacy because it was not "public" knowledge that they were members of the team, until the photograph was broadcast.
Because of the broadcast, they were viewed as victims, perpetrators, and/or collaborators in sexual abuse, which led to great mental anguish, etc., hence the lawsuitYet, how are the situations fundamentally different?
Cynthia Moreno's "Ode" was on myspace.com for all of 6 days before she took it down (not before her former High School Principal found it, unfortunately for her and her family).
While the Little League team in the other case wasn't permanently located on any particular baseball field, if someone had been shooting random photographs of baseball fields at  random places and times, they might have just as easily captured that "team photograph" and it would have been easy to deduce the members of the Little League team from the photographic evidence.
Perhaps the judge(s) in this case simply don't understand what a vast wasteland myspace.com is, and how unlikely it is that anyone would find anything of particular interest there, unless they were specifically aiming to find it (as apparently this High School Principal was).
Yet again, judges need to get more up to speed with Internet technology and community, in order to render proper decisions in cases that touch on the Internet, even if only indirectly.I suppose one (relatively weak) argument could be made that posts to myspace.com are indexed automatically so that, for instance, the Ode might have shown up on a Google search for "Coalinga".
But there is no discussion of that "indexing" angle in the court opinion, and no factual evidence, that I can see, that the High School Principal found Cynthia's "Ode" through any kind of index or search engine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518157</id>
	<title>The Public Suffers</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246307160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      This girl's rant is identical to the problem with porn laws. It exposes a simple fact. If a case at law proceeds from this situation then the public must fork over the money that it takes to run the court, pay the jurors etc.. Each similar but not identical case will cause public expenses as it plays out in court. The total cost of these nonsense law suits can bury our nations economy. In other words the reason that copyright laws are bad may be many but the greatest is the cost to the tax payers of having such laws.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; How many billions have been squandered in our courts debating whether a porn movie went too far? How many millions has the RIAA cost the tax payer whining about supposed lost sales due to illegal copying. Are we now supposed to throw millions out the window debating fair use of utterances made in public whether on the net or in other mediums? It's time to stop this nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This girl 's rant is identical to the problem with porn laws .
It exposes a simple fact .
If a case at law proceeds from this situation then the public must fork over the money that it takes to run the court , pay the jurors etc.. Each similar but not identical case will cause public expenses as it plays out in court .
The total cost of these nonsense law suits can bury our nations economy .
In other words the reason that copyright laws are bad may be many but the greatest is the cost to the tax payers of having such laws .
            How many billions have been squandered in our courts debating whether a porn movie went too far ?
How many millions has the RIAA cost the tax payer whining about supposed lost sales due to illegal copying .
Are we now supposed to throw millions out the window debating fair use of utterances made in public whether on the net or in other mediums ?
It 's time to stop this nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      This girl's rant is identical to the problem with porn laws.
It exposes a simple fact.
If a case at law proceeds from this situation then the public must fork over the money that it takes to run the court, pay the jurors etc.. Each similar but not identical case will cause public expenses as it plays out in court.
The total cost of these nonsense law suits can bury our nations economy.
In other words the reason that copyright laws are bad may be many but the greatest is the cost to the tax payers of having such laws.
            How many billions have been squandered in our courts debating whether a porn movie went too far?
How many millions has the RIAA cost the tax payer whining about supposed lost sales due to illegal copying.
Are we now supposed to throw millions out the window debating fair use of utterances made in public whether on the net or in other mediums?
It's time to stop this nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515671</id>
	<title>Good article</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1246297680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really interesting and well explained. </p><p>The idea of using the cheap legal service is great. I never signed up at work, but I'm going to now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really interesting and well explained .
The idea of using the cheap legal service is great .
I never signed up at work , but I 'm going to now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really interesting and well explained.
The idea of using the cheap legal service is great.
I never signed up at work, but I'm going to now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28523875</id>
	<title>Asch Conformity Experiments</title>
	<author>pgn674</author>
	<datestamp>1246293360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, I wouldn't even trust the results if I asked 10 lawyers who were all in the same room; my general impression is that when I ask lawyers a question who are in the room together, they agree more frequently than if I ask them a similar question separately, perhaps consciously or subconsciously out of a desire to make it look as if the "expert consensus" is stronger than it really is.</p></div><p>This would be an example of the conformity experiments performed by the social psychologist Solomon Asch in the 1950's: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch\_conformity\_experiments" title="wikipedia.org">Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , I would n't even trust the results if I asked 10 lawyers who were all in the same room ; my general impression is that when I ask lawyers a question who are in the room together , they agree more frequently than if I ask them a similar question separately , perhaps consciously or subconsciously out of a desire to make it look as if the " expert consensus " is stronger than it really is.This would be an example of the conformity experiments performed by the social psychologist Solomon Asch in the 1950 's : Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, I wouldn't even trust the results if I asked 10 lawyers who were all in the same room; my general impression is that when I ask lawyers a question who are in the room together, they agree more frequently than if I ask them a similar question separately, perhaps consciously or subconsciously out of a desire to make it look as if the "expert consensus" is stronger than it really is.This would be an example of the conformity experiments performed by the social psychologist Solomon Asch in the 1950's: Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515047</id>
	<title>The newspaper did sell copies, yes?</title>
	<author>mr\_mischief</author>
	<datestamp>1246295100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She is therefore, in my mind, entitled to the revenues generated -- some or all -- from the unlawful distribution of her work. It can't be lawful distribution, because it was a reprint of something already copied without permission by the person who submitted it to the paper, who was not reporting news or making commentary.</p><p>IANAL, but it seems fairly clear to me that damages include not compensating her for printing her work in whole (in order to sell papers) without her permission. I'd say she's owed something on those grounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She is therefore , in my mind , entitled to the revenues generated -- some or all -- from the unlawful distribution of her work .
It ca n't be lawful distribution , because it was a reprint of something already copied without permission by the person who submitted it to the paper , who was not reporting news or making commentary.IANAL , but it seems fairly clear to me that damages include not compensating her for printing her work in whole ( in order to sell papers ) without her permission .
I 'd say she 's owed something on those grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She is therefore, in my mind, entitled to the revenues generated -- some or all -- from the unlawful distribution of her work.
It can't be lawful distribution, because it was a reprint of something already copied without permission by the person who submitted it to the paper, who was not reporting news or making commentary.IANAL, but it seems fairly clear to me that damages include not compensating her for printing her work in whole (in order to sell papers) without her permission.
I'd say she's owed something on those grounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517985</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1246306440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The editors don't do any verification of the identity of people sending in letters</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>Any time I've written a letter-to-the-editor, I always get a phone call from the paper to verify that I sent it before they do anything with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The editors do n't do any verification of the identity of people sending in letters   Any time I 've written a letter-to-the-editor , I always get a phone call from the paper to verify that I sent it before they do anything with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The editors don't do any verification of the identity of people sending in letters 
  Any time I've written a letter-to-the-editor, I always get a phone call from the paper to verify that I sent it before they do anything with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515963</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246298640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, here on slashdot, thepiratebay are HEROES and Jammie Thomas is INNOCENT</p><p>Make your fucking minds up. Is copyright 'the evil' or not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , here on slashdot , thepiratebay are HEROES and Jammie Thomas is INNOCENTMake your fucking minds up .
Is copyright 'the evil ' or not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, here on slashdot, thepiratebay are HEROES and Jammie Thomas is INNOCENTMake your fucking minds up.
Is copyright 'the evil' or not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514871</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Journalistic Ethics"  Does that exist anymore?  The Fourth Estate in this country has been on a collision course with irrelevance for 15 years now.  They care not a wit about ethics and right or wrong in their search for a controversy to sell papers/magazines/ad revenue.  It's a Hard Copy world even in hometown newspapers.  It's no wonder why they are all going out of business...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Journalistic Ethics " Does that exist anymore ?
The Fourth Estate in this country has been on a collision course with irrelevance for 15 years now .
They care not a wit about ethics and right or wrong in their search for a controversy to sell papers/magazines/ad revenue .
It 's a Hard Copy world even in hometown newspapers .
It 's no wonder why they are all going out of business.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Journalistic Ethics"  Does that exist anymore?
The Fourth Estate in this country has been on a collision course with irrelevance for 15 years now.
They care not a wit about ethics and right or wrong in their search for a controversy to sell papers/magazines/ad revenue.
It's a Hard Copy world even in hometown newspapers.
It's no wonder why they are all going out of business...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517361</id>
	<title>Boo Hoo</title>
	<author>strikeleader</author>
	<datestamp>1246303920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When will people learn. Don't put yourself out on the Interweb like that. I don't feel sorry for people when they put their feels on Myspace , Youtube, or any other "social networking" site and then get upset when bad things happen after they do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When will people learn .
Do n't put yourself out on the Interweb like that .
I do n't feel sorry for people when they put their feels on Myspace , Youtube , or any other " social networking " site and then get upset when bad things happen after they do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will people learn.
Don't put yourself out on the Interweb like that.
I don't feel sorry for people when they put their feels on Myspace , Youtube, or any other "social networking" site and then get upset when bad things happen after they do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747</id>
	<title>IANAL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246293660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But how can someone sue for a copyright violation when there was no copyright?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how can someone sue for a copyright violation when there was no copyright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how can someone sue for a copyright violation when there was no copyright?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516269</id>
	<title>public vs. private</title>
	<author>busmasterDMA</author>
	<datestamp>1246299900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Concerning the public vs. private disclosure of facts, would it have been considered private if it had been posted not on Myspace but on Facebook, with restricitions limiting the viewing audience to certain people?

Also it might be difficult to prove the claim that the business failed as a result of publishing her editorial.  Lots of businesses are failing these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Concerning the public vs. private disclosure of facts , would it have been considered private if it had been posted not on Myspace but on Facebook , with restricitions limiting the viewing audience to certain people ?
Also it might be difficult to prove the claim that the business failed as a result of publishing her editorial .
Lots of businesses are failing these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Concerning the public vs. private disclosure of facts, would it have been considered private if it had been posted not on Myspace but on Facebook, with restricitions limiting the viewing audience to certain people?
Also it might be difficult to prove the claim that the business failed as a result of publishing her editorial.
Lots of businesses are failing these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519039</id>
	<title>What's wrong with you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246267320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suppose a product you helped create were trashed by somebody. And suppose you thought that person's criticisms were really stupid and childish. Worst of all (from your point of view) your economic future depends in part on how well this product sells. So this person is taking money out of your pocket. Tell me you wouldn't react really strongly.</p><p>That's pretty much the situation faced by all the people who got bent out of shape. Presumably they have some economic tie to Coalinga: a house with a big mortgage, a business, a job, whatever. So anybody who says "Coalinga sucks" is taking money out of <i>their</i> pocket.</p><p>Which is not to justify the death threats, the boycotts, etc., etc.  But we're in no position to talk. On Slashdot, you can generate death threats just by pointing out simple mistakes, never mind a rant about how sucky somebody's favorite product is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose a product you helped create were trashed by somebody .
And suppose you thought that person 's criticisms were really stupid and childish .
Worst of all ( from your point of view ) your economic future depends in part on how well this product sells .
So this person is taking money out of your pocket .
Tell me you would n't react really strongly.That 's pretty much the situation faced by all the people who got bent out of shape .
Presumably they have some economic tie to Coalinga : a house with a big mortgage , a business , a job , whatever .
So anybody who says " Coalinga sucks " is taking money out of their pocket.Which is not to justify the death threats , the boycotts , etc. , etc .
But we 're in no position to talk .
On Slashdot , you can generate death threats just by pointing out simple mistakes , never mind a rant about how sucky somebody 's favorite product is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose a product you helped create were trashed by somebody.
And suppose you thought that person's criticisms were really stupid and childish.
Worst of all (from your point of view) your economic future depends in part on how well this product sells.
So this person is taking money out of your pocket.
Tell me you wouldn't react really strongly.That's pretty much the situation faced by all the people who got bent out of shape.
Presumably they have some economic tie to Coalinga: a house with a big mortgage, a business, a job, whatever.
So anybody who says "Coalinga sucks" is taking money out of their pocket.Which is not to justify the death threats, the boycotts, etc., etc.
But we're in no position to talk.
On Slashdot, you can generate death threats just by pointing out simple mistakes, never mind a rant about how sucky somebody's favorite product is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515317</id>
	<title>Re:You get what you deserve</title>
	<author>LuvlyOvipositor</author>
	<datestamp>1246296300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assume much?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assume much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assume much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</id>
	<title>Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1246293660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was unquestionably an EXTREME violation of journalistic ethics by the newspaper in question. At the very least, they should be publicly denounced by every other newspaper in the area and the staff involved should be booted out of any professional organizations they're affiliated with. I'm not sure if there is any journalistic equivalent of a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden\_Raspberry\_Award" title="wikipedia.org">Razzie</a> [wikipedia.org]," but if they're is, this should earn them one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was unquestionably an EXTREME violation of journalistic ethics by the newspaper in question .
At the very least , they should be publicly denounced by every other newspaper in the area and the staff involved should be booted out of any professional organizations they 're affiliated with .
I 'm not sure if there is any journalistic equivalent of a " Razzie [ wikipedia.org ] , " but if they 're is , this should earn them one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was unquestionably an EXTREME violation of journalistic ethics by the newspaper in question.
At the very least, they should be publicly denounced by every other newspaper in the area and the staff involved should be booted out of any professional organizations they're affiliated with.
I'm not sure if there is any journalistic equivalent of a "Razzie [wikipedia.org]," but if they're is, this should earn them one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516305</id>
	<title>where is the full text of 'Ode to Coalinga'?</title>
	<author>PJ6</author>
	<datestamp>1246300020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this talk about 'Ode to Coalinga' and I cannot find more than the first sentence anywhere... I would very much like to read the whole thing. Everyone reports that the content was inflammatory - well, show me, please, so I can decide that for myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this talk about 'Ode to Coalinga ' and I can not find more than the first sentence anywhere... I would very much like to read the whole thing .
Everyone reports that the content was inflammatory - well , show me , please , so I can decide that for myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this talk about 'Ode to Coalinga' and I cannot find more than the first sentence anywhere... I would very much like to read the whole thing.
Everyone reports that the content was inflammatory - well, show me, please, so I can decide that for myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515657</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246297620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the principal's email, if anyone wants to tell him what you think:<br> <br>Roger Campbell rcampbell@chusd.k12.ca.us<br> <br>Better yet, tell his boss:<br>http://www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/District\%20Information/Board\%20of\%20Trustees/Ramon\%20J.\%20Zubiri,\%20President/<br> <br>For good measure, here's the contact info for the paper's editor:<br> <br>Jackie Kaczmarek - Sentinel Managing Editor<br>(559)-583-2403 jkaczmarek@HanfordSentinel.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the principal 's email , if anyone wants to tell him what you think : Roger Campbell rcampbell @ chusd.k12.ca.us Better yet , tell his boss : http : //www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/District \ % 20Information/Board \ % 20of \ % 20Trustees/Ramon \ % 20J. \ % 20Zubiri , \ % 20President/ For good measure , here 's the contact info for the paper 's editor : Jackie Kaczmarek - Sentinel Managing Editor ( 559 ) -583-2403 jkaczmarek @ HanfordSentinel.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the principal's email, if anyone wants to tell him what you think: Roger Campbell rcampbell@chusd.k12.ca.us Better yet, tell his boss:http://www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/District\%20Information/Board\%20of\%20Trustees/Ramon\%20J.\%20Zubiri,\%20President/ For good measure, here's the contact info for the paper's editor: Jackie Kaczmarek - Sentinel Managing Editor(559)-583-2403 jkaczmarek@HanfordSentinel.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519703</id>
	<title>Re:Country Mouse</title>
	<author>armitage787</author>
	<datestamp>1246269540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im from coalinga, couple answer for you. . .
1. I dont believe shots were fired, i know local pd that didnt know anything about it (only a hand full of pd work in the city)
2. might have gotten threats, but i dont know who from and no one said anything about death threats until it go to court. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Fabricated???
3. Business was a trucking business, so all contract based not regular store front customers
4. only 1 other local trucking company and they do fine.
5. everyone knows everyone so it isnt hard to know that it was his daughter that wrote the blog.
6. yes it was deer season, but house is no where near hunting grounds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im from coalinga , couple answer for you .
. .
1. I dont believe shots were fired , i know local pd that didnt know anything about it ( only a hand full of pd work in the city ) 2. might have gotten threats , but i dont know who from and no one said anything about death threats until it go to court .
. .Fabricated ? ? ?
3. Business was a trucking business , so all contract based not regular store front customers 4. only 1 other local trucking company and they do fine .
5. everyone knows everyone so it isnt hard to know that it was his daughter that wrote the blog .
6. yes it was deer season , but house is no where near hunting grounds : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im from coalinga, couple answer for you.
. .
1. I dont believe shots were fired, i know local pd that didnt know anything about it (only a hand full of pd work in the city)
2. might have gotten threats, but i dont know who from and no one said anything about death threats until it go to court.
. .Fabricated???
3. Business was a trucking business, so all contract based not regular store front customers
4. only 1 other local trucking company and they do fine.
5. everyone knows everyone so it isnt hard to know that it was his daughter that wrote the blog.
6. yes it was deer season, but house is no where near hunting grounds :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005</id>
	<title>What's wrong with this town?</title>
	<author>residieu</author>
	<datestamp>1246294980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some kid writes a letter with the standard "this town sucks" theme, and people boycott her parent's business? What's wrong with these people? I bet half the teenagers and college-aged kids in that town agree that  Coalinga sucks. Just like all the kids in every other small town think their home town sucks. Give them a few years after they move out of town and they'll realize the city sucks too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some kid writes a letter with the standard " this town sucks " theme , and people boycott her parent 's business ?
What 's wrong with these people ?
I bet half the teenagers and college-aged kids in that town agree that Coalinga sucks .
Just like all the kids in every other small town think their home town sucks .
Give them a few years after they move out of town and they 'll realize the city sucks too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some kid writes a letter with the standard "this town sucks" theme, and people boycott her parent's business?
What's wrong with these people?
I bet half the teenagers and college-aged kids in that town agree that  Coalinga sucks.
Just like all the kids in every other small town think their home town sucks.
Give them a few years after they move out of town and they'll realize the city sucks too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516301</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamentally censorship</title>
	<author>Insanity Defense</author>
	<datestamp>1246299960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>
It is not intended to allow them to suppress material.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So what happens when a copyright owner does not publish their work and does not allow anyone else to do so?  Do they lose the copyright?  It amounts to suppressing it if they won't either distribute it or allow distribution by others.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not intended to allow them to suppress material .
So what happens when a copyright owner does not publish their work and does not allow anyone else to do so ?
Do they lose the copyright ?
It amounts to suppressing it if they wo n't either distribute it or allow distribution by others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It is not intended to allow them to suppress material.
So what happens when a copyright owner does not publish their work and does not allow anyone else to do so?
Do they lose the copyright?
It amounts to suppressing it if they won't either distribute it or allow distribution by others.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514933</id>
	<title>Legal Insurance</title>
	<author>kabloom</author>
	<datestamp>1246294500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you share more information about this cheapo legal insurance plan, or others like it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you share more information about this cheapo legal insurance plan , or others like it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you share more information about this cheapo legal insurance plan, or others like it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515015</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She does have a copyright to her own words.  From the editorial:<br>----<br>There was some inconsistency in the answers here, but the consensus seems to be: You own the copyright on something as soon as you create it, but you can't file a copyright lawsuit until after you've registered your work.<br>----</p><p>So the issue would not be that she doesn't have a copyright, but that she didn't register her copyright and that may limit the damages she can claim.</p><p>(Of course the whole point of this article is that everything is "may", "might" and "could be".)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She does have a copyright to her own words .
From the editorial : ----There was some inconsistency in the answers here , but the consensus seems to be : You own the copyright on something as soon as you create it , but you ca n't file a copyright lawsuit until after you 've registered your work.----So the issue would not be that she does n't have a copyright , but that she did n't register her copyright and that may limit the damages she can claim .
( Of course the whole point of this article is that everything is " may " , " might " and " could be " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She does have a copyright to her own words.
From the editorial:----There was some inconsistency in the answers here, but the consensus seems to be: You own the copyright on something as soon as you create it, but you can't file a copyright lawsuit until after you've registered your work.----So the issue would not be that she doesn't have a copyright, but that she didn't register her copyright and that may limit the damages she can claim.
(Of course the whole point of this article is that everything is "may", "might" and "could be".
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515097</id>
	<title>You get what you deserve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246295340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The resulting fallout included death threats against the family and the closure of the 20-year-old business owned by the girl's father.</p></div></blockquote><p>Bullshit.</p><p>Her fathers business might have closed for any number of reasons, but a MySpace posting or newspaper article copied from that posting wasn't the reason that it happened.</p><p>Sorry daddy's business failed, but it did not fail because of a news paper editorial article.</p><p>It probably failed because it wasn't run properly and this is a nice excuse to blame it on someone else and try to sue.</p><p>There is of course the possibility that what the girl said infuriated SO MANY PEOPLE that the business no longer had any customers.  If thats the case, again it wasn't the newspaper article that did it, it was the girls upbringing.  She obviously was too stupid to realize that posting on the Internet is not private.</p><p>The worst thing that happened here is that the newspaper reprinted something and lied about the intention of the article, but thats as far as it goes.  They didn't post anything that wasn't already public knowledge.</p><p>The newspaper didn't ruin daddy's business, mommy and daddy did when they raised a douche bag daughter.  Of course, this is to be expected as apparently none of them are willing to take responsibility and accept that their own actions directly resulted in the consequences they want to blame the newspaper for.</p><p>The newspaper should have properly attributed the work, or for their online version, link to it directly.  I understand the problem with printing a link to a website in a printed newspaper, so I can understand copying it for reference, it was after all a public document that anyone could see anyway.  IANAL but I believe this actually falls under fair use when done with proper attribution.</p><p>The judge in this case should throw any one involved in the court case in jail for wasting tax payer money and court time while this family tries to punish everyone else and not take responsibility for their own actions.  Forced labor, since otherwise we're just wasting more money holding them when they should be contributing back to the world.  Hrm, the more I think about it the more I think daddy's business was probably doomed from day one.  With no sense of responsibility its going to be pretty hard to have a successful business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The resulting fallout included death threats against the family and the closure of the 20-year-old business owned by the girl 's father.Bullshit.Her fathers business might have closed for any number of reasons , but a MySpace posting or newspaper article copied from that posting was n't the reason that it happened.Sorry daddy 's business failed , but it did not fail because of a news paper editorial article.It probably failed because it was n't run properly and this is a nice excuse to blame it on someone else and try to sue.There is of course the possibility that what the girl said infuriated SO MANY PEOPLE that the business no longer had any customers .
If thats the case , again it was n't the newspaper article that did it , it was the girls upbringing .
She obviously was too stupid to realize that posting on the Internet is not private.The worst thing that happened here is that the newspaper reprinted something and lied about the intention of the article , but thats as far as it goes .
They did n't post anything that was n't already public knowledge.The newspaper did n't ruin daddy 's business , mommy and daddy did when they raised a douche bag daughter .
Of course , this is to be expected as apparently none of them are willing to take responsibility and accept that their own actions directly resulted in the consequences they want to blame the newspaper for.The newspaper should have properly attributed the work , or for their online version , link to it directly .
I understand the problem with printing a link to a website in a printed newspaper , so I can understand copying it for reference , it was after all a public document that anyone could see anyway .
IANAL but I believe this actually falls under fair use when done with proper attribution.The judge in this case should throw any one involved in the court case in jail for wasting tax payer money and court time while this family tries to punish everyone else and not take responsibility for their own actions .
Forced labor , since otherwise we 're just wasting more money holding them when they should be contributing back to the world .
Hrm , the more I think about it the more I think daddy 's business was probably doomed from day one .
With no sense of responsibility its going to be pretty hard to have a successful business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The resulting fallout included death threats against the family and the closure of the 20-year-old business owned by the girl's father.Bullshit.Her fathers business might have closed for any number of reasons, but a MySpace posting or newspaper article copied from that posting wasn't the reason that it happened.Sorry daddy's business failed, but it did not fail because of a news paper editorial article.It probably failed because it wasn't run properly and this is a nice excuse to blame it on someone else and try to sue.There is of course the possibility that what the girl said infuriated SO MANY PEOPLE that the business no longer had any customers.
If thats the case, again it wasn't the newspaper article that did it, it was the girls upbringing.
She obviously was too stupid to realize that posting on the Internet is not private.The worst thing that happened here is that the newspaper reprinted something and lied about the intention of the article, but thats as far as it goes.
They didn't post anything that wasn't already public knowledge.The newspaper didn't ruin daddy's business, mommy and daddy did when they raised a douche bag daughter.
Of course, this is to be expected as apparently none of them are willing to take responsibility and accept that their own actions directly resulted in the consequences they want to blame the newspaper for.The newspaper should have properly attributed the work, or for their online version, link to it directly.
I understand the problem with printing a link to a website in a printed newspaper, so I can understand copying it for reference, it was after all a public document that anyone could see anyway.
IANAL but I believe this actually falls under fair use when done with proper attribution.The judge in this case should throw any one involved in the court case in jail for wasting tax payer money and court time while this family tries to punish everyone else and not take responsibility for their own actions.
Forced labor, since otherwise we're just wasting more money holding them when they should be contributing back to the world.
Hrm, the more I think about it the more I think daddy's business was probably doomed from day one.
With no sense of responsibility its going to be pretty hard to have a successful business.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521313</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1246276740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> There is no fair use law here so they couldn't use that excuse either</p></div><p>It's called "fair dealing" in the UK. It's not as extensive as "fair use" under US law, but it is there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no fair use law here so they could n't use that excuse eitherIt 's called " fair dealing " in the UK .
It 's not as extensive as " fair use " under US law , but it is there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There is no fair use law here so they couldn't use that excuse eitherIt's called "fair dealing" in the UK.
It's not as extensive as "fair use" under US law, but it is there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516273</id>
	<title>I found my photos foe sale once</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1246299900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At a friends gift shop, I found some of my photo's for sale. I had sold them a single use license (signed and paid for) for their tri-fold brochure.<p> What do you know, a few months later there are post cards with my photographs on them in their gift shop. Being close friends with the owner, I didn't mind to much (and there were selling them for a very low sum, it was not worth bringing up). And after the first run they choose not to sell any more postcards. Had it been someone I did not have a friendship with I would have raised the issue when I saw them and/or taken them to court and won my $3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At a friends gift shop , I found some of my photo 's for sale .
I had sold them a single use license ( signed and paid for ) for their tri-fold brochure .
What do you know , a few months later there are post cards with my photographs on them in their gift shop .
Being close friends with the owner , I did n't mind to much ( and there were selling them for a very low sum , it was not worth bringing up ) .
And after the first run they choose not to sell any more postcards .
Had it been someone I did not have a friendship with I would have raised the issue when I saw them and/or taken them to court and won my $ 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a friends gift shop, I found some of my photo's for sale.
I had sold them a single use license (signed and paid for) for their tri-fold brochure.
What do you know, a few months later there are post cards with my photographs on them in their gift shop.
Being close friends with the owner, I didn't mind to much (and there were selling them for a very low sum, it was not worth bringing up).
And after the first run they choose not to sell any more postcards.
Had it been someone I did not have a friendship with I would have raised the issue when I saw them and/or taken them to court and won my $3</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514853</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright is automatically granted upon creation of any work , in this case writing. Declaring copyright isn't even necessary anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is automatically granted upon creation of any work , in this case writing .
Declaring copyright is n't even necessary anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright is automatically granted upon creation of any work , in this case writing.
Declaring copyright isn't even necessary anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521509</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Bourbonium</author>
	<datestamp>1246277760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apologies for a double-post, but my earlier reply was to an Anonymous Coward, who probably will not see this messages.</p><p>Your statement is not true at all. A newspaper has an obligation to know who is contributing its content, even on the editorial page.  Every Letter to the Editor I have had published was preceded by a phone call from the newspaper confirming that I was the author. At least in the four or five local papers in my area (San Francisco), the editorial pages are quite clear that this is their policy. They do not publish anonymous letters or letters ghost-written by someone under a false name. They clearly indicate that you must include your full (real) name and a phone number where you can be reached for confirmation. If you send in an LTE and they don't call you, it probably means they don't intend to publish your letter; if they do call you, then you can be pretty sure they're going to publish the letter (but they sometimes apologize for editing it down to meet space limitations). A good letter will fall within their standard lengths (no more than 300-500 words) so if you can say what you want to say in that space, they are more likely to publish it. If your letter exceeds the standard length, but they feel they want to publish it in full, they may call you and ask if they can publish the letter as an editorial opinion column, rather than an LTE. I've been happy to oblige them, and even added more text to fill a column requirement (usually a paragraph I earlier edited out for length).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apologies for a double-post , but my earlier reply was to an Anonymous Coward , who probably will not see this messages.Your statement is not true at all .
A newspaper has an obligation to know who is contributing its content , even on the editorial page .
Every Letter to the Editor I have had published was preceded by a phone call from the newspaper confirming that I was the author .
At least in the four or five local papers in my area ( San Francisco ) , the editorial pages are quite clear that this is their policy .
They do not publish anonymous letters or letters ghost-written by someone under a false name .
They clearly indicate that you must include your full ( real ) name and a phone number where you can be reached for confirmation .
If you send in an LTE and they do n't call you , it probably means they do n't intend to publish your letter ; if they do call you , then you can be pretty sure they 're going to publish the letter ( but they sometimes apologize for editing it down to meet space limitations ) .
A good letter will fall within their standard lengths ( no more than 300-500 words ) so if you can say what you want to say in that space , they are more likely to publish it .
If your letter exceeds the standard length , but they feel they want to publish it in full , they may call you and ask if they can publish the letter as an editorial opinion column , rather than an LTE .
I 've been happy to oblige them , and even added more text to fill a column requirement ( usually a paragraph I earlier edited out for length ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apologies for a double-post, but my earlier reply was to an Anonymous Coward, who probably will not see this messages.Your statement is not true at all.
A newspaper has an obligation to know who is contributing its content, even on the editorial page.
Every Letter to the Editor I have had published was preceded by a phone call from the newspaper confirming that I was the author.
At least in the four or five local papers in my area (San Francisco), the editorial pages are quite clear that this is their policy.
They do not publish anonymous letters or letters ghost-written by someone under a false name.
They clearly indicate that you must include your full (real) name and a phone number where you can be reached for confirmation.
If you send in an LTE and they don't call you, it probably means they don't intend to publish your letter; if they do call you, then you can be pretty sure they're going to publish the letter (but they sometimes apologize for editing it down to meet space limitations).
A good letter will fall within their standard lengths (no more than 300-500 words) so if you can say what you want to say in that space, they are more likely to publish it.
If your letter exceeds the standard length, but they feel they want to publish it in full, they may call you and ask if they can publish the letter as an editorial opinion column, rather than an LTE.
I've been happy to oblige them, and even added more text to fill a column requirement (usually a paragraph I earlier edited out for length).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517423</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>leamanc</author>
	<datestamp>1246304160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading around about this, it seems the principal forwarded to it his friend, who happened to be an editor at the paper.  The editor took it upon herself to run the piece, without influence from the principal.  So the principal is not that guilty; he just forwarded on a piece of interest to a friend.  The editor was fired after the incident.</p><p>It sucks what happened to these folks, but I think all the justice that can be done, has already been done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading around about this , it seems the principal forwarded to it his friend , who happened to be an editor at the paper .
The editor took it upon herself to run the piece , without influence from the principal .
So the principal is not that guilty ; he just forwarded on a piece of interest to a friend .
The editor was fired after the incident.It sucks what happened to these folks , but I think all the justice that can be done , has already been done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading around about this, it seems the principal forwarded to it his friend, who happened to be an editor at the paper.
The editor took it upon herself to run the piece, without influence from the principal.
So the principal is not that guilty; he just forwarded on a piece of interest to a friend.
The editor was fired after the incident.It sucks what happened to these folks, but I think all the justice that can be done, has already been done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515513</id>
	<title>Re:You get what you deserve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246297020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obivously haven't been to Coalinga, CA before, have you?</p><p>Home to Pleasant Valley State Penetiary, surrounded by hills and farmland of the Central Valley.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obivously have n't been to Coalinga , CA before , have you ? Home to Pleasant Valley State Penetiary , surrounded by hills and farmland of the Central Valley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obivously haven't been to Coalinga, CA before, have you?Home to Pleasant Valley State Penetiary, surrounded by hills and farmland of the Central Valley.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516901</id>
	<title>What about Libel?</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1246302240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both the newspaper and the principal falsely represented the letter as being from her, what recourse does she have to sue for libel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both the newspaper and the principal falsely represented the letter as being from her , what recourse does she have to sue for libel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both the newspaper and the principal falsely represented the letter as being from her, what recourse does she have to sue for libel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515139</id>
	<title>Fundamentally censorship</title>
	<author>Pinckney</author>
	<datestamp>1246295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The intent is basically censorship. The author wishes the material had never come to light, and wishes to punish the individuals who brought it to light. The proposed lawsuit for damages is basically an abuse of copyright law. Copyright is a limited monopoly granted to allow the author to benefit from the distribution of their work. It is not intended to allow them to suppress material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intent is basically censorship .
The author wishes the material had never come to light , and wishes to punish the individuals who brought it to light .
The proposed lawsuit for damages is basically an abuse of copyright law .
Copyright is a limited monopoly granted to allow the author to benefit from the distribution of their work .
It is not intended to allow them to suppress material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intent is basically censorship.
The author wishes the material had never come to light, and wishes to punish the individuals who brought it to light.
The proposed lawsuit for damages is basically an abuse of copyright law.
Copyright is a limited monopoly granted to allow the author to benefit from the distribution of their work.
It is not intended to allow them to suppress material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521085</id>
	<title>Re:The newspaper did sell copies, yes?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246275600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>She is therefore, in my mind, entitled to the revenues generated -- some or all -- from the unlawful distribution of her work.</p></div><p>Which amounts to $80,000 per copy of the newspaper, right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>She is therefore , in my mind , entitled to the revenues generated -- some or all -- from the unlawful distribution of her work.Which amounts to $ 80,000 per copy of the newspaper , right ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She is therefore, in my mind, entitled to the revenues generated -- some or all -- from the unlawful distribution of her work.Which amounts to $80,000 per copy of the newspaper, right?
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518901</id>
	<title>Re:Is that so?</title>
	<author>Ares</author>
	<datestamp>1246266780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>newspapers and magazines register under the principle of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ62a.pdf" title="copyright.gov">group registration</a> [copyright.gov] and the fee for the group is 70 bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>newspapers and magazines register under the principle of group registration [ copyright.gov ] and the fee for the group is 70 bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>newspapers and magazines register under the principle of group registration [copyright.gov] and the fee for the group is 70 bucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518177</id>
	<title>I enjoyed reading this story</title>
	<author>pturley</author>
	<datestamp>1246307220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting how much legitimate detail there was here, and how many lessons to learn.  Thank you for the careful research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting how much legitimate detail there was here , and how many lessons to learn .
Thank you for the careful research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting how much legitimate detail there was here, and how many lessons to learn.
Thank you for the careful research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517533</id>
	<title>So she put it on myspace.  So what?</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1246304580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the judges/lawyers leaning towards "fair use" keep pointing out that the girl posted her diatribe on myspace, meaning it was more or less freely available to all.  I'm with them up to that point.<br>
<br>
What I don't get is how they can interpret that to mean any passing slob has the right to copy most or all of the work wholesale.  Just because it was "public"?  What does that even mean?<br>
<br>
If I write and publish a book, that book is now "in the public eye", is it not?   Anyone can presumably go buy it or even check it out of a library for free,  Does that give them the right to copy and distribute it themselves?   How is my claim to copyright on my hypothetical book any less legitimate than this girl's claim to copyright on whatever she wrote?<br>
<br>
To me, "fair use" would mean publishing a brief excerpt, enough to get some point across.  Copying the entire work, falsely claiming it was sent to you as a letter, and distributing it seems to go well beyond that.<br>
<br>
Am I missing something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm missing something , but it seems to me that the judges/lawyers leaning towards " fair use " keep pointing out that the girl posted her diatribe on myspace , meaning it was more or less freely available to all .
I 'm with them up to that point .
What I do n't get is how they can interpret that to mean any passing slob has the right to copy most or all of the work wholesale .
Just because it was " public " ?
What does that even mean ?
If I write and publish a book , that book is now " in the public eye " , is it not ?
Anyone can presumably go buy it or even check it out of a library for free , Does that give them the right to copy and distribute it themselves ?
How is my claim to copyright on my hypothetical book any less legitimate than this girl 's claim to copyright on whatever she wrote ?
To me , " fair use " would mean publishing a brief excerpt , enough to get some point across .
Copying the entire work , falsely claiming it was sent to you as a letter , and distributing it seems to go well beyond that .
Am I missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the judges/lawyers leaning towards "fair use" keep pointing out that the girl posted her diatribe on myspace, meaning it was more or less freely available to all.
I'm with them up to that point.
What I don't get is how they can interpret that to mean any passing slob has the right to copy most or all of the work wholesale.
Just because it was "public"?
What does that even mean?
If I write and publish a book, that book is now "in the public eye", is it not?
Anyone can presumably go buy it or even check it out of a library for free,  Does that give them the right to copy and distribute it themselves?
How is my claim to copyright on my hypothetical book any less legitimate than this girl's claim to copyright on whatever she wrote?
To me, "fair use" would mean publishing a brief excerpt, enough to get some point across.
Copying the entire work, falsely claiming it was sent to you as a letter, and distributing it seems to go well beyond that.
Am I missing something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514829</id>
	<title>The wrong issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have thought the real issue wouldn't be copyright violation, but more of misrepresentation?   The letter was represented as a letter to the editor from the girl, when it was not....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have thought the real issue would n't be copyright violation , but more of misrepresentation ?
The letter was represented as a letter to the editor from the girl , when it was not... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have thought the real issue wouldn't be copyright violation, but more of misrepresentation?
The letter was represented as a letter to the editor from the girl, when it was not....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28520101</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>armitage787</author>
	<datestamp>1246270920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lol, i grew up in coalinga, there arent any other newspapers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>lol , i grew up in coalinga , there arent any other newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol, i grew up in coalinga, there arent any other newspapers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515375</id>
	<title>Roger Campbell</title>
	<author>ProteusQ</author>
	<datestamp>1246296480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would very much like to pay for a serious background check on this guy -- using public records, of course -- and see how he appreciates that info being posted on the net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would very much like to pay for a serious background check on this guy -- using public records , of course -- and see how he appreciates that info being posted on the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would very much like to pay for a serious background check on this guy -- using public records, of course -- and see how he appreciates that info being posted on the net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514961</id>
	<title>Slashdot Trolling New Lows  +1, True</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Myspace news.  What's next, a discussion about the<br>the future of Michael Jackson's estate?</p><p>The comments on ALL of your stories is hitting new lows.</p><p>Good luck in Chapter 7.</p><p>Yours In Communism,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Myspace news .
What 's next , a discussion about thethe future of Michael Jackson 's estate ? The comments on ALL of your stories is hitting new lows.Good luck in Chapter 7.Yours In Communism,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Myspace news.
What's next, a discussion about thethe future of Michael Jackson's estate?The comments on ALL of your stories is hitting new lows.Good luck in Chapter 7.Yours In Communism,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515043</id>
	<title>Easy Answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246295100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an easy answer to this question:</p><p>If she's trying to retain you as an Attorney, then certainly she should be able to sue them.</p><p>If the newspaper's trying to retain you as an Attorney, then obviously she's way out of line and not covered by copyright on her material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an easy answer to this question : If she 's trying to retain you as an Attorney , then certainly she should be able to sue them.If the newspaper 's trying to retain you as an Attorney , then obviously she 's way out of line and not covered by copyright on her material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an easy answer to this question:If she's trying to retain you as an Attorney, then certainly she should be able to sue them.If the newspaper's trying to retain you as an Attorney, then obviously she's way out of line and not covered by copyright on her material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519763</id>
	<title>Re:So much for the Principal's MIssion Statement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judging from his photograph published at http://www.coalinga-huron.org/chs/administratorsa-z.html it would appear that he spends his time checking out myspace entries of girls some 30 years his junior who are neither family members nor with whom he has any kind of professional relationship - she was an EX - student.<br>If my wife caught me doing that I would be in BIG trouble.</p><p>How appropriate that the motif of Coalinga High School ( http://www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/Our\%20Schools/Coalinga\%20High\%20School/ ) is a toad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging from his photograph published at http : //www.coalinga-huron.org/chs/administratorsa-z.html it would appear that he spends his time checking out myspace entries of girls some 30 years his junior who are neither family members nor with whom he has any kind of professional relationship - she was an EX - student.If my wife caught me doing that I would be in BIG trouble.How appropriate that the motif of Coalinga High School ( http : //www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/Our \ % 20Schools/Coalinga \ % 20High \ % 20School/ ) is a toad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging from his photograph published at http://www.coalinga-huron.org/chs/administratorsa-z.html it would appear that he spends his time checking out myspace entries of girls some 30 years his junior who are neither family members nor with whom he has any kind of professional relationship - she was an EX - student.If my wife caught me doing that I would be in BIG trouble.How appropriate that the motif of Coalinga High School ( http://www.chusd.k12.ca.us/chusd/Our\%20Schools/Coalinga\%20High\%20School/ ) is a toad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521973</id>
	<title>From the school district website "mission statemen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246280100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We seek to create a safe and supportive environment, which instills in all students a sense of self-worth and integrity."</p><p>Think they succeeded?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We seek to create a safe and supportive environment , which instills in all students a sense of self-worth and integrity .
" Think they succeeded ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We seek to create a safe and supportive environment, which instills in all students a sense of self-worth and integrity.
"Think they succeeded?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516719</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>bsane</author>
	<datestamp>1246301580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't gone searching for the girls original essay, but one thing stands out- the town she blasted as being despicable pretty much proved her right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't gone searching for the girls original essay , but one thing stands out- the town she blasted as being despicable pretty much proved her right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't gone searching for the girls original essay, but one thing stands out- the town she blasted as being despicable pretty much proved her right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515973</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1246298700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not presented in the summary, but still relevant, is the fact that the editor in question knew both that the letter was not submitted by it's author (because the editor and the principal were pals) and knew that the actual author did not want the letter printed (because the girl contacted the editor once she learned it had been passed along and requested they not print it).</p><p>As such, regardless of whether I agree or not with your statements, they are moot. This was a deliberate act by the editor and not a simple mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not presented in the summary , but still relevant , is the fact that the editor in question knew both that the letter was not submitted by it 's author ( because the editor and the principal were pals ) and knew that the actual author did not want the letter printed ( because the girl contacted the editor once she learned it had been passed along and requested they not print it ) .As such , regardless of whether I agree or not with your statements , they are moot .
This was a deliberate act by the editor and not a simple mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not presented in the summary, but still relevant, is the fact that the editor in question knew both that the letter was not submitted by it's author (because the editor and the principal were pals) and knew that the actual author did not want the letter printed (because the girl contacted the editor once she learned it had been passed along and requested they not print it).As such, regardless of whether I agree or not with your statements, they are moot.
This was a deliberate act by the editor and not a simple mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516231</id>
	<title>Libel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246299780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like she should have a case for libel.</p><p>She wrote the MySpace rant, yes, but by printing it on their letters page, the paper represented, in writing, that she submitted it to them as a letter to the editor, which is false.</p><p>And there's a case that the libel caused real damage. Some (much? all? what say you, members of the jury?) of the townspeoples' ire may stem not from the rant itself, but from seeing it published as a letter to the local paper. That's a much more in-your-face thing to do than publishing it on MySpace.</p><p>Bonus points if the paper added the boiler plate</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Dear Sirs:<br>and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Sincerely, Jane Doe</p><p>tags to the rant when they printed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like she should have a case for libel.She wrote the MySpace rant , yes , but by printing it on their letters page , the paper represented , in writing , that she submitted it to them as a letter to the editor , which is false.And there 's a case that the libel caused real damage .
Some ( much ?
all ? what say you , members of the jury ?
) of the townspeoples ' ire may stem not from the rant itself , but from seeing it published as a letter to the local paper .
That 's a much more in-your-face thing to do than publishing it on MySpace.Bonus points if the paper added the boiler plate         Dear Sirs : and         Sincerely , Jane Doetags to the rant when they printed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like she should have a case for libel.She wrote the MySpace rant, yes, but by printing it on their letters page, the paper represented, in writing, that she submitted it to them as a letter to the editor, which is false.And there's a case that the libel caused real damage.
Some (much?
all? what say you, members of the jury?
) of the townspeoples' ire may stem not from the rant itself, but from seeing it published as a letter to the local paper.
That's a much more in-your-face thing to do than publishing it on MySpace.Bonus points if the paper added the boiler plate
        Dear Sirs:and
        Sincerely, Jane Doetags to the rant when they printed it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28549781</id>
	<title>Re:Everything is protected...</title>
	<author>LandruBek</author>
	<datestamp>1246443060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is always a copyright.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, not for public domain works, such as anything deliberately placed into Public Domain, or anything old enough.</p><p>The problem is, the Berne Convention has conditioned everyone to <i>believe</i> that there is always a copyright.  (sigh)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is always a copyright.No , not for public domain works , such as anything deliberately placed into Public Domain , or anything old enough.The problem is , the Berne Convention has conditioned everyone to believe that there is always a copyright .
( sigh )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is always a copyright.No, not for public domain works, such as anything deliberately placed into Public Domain, or anything old enough.The problem is, the Berne Convention has conditioned everyone to believe that there is always a copyright.
(sigh)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28589041</id>
	<title>Libel?</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1246792320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhm, isn't this libel?  The newspaper claimed that the post was a letter to the editor, which it was not.  I don't think copyright is the best venue to use to recover damages; because libel laws are meant for these situations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , is n't this libel ?
The newspaper claimed that the post was a letter to the editor , which it was not .
I do n't think copyright is the best venue to use to recover damages ; because libel laws are meant for these situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, isn't this libel?
The newspaper claimed that the post was a letter to the editor, which it was not.
I don't think copyright is the best venue to use to recover damages; because libel laws are meant for these situations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521319</id>
	<title>Re:What's wrong with this town?</title>
	<author>mathx314</author>
	<datestamp>1246276800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well.  At least we're not jumping to conclusions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well .
At least we 're not jumping to conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well.
At least we're not jumping to conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515643</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL</title>
	<author>1u3hr</author>
	<datestamp>1246297560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In the UK... There is no fair use law here</i> <p>


Bollocks. It may not be called "fair use" but it exists.</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01\_uk\_copyright\_law" title="copyrightservice.co.uk">Fact sheet P-01: UK Copyright Law</a> [copyrightservice.co.uk] <br>
<b>8 Acts that are allowed</b> <br>
Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:
</p><ul>
<li> Private and research study purposes.</li>
<li> Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.</li>
<li> Criticism and news reporting.</li>
<li> Incidental inclusion.</li>
<li> Copies and lending by librarians.</li>
<li> Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.</li>
<li> Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting".</li>
<li> Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.</li>
<li> Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.</li>
</ul></div>

</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK... There is no fair use law here Bollocks .
It may not be called " fair use " but it exists .
Fact sheet P-01 : UK Copyright Law [ copyrightservice.co.uk ] 8 Acts that are allowed Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work , these acts are : Private and research study purposes .
Performance , copies or lending for educational purposes .
Criticism and news reporting .
Incidental inclusion .
Copies and lending by librarians .
Acts for the purposes of royal commissions , statutory enquiries , judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes .
Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time , this is known as time shifting " .
Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program .
Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation , club or society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK... There is no fair use law here 


Bollocks.
It may not be called "fair use" but it exists.
Fact sheet P-01: UK Copyright Law [copyrightservice.co.uk] 
8 Acts that are allowed 
Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

 Private and research study purposes.
Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
Criticism and news reporting.
Incidental inclusion.
Copies and lending by librarians.
Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting".
Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.



	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521833</id>
	<title>Widespread transfer of information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246279380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess they want to know how we would handle situation like this. We're known to be against the restrictions copyright places, and this seems like a perfect test case -- whether copyright should be applied to the situation or whether it should be handled some other way. File sharing and P2P seems to be closely related to the same problem -- both situations someone publishes information he was not supposed to publish. So clear test case to find out how we'd react in this situation.</p><p>Ideally we'd want information to be free. Free flowing information available to all. Technology currently allows widespread transfer of information. We're no longer restricted by the transfer of information and the lost information, but instead there is too much of it available. While most of the information (and it's transfer) is useful and good, some of it can be bad, like in the case of loss of reputation when your opinions are distibuted wider than what you thought while creating and publishing those opinions. Copyright places control to the author of the work. Copyright owner can decide who is allowed to receive the information created. After a while, the information falls into public domain.</p><p>How do we handle harmful information and widespread transfer of it? Answer is: we cannot currently handle it. Information transfer in the internet is so easy and so many people are doing it, that it is impossible to control it. Even when the transfer of information is harmful. If information transfer ever gets really harmful, we have no way to stop it, without disabling the whole internet by researching on weak points of the net.</p><p>RIAA/MPAA etc are the first test case for handling harmful information transfer in the internet. Many more will follow. They designed internet to withstand nuclear war. So they distributed all the elements necessary to keep internet running to individual people. Individuals can choose to not use the internet. But if the harm comes from someone else distributing information, and possibly acting on the information, there is no way to stop it.</p><p>They can find out who are responsible for distributing the harmful information. This works. But all you end up is shooting wrong people. You shouldn't blame people who are just using the net. Different people will have different ways of using the net. The real problem is in the architecture of the internet -- you cannot control flow of information in it. Information will flow in it recardless of the consiquences.</p><p>RIAA cases show another important aspect of the internet. Only information that is widely available otherwise will have problems with the internet. Finding information on the net is very difficult. It is unlikely that many people will read the same blogs and same sites. But the example of movies and sound recordings, they are made available to millions of people through big companies that distribute them. Controlling those kinds of information is absolutely impossible. Once millions of people have access to the same information, someone will put it to internet. There is no way to prevent that from happening. Any attempt to prevent that is bound to fail. They can shoot whoever distributes the information, but that does not change the fact that internet has the same information available. And there will be more people who will put the information to the internet. Once millions of people have access to both internet and the information, it will be available on internet -- recardless of consiquences. Only two conditions are necessary for information to end up in the internet: it's availability to millions of people, and that those people have access to internet.</p><p>If the information happens to be interesting, widely available to millions of people outside internet, then it'll find it's way to the internet \_and\_ millions of people access it through the internet. There will be widespread distribution of the information. There is no way to prevent this. Even if it has harmful consiquences. Even if it cost the companies millions of dollars. Any attempt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess they want to know how we would handle situation like this .
We 're known to be against the restrictions copyright places , and this seems like a perfect test case -- whether copyright should be applied to the situation or whether it should be handled some other way .
File sharing and P2P seems to be closely related to the same problem -- both situations someone publishes information he was not supposed to publish .
So clear test case to find out how we 'd react in this situation.Ideally we 'd want information to be free .
Free flowing information available to all .
Technology currently allows widespread transfer of information .
We 're no longer restricted by the transfer of information and the lost information , but instead there is too much of it available .
While most of the information ( and it 's transfer ) is useful and good , some of it can be bad , like in the case of loss of reputation when your opinions are distibuted wider than what you thought while creating and publishing those opinions .
Copyright places control to the author of the work .
Copyright owner can decide who is allowed to receive the information created .
After a while , the information falls into public domain.How do we handle harmful information and widespread transfer of it ?
Answer is : we can not currently handle it .
Information transfer in the internet is so easy and so many people are doing it , that it is impossible to control it .
Even when the transfer of information is harmful .
If information transfer ever gets really harmful , we have no way to stop it , without disabling the whole internet by researching on weak points of the net.RIAA/MPAA etc are the first test case for handling harmful information transfer in the internet .
Many more will follow .
They designed internet to withstand nuclear war .
So they distributed all the elements necessary to keep internet running to individual people .
Individuals can choose to not use the internet .
But if the harm comes from someone else distributing information , and possibly acting on the information , there is no way to stop it.They can find out who are responsible for distributing the harmful information .
This works .
But all you end up is shooting wrong people .
You should n't blame people who are just using the net .
Different people will have different ways of using the net .
The real problem is in the architecture of the internet -- you can not control flow of information in it .
Information will flow in it recardless of the consiquences.RIAA cases show another important aspect of the internet .
Only information that is widely available otherwise will have problems with the internet .
Finding information on the net is very difficult .
It is unlikely that many people will read the same blogs and same sites .
But the example of movies and sound recordings , they are made available to millions of people through big companies that distribute them .
Controlling those kinds of information is absolutely impossible .
Once millions of people have access to the same information , someone will put it to internet .
There is no way to prevent that from happening .
Any attempt to prevent that is bound to fail .
They can shoot whoever distributes the information , but that does not change the fact that internet has the same information available .
And there will be more people who will put the information to the internet .
Once millions of people have access to both internet and the information , it will be available on internet -- recardless of consiquences .
Only two conditions are necessary for information to end up in the internet : it 's availability to millions of people , and that those people have access to internet.If the information happens to be interesting , widely available to millions of people outside internet , then it 'll find it 's way to the internet \ _and \ _ millions of people access it through the internet .
There will be widespread distribution of the information .
There is no way to prevent this .
Even if it has harmful consiquences .
Even if it cost the companies millions of dollars .
Any attempt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess they want to know how we would handle situation like this.
We're known to be against the restrictions copyright places, and this seems like a perfect test case -- whether copyright should be applied to the situation or whether it should be handled some other way.
File sharing and P2P seems to be closely related to the same problem -- both situations someone publishes information he was not supposed to publish.
So clear test case to find out how we'd react in this situation.Ideally we'd want information to be free.
Free flowing information available to all.
Technology currently allows widespread transfer of information.
We're no longer restricted by the transfer of information and the lost information, but instead there is too much of it available.
While most of the information (and it's transfer) is useful and good, some of it can be bad, like in the case of loss of reputation when your opinions are distibuted wider than what you thought while creating and publishing those opinions.
Copyright places control to the author of the work.
Copyright owner can decide who is allowed to receive the information created.
After a while, the information falls into public domain.How do we handle harmful information and widespread transfer of it?
Answer is: we cannot currently handle it.
Information transfer in the internet is so easy and so many people are doing it, that it is impossible to control it.
Even when the transfer of information is harmful.
If information transfer ever gets really harmful, we have no way to stop it, without disabling the whole internet by researching on weak points of the net.RIAA/MPAA etc are the first test case for handling harmful information transfer in the internet.
Many more will follow.
They designed internet to withstand nuclear war.
So they distributed all the elements necessary to keep internet running to individual people.
Individuals can choose to not use the internet.
But if the harm comes from someone else distributing information, and possibly acting on the information, there is no way to stop it.They can find out who are responsible for distributing the harmful information.
This works.
But all you end up is shooting wrong people.
You shouldn't blame people who are just using the net.
Different people will have different ways of using the net.
The real problem is in the architecture of the internet -- you cannot control flow of information in it.
Information will flow in it recardless of the consiquences.RIAA cases show another important aspect of the internet.
Only information that is widely available otherwise will have problems with the internet.
Finding information on the net is very difficult.
It is unlikely that many people will read the same blogs and same sites.
But the example of movies and sound recordings, they are made available to millions of people through big companies that distribute them.
Controlling those kinds of information is absolutely impossible.
Once millions of people have access to the same information, someone will put it to internet.
There is no way to prevent that from happening.
Any attempt to prevent that is bound to fail.
They can shoot whoever distributes the information, but that does not change the fact that internet has the same information available.
And there will be more people who will put the information to the internet.
Once millions of people have access to both internet and the information, it will be available on internet -- recardless of consiquences.
Only two conditions are necessary for information to end up in the internet: it's availability to millions of people, and that those people have access to internet.If the information happens to be interesting, widely available to millions of people outside internet, then it'll find it's way to the internet \_and\_ millions of people access it through the internet.
There will be widespread distribution of the information.
There is no way to prevent this.
Even if it has harmful consiquences.
Even if it cost the companies millions of dollars.
Any attempt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518475</id>
	<title>Copyright's Purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246308540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If she were to try to recover money for the personal losses and to her father's business by suing under copyright, wouldn't she be making the sort of excessive claims that most of us dislike?  Can you imagine copyright claims and suits if 'emotional distress' was added to the dollar figure at the bottom line?<br>The motivations in this case just don't seem to make copyright law the correct answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If she were to try to recover money for the personal losses and to her father 's business by suing under copyright , would n't she be making the sort of excessive claims that most of us dislike ?
Can you imagine copyright claims and suits if 'emotional distress ' was added to the dollar figure at the bottom line ? The motivations in this case just do n't seem to make copyright law the correct answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she were to try to recover money for the personal losses and to her father's business by suing under copyright, wouldn't she be making the sort of excessive claims that most of us dislike?
Can you imagine copyright claims and suits if 'emotional distress' was added to the dollar figure at the bottom line?The motivations in this case just don't seem to make copyright law the correct answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515667</id>
	<title>Damages?  We don't need no stinkin' damages!</title>
	<author>TaleSpinner</author>
	<datestamp>1246297680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, "infringement without financial gain", people.  That's a half million dollars.  And, I am assured, over and over and friggin' over again in an unskippable notice at the beginning of every fracking dvd ever burned, this infringement is "investigated by the FBI".  The law isn't just for Sony and Disney.  Let it work for the little guys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , " infringement without financial gain " , people .
That 's a half million dollars .
And , I am assured , over and over and friggin ' over again in an unskippable notice at the beginning of every fracking dvd ever burned , this infringement is " investigated by the FBI " .
The law is n't just for Sony and Disney .
Let it work for the little guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, "infringement without financial gain", people.
That's a half million dollars.
And, I am assured, over and over and friggin' over again in an unskippable notice at the beginning of every fracking dvd ever burned, this infringement is "investigated by the FBI".
The law isn't just for Sony and Disney.
Let it work for the little guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515241</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>DarrenBaker</author>
	<datestamp>1246296060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the best damned idea I've heard in a very, very long time. A local station's evening 'news' broadcast in my area (<a href="http://www.atv.ca/home/default.aspx" title="www.atv.ca">A-Channel News Barrie</a> [www.atv.ca]) is one of the worst offenders - just abhorrent. I don't catch it very often, but when I do, I find something more to loathe about it, usually it involves a reporter hired more for their aesthetic appeal than their journalistic aptitude.</p><p>Last week, there was a police shooting of a man who was allegedly threatening the officers. The reporter said (I'm paraphrasing, but it was close), "Police have not yet released the name of the deceased. Neighbours say his name is... " and then revealed the man's name. I hope no uninformed relatives were watching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the best damned idea I 've heard in a very , very long time .
A local station 's evening 'news ' broadcast in my area ( A-Channel News Barrie [ www.atv.ca ] ) is one of the worst offenders - just abhorrent .
I do n't catch it very often , but when I do , I find something more to loathe about it , usually it involves a reporter hired more for their aesthetic appeal than their journalistic aptitude.Last week , there was a police shooting of a man who was allegedly threatening the officers .
The reporter said ( I 'm paraphrasing , but it was close ) , " Police have not yet released the name of the deceased .
Neighbours say his name is... " and then revealed the man 's name .
I hope no uninformed relatives were watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the best damned idea I've heard in a very, very long time.
A local station's evening 'news' broadcast in my area (A-Channel News Barrie [www.atv.ca]) is one of the worst offenders - just abhorrent.
I don't catch it very often, but when I do, I find something more to loathe about it, usually it involves a reporter hired more for their aesthetic appeal than their journalistic aptitude.Last week, there was a police shooting of a man who was allegedly threatening the officers.
The reporter said (I'm paraphrasing, but it was close), "Police have not yet released the name of the deceased.
Neighbours say his name is... " and then revealed the man's name.
I hope no uninformed relatives were watching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515529</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>j1mmy</author>
	<datestamp>1246297020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The editorial page is a free-for-all -- journalistic ethics don't apply. The editors don't do any verification of the identity of people sending in letters because 99.9999\% of people send in their own letters. The newspaper did nothing wrong here. The malicious action rests entirely with the principal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The editorial page is a free-for-all -- journalistic ethics do n't apply .
The editors do n't do any verification of the identity of people sending in letters because 99.9999 \ % of people send in their own letters .
The newspaper did nothing wrong here .
The malicious action rests entirely with the principal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The editorial page is a free-for-all -- journalistic ethics don't apply.
The editors don't do any verification of the identity of people sending in letters because 99.9999\% of people send in their own letters.
The newspaper did nothing wrong here.
The malicious action rests entirely with the principal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515869</id>
	<title>A local paper does something similar</title>
	<author>pjp6259</author>
	<datestamp>1246298340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Colorado Daily publishes (on their front page, everyday) facebook status updates of people who have 'friended' this paper on facebook.  I recently talked to someone who had their status update published on the front page, and she had no idea this could even happen.  I wonder if they could be sued in this case, or does the fact that you have to 'friend' them give them an implicit right to republish your status?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Colorado Daily publishes ( on their front page , everyday ) facebook status updates of people who have 'friended ' this paper on facebook .
I recently talked to someone who had their status update published on the front page , and she had no idea this could even happen .
I wonder if they could be sued in this case , or does the fact that you have to 'friend ' them give them an implicit right to republish your status ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Colorado Daily publishes (on their front page, everyday) facebook status updates of people who have 'friended' this paper on facebook.
I recently talked to someone who had their status update published on the front page, and she had no idea this could even happen.
I wonder if they could be sued in this case, or does the fact that you have to 'friend' them give them an implicit right to republish your status?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516047</id>
	<title>The lesson here is ...</title>
	<author>joebagodonuts</author>
	<datestamp>1246298880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Principal and principle are not synonymous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Principal and principle are not synonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Principal and principle are not synonymous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515607</id>
	<title>Myspace</title>
	<author>kuzakdo</author>
	<datestamp>1246297380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without reading the ToS, I assume that MySpace owns the Copyright on anything published on their site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without reading the ToS , I assume that MySpace owns the Copyright on anything published on their site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without reading the ToS, I assume that MySpace owns the Copyright on anything published on their site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515025</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL</title>
	<author>JamesBarger</author>
	<datestamp>1246295040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It appears the consensus is that the girl's original work was protected by copyright. As explained above, one can still win a claim of copyright violation without registering the work prior to the violation. The act of registration is not required in order to establish or create the copyright. Rather, the copyright inheres in the work when it is created. (Of course, it's worth remembering that while this reporter is writing mainly about copyright violations, there may be other causes of action that would make for a stronger case, if the girl chooses to pursue them.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears the consensus is that the girl 's original work was protected by copyright .
As explained above , one can still win a claim of copyright violation without registering the work prior to the violation .
The act of registration is not required in order to establish or create the copyright .
Rather , the copyright inheres in the work when it is created .
( Of course , it 's worth remembering that while this reporter is writing mainly about copyright violations , there may be other causes of action that would make for a stronger case , if the girl chooses to pursue them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears the consensus is that the girl's original work was protected by copyright.
As explained above, one can still win a claim of copyright violation without registering the work prior to the violation.
The act of registration is not required in order to establish or create the copyright.
Rather, the copyright inheres in the work when it is created.
(Of course, it's worth remembering that while this reporter is writing mainly about copyright violations, there may be other causes of action that would make for a stronger case, if the girl chooses to pursue them.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519733</id>
	<title>Sue the Principal himself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suing the newspaper for copyright may be difficult.  Therefore, I suggest that she sued the principal personally for copyright violation.  He copied her work for no defendable purpose.  He has no defense.  While she won't be able to get her father's business back, she may be able to get that principal fired.  A convicted copyright violator?  I wouldn't hire him, nor would I vote for a school board member who did.  It'd be nice to see her get a $1 check from him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suing the newspaper for copyright may be difficult .
Therefore , I suggest that she sued the principal personally for copyright violation .
He copied her work for no defendable purpose .
He has no defense .
While she wo n't be able to get her father 's business back , she may be able to get that principal fired .
A convicted copyright violator ?
I would n't hire him , nor would I vote for a school board member who did .
It 'd be nice to see her get a $ 1 check from him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suing the newspaper for copyright may be difficult.
Therefore, I suggest that she sued the principal personally for copyright violation.
He copied her work for no defendable purpose.
He has no defense.
While she won't be able to get her father's business back, she may be able to get that principal fired.
A convicted copyright violator?
I wouldn't hire him, nor would I vote for a school board member who did.
It'd be nice to see her get a $1 check from him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515011</id>
	<title>Identity theft?</title>
	<author>MiniMike</author>
	<datestamp>1246294980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe she would have some luck trying to tack on a charge of identity theft, for the principal submitting the 'editorial' using her name?  It seems increasingly easy to throw that type of charge at someone these days.
Or maybe some type of fraud?  If the statute of limitations hasn't run out.  Of course, IANAL.  I hope at the least the school board reviewed the actions of the principal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe she would have some luck trying to tack on a charge of identity theft , for the principal submitting the 'editorial ' using her name ?
It seems increasingly easy to throw that type of charge at someone these days .
Or maybe some type of fraud ?
If the statute of limitations has n't run out .
Of course , IANAL .
I hope at the least the school board reviewed the actions of the principal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe she would have some luck trying to tack on a charge of identity theft, for the principal submitting the 'editorial' using her name?
It seems increasingly easy to throw that type of charge at someone these days.
Or maybe some type of fraud?
If the statute of limitations hasn't run out.
Of course, IANAL.
I hope at the least the school board reviewed the actions of the principal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515093</id>
	<title>Hmm.</title>
	<author>apodyopsis</author>
	<datestamp>1246295280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>more info<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429677896" title="law.com">http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429677896</a> [law.com] <br> <br>

<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-your-myspace-page-isnt-private.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-your-myspace-page-isnt-private.ars</a> [arstechnica.com] <br> <br>

And the court summary..<br> <br>

<a href="http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2009/f054138.html" title="findlaw.com">http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2009/f054138.html</a> [findlaw.com] <br> <br>


Interesting, I did not know of this. In the UK I think she would of had more success with the courts.<br> <br>

In any case it is common sense to watch what you post online. Once you click that mouse its gone, and you can never be sure that you can retract or recover.</htmltext>
<tokenext>more info http : //www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp ? id = 1202429677896 [ law.com ] http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-your-myspace-page-isnt-private.ars [ arstechnica.com ] And the court summary. . http : //fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2009/f054138.html [ findlaw.com ] Interesting , I did not know of this .
In the UK I think she would of had more success with the courts .
In any case it is common sense to watch what you post online .
Once you click that mouse its gone , and you can never be sure that you can retract or recover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more info 

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429677896 [law.com]  

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-your-myspace-page-isnt-private.ars [arstechnica.com]  

And the court summary.. 

http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2009/f054138.html [findlaw.com]  


Interesting, I did not know of this.
In the UK I think she would of had more success with the courts.
In any case it is common sense to watch what you post online.
Once you click that mouse its gone, and you can never be sure that you can retract or recover.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514953</id>
	<title>Is simple</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246294680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if (you == RIAA) {<br>
throw COPY\_VIOLATION;<br>
} else {<br>
 throw NOBODY\_CARES;<br>
}</htmltext>
<tokenext>if ( you = = RIAA ) { throw COPY \ _VIOLATION ; } else { throw NOBODY \ _CARES ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if (you == RIAA) {
throw COPY\_VIOLATION;
} else {
 throw NOBODY\_CARES;
}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516223</id>
	<title>Copyright or not, that's freakin wire fraud!</title>
	<author>michaelcole</author>
	<datestamp>1246299720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the story is true, the principle committed wire fraud when they misrepresented themselves as the student to the newspaper.  That's a felony.  Like jail-time style!
</p><p>
There may be civil damages that can be attributed to that fraud, but I aint no lawyer.
</p><p>
Yes, the rant was publicly available on the myspace page, but it wasn't presented in the context of a "letter to the editor".  The principle :
</p><ul>
<li>1) fraudulently represented themselves as the author</li><li>2) through that fraud, changed the context of the writing from "web page" to "letter to the editor"</li><li>3) this change of context had repercussions that damaged the student and their family.</li></ul><p>
Had the principle contacted the newspaper as the principle and asked that the students letter be publishes, what would the newspaper have done?
</p><p>
------  If it's a "legal code", how come it doesn't compile?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the story is true , the principle committed wire fraud when they misrepresented themselves as the student to the newspaper .
That 's a felony .
Like jail-time style !
There may be civil damages that can be attributed to that fraud , but I aint no lawyer .
Yes , the rant was publicly available on the myspace page , but it was n't presented in the context of a " letter to the editor " .
The principle : 1 ) fraudulently represented themselves as the author2 ) through that fraud , changed the context of the writing from " web page " to " letter to the editor " 3 ) this change of context had repercussions that damaged the student and their family .
Had the principle contacted the newspaper as the principle and asked that the students letter be publishes , what would the newspaper have done ?
------ If it 's a " legal code " , how come it does n't compile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the story is true, the principle committed wire fraud when they misrepresented themselves as the student to the newspaper.
That's a felony.
Like jail-time style!
There may be civil damages that can be attributed to that fraud, but I aint no lawyer.
Yes, the rant was publicly available on the myspace page, but it wasn't presented in the context of a "letter to the editor".
The principle :

1) fraudulently represented themselves as the author2) through that fraud, changed the context of the writing from "web page" to "letter to the editor"3) this change of context had repercussions that damaged the student and their family.
Had the principle contacted the newspaper as the principle and asked that the students letter be publishes, what would the newspaper have done?
------  If it's a "legal code", how come it doesn't compile?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515059</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1246295160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention a lapse on the part of the former principal.  Although this would not seem to be a case of plagiarism per se, since he does not appear to be taking credit for someone else's work,  his grasp of honesty and intellectual property rights should be advanced enough to prevent him from doing this.  Legally bound or not, I think he was ethically bound not to republish without consent, and it shows enormously poor judgment for someone in his position.  If the piece was inflammatory enough to result in death threats and the closure of a family business, he must have had some idea of how it would be received before he sent it in.
<br> <br>
I'm not clear on whether the newspaper was complicit in publishing something they knew to be copyrighted.  Did the principal send it in with a note that said 'Hey, I found this on the internet, thought you might like to publish it.', or did he simply send it in as if it came from her directly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention a lapse on the part of the former principal .
Although this would not seem to be a case of plagiarism per se , since he does not appear to be taking credit for someone else 's work , his grasp of honesty and intellectual property rights should be advanced enough to prevent him from doing this .
Legally bound or not , I think he was ethically bound not to republish without consent , and it shows enormously poor judgment for someone in his position .
If the piece was inflammatory enough to result in death threats and the closure of a family business , he must have had some idea of how it would be received before he sent it in .
I 'm not clear on whether the newspaper was complicit in publishing something they knew to be copyrighted .
Did the principal send it in with a note that said 'Hey , I found this on the internet , thought you might like to publish it .
' , or did he simply send it in as if it came from her directly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention a lapse on the part of the former principal.
Although this would not seem to be a case of plagiarism per se, since he does not appear to be taking credit for someone else's work,  his grasp of honesty and intellectual property rights should be advanced enough to prevent him from doing this.
Legally bound or not, I think he was ethically bound not to republish without consent, and it shows enormously poor judgment for someone in his position.
If the piece was inflammatory enough to result in death threats and the closure of a family business, he must have had some idea of how it would be received before he sent it in.
I'm not clear on whether the newspaper was complicit in publishing something they knew to be copyrighted.
Did the principal send it in with a note that said 'Hey, I found this on the internet, thought you might like to publish it.
', or did he simply send it in as if it came from her directly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518821</id>
	<title>Possible source of "Actual" damages</title>
	<author>GameMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246266540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but think I can see, at least, one way that she could try to justify "actual damages".  Newspapers fund themselves through advertising.  They justify their rates to their advertisers through thee of their readership and the size of their readership is based on the quality of their content.  Basically, they could figure out what percentage of that edition of the paper her letter represented and use that number to calculate what percentage of that edition's ad revenue is based on the content they stole from her.  Of course, they may want to weight that value based on the section of the paper it's in which could use a similar scale as the cost of advertising in that section vs. the cost of advertising in the most expensive section in the paper.  I would think that that would provide some concrete "actual damages" on top of the consequential damages to her father's business.</p><p>As far as any possible fair use right the paper might have, I think that the only leg that they have left (according to the lawyer above who was the most stridently pro fair use rights) is the idea that they were using the information for criticism, comment, and newspaper reporting.  What I would think would discredit this possibility, completely, is the fact that they actively chose to falsely represent the letter as having been sent in, by her, as a letter to the editor.  Had they printed the letter acknowledging that she hadn't chosen to send it in then this claim might make more sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but think I can see , at least , one way that she could try to justify " actual damages " .
Newspapers fund themselves through advertising .
They justify their rates to their advertisers through thee of their readership and the size of their readership is based on the quality of their content .
Basically , they could figure out what percentage of that edition of the paper her letter represented and use that number to calculate what percentage of that edition 's ad revenue is based on the content they stole from her .
Of course , they may want to weight that value based on the section of the paper it 's in which could use a similar scale as the cost of advertising in that section vs. the cost of advertising in the most expensive section in the paper .
I would think that that would provide some concrete " actual damages " on top of the consequential damages to her father 's business.As far as any possible fair use right the paper might have , I think that the only leg that they have left ( according to the lawyer above who was the most stridently pro fair use rights ) is the idea that they were using the information for criticism , comment , and newspaper reporting .
What I would think would discredit this possibility , completely , is the fact that they actively chose to falsely represent the letter as having been sent in , by her , as a letter to the editor .
Had they printed the letter acknowledging that she had n't chosen to send it in then this claim might make more sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but think I can see, at least, one way that she could try to justify "actual damages".
Newspapers fund themselves through advertising.
They justify their rates to their advertisers through thee of their readership and the size of their readership is based on the quality of their content.
Basically, they could figure out what percentage of that edition of the paper her letter represented and use that number to calculate what percentage of that edition's ad revenue is based on the content they stole from her.
Of course, they may want to weight that value based on the section of the paper it's in which could use a similar scale as the cost of advertising in that section vs. the cost of advertising in the most expensive section in the paper.
I would think that that would provide some concrete "actual damages" on top of the consequential damages to her father's business.As far as any possible fair use right the paper might have, I think that the only leg that they have left (according to the lawyer above who was the most stridently pro fair use rights) is the idea that they were using the information for criticism, comment, and newspaper reporting.
What I would think would discredit this possibility, completely, is the fact that they actively chose to falsely represent the letter as having been sent in, by her, as a letter to the editor.
Had they printed the letter acknowledging that she hadn't chosen to send it in then this claim might make more sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515803</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm.</title>
	<author>joebagodonuts</author>
	<datestamp>1246298100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The definition of Common Sense changes, depending on your age. Teens do things all the time that adults find foolish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The definition of Common Sense changes , depending on your age .
Teens do things all the time that adults find foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The definition of Common Sense changes, depending on your age.
Teens do things all the time that adults find foolish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515227</id>
	<title>Aren't newspapers dead???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246296000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK. Why are suddenly the rules different for newspapers. If he posted a link on the town web site, wouldn't the result have been the same?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK. Why are suddenly the rules different for newspapers .
If he posted a link on the town web site , would n't the result have been the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK. Why are suddenly the rules different for newspapers.
If he posted a link on the town web site, wouldn't the result have been the same?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514883</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL either, but <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/28/1619211/Judge-Thinks-Linking-To-Copyrighted-Material-Should-Be-Illegal?art\_pos=18" title="slashdot.org">yesterday</a> [slashdot.org] it was asserted that there is implicit copyright to any published material.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL either , but yesterday [ slashdot.org ] it was asserted that there is implicit copyright to any published material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL either, but yesterday [slashdot.org] it was asserted that there is implicit copyright to any published material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517467</id>
	<title>Former editor fired for printing Moreno's essay</title>
	<author>EMB Numbers</author>
	<datestamp>1246304340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither the school district nor Cynthia Moreno or her attorney were available for an interview. The newspaper, The Coalinga Record also declined to comment, but the paper's former editor tells me she was fired for printing Moreno's myspace entry in the paper last year. <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&amp;id=4850386" title="go.com">http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&amp;id=4850386</a> [go.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither the school district nor Cynthia Moreno or her attorney were available for an interview .
The newspaper , The Coalinga Record also declined to comment , but the paper 's former editor tells me she was fired for printing Moreno 's myspace entry in the paper last year .
http : //abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story ? section = news/local&amp;id = 4850386 [ go.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither the school district nor Cynthia Moreno or her attorney were available for an interview.
The newspaper, The Coalinga Record also declined to comment, but the paper's former editor tells me she was fired for printing Moreno's myspace entry in the paper last year.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&amp;id=4850386 [go.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515319</id>
	<title>Re:What's wrong with this town?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246296300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Give them a few years after they move out of town and they'll realize the city sucks too.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then they move to another city, and decide the new city sucks too.  Repeat ad nauseum until one day they realize in a face-palm moment that the only common thing among all those cities that sucked was -- them!  Sad...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give them a few years after they move out of town and they 'll realize the city sucks too.Then they move to another city , and decide the new city sucks too .
Repeat ad nauseum until one day they realize in a face-palm moment that the only common thing among all those cities that sucked was -- them !
Sad.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give them a few years after they move out of town and they'll realize the city sucks too.Then they move to another city, and decide the new city sucks too.
Repeat ad nauseum until one day they realize in a face-palm moment that the only common thing among all those cities that sucked was -- them!
Sad...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517453</id>
	<title>Ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246304280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironic that the principal's intent was to embarrass the ex-student, but instead ended up outing what a gigantic douchebag he and his friend are.</p><p>Yes, that's right, Principal Roger Campbell of Coalinga is a douchebag, Pamela Pond formerly of the Coalinga Record is a douchebag, and the Coalinga Record newspaper is a haven for douchebags.</p><p>Consider this a letter to the editor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironic that the principal 's intent was to embarrass the ex-student , but instead ended up outing what a gigantic douchebag he and his friend are.Yes , that 's right , Principal Roger Campbell of Coalinga is a douchebag , Pamela Pond formerly of the Coalinga Record is a douchebag , and the Coalinga Record newspaper is a haven for douchebags.Consider this a letter to the editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironic that the principal's intent was to embarrass the ex-student, but instead ended up outing what a gigantic douchebag he and his friend are.Yes, that's right, Principal Roger Campbell of Coalinga is a douchebag, Pamela Pond formerly of the Coalinga Record is a douchebag, and the Coalinga Record newspaper is a haven for douchebags.Consider this a letter to the editor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516931</id>
	<title>Re:The Principal was wrong, but she was stupid....</title>
	<author>roju</author>
	<datestamp>1246302360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>But for this girl to be surprised that her little screed got out, given that she posted it in an online form available to anybody who wants to see it shows she wasn't thinking.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Maybe she was surprised that anyone from her hometown had heard of the internet?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But for this girl to be surprised that her little screed got out , given that she posted it in an online form available to anybody who wants to see it shows she was n't thinking .
Maybe she was surprised that anyone from her hometown had heard of the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But for this girl to be surprised that her little screed got out, given that she posted it in an online form available to anybody who wants to see it shows she wasn't thinking.
Maybe she was surprised that anyone from her hometown had heard of the internet?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515635</id>
	<title>The Principal was wrong, but she was stupid....</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1246297560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, what the Principal did was wrong - full stop.</p><p>And if the paper knew that the Principal was the one submitting the information and published it anyway, they were also wrong - full stop.</p><p>But for this girl to be surprised that her little screed got out, given that she posted it in an online form available to anybody who wants to see it shows she wasn't thinking.</p><p>I'm not afraid of having somebody walk up to me in real life and whip out a copy of this post - if I were, I <b>wouldn't post it!</b></p><p>It would be a different thing were her posting somehow meaningfully private - had she written it in a personal email to somebody else, for example. However, you STILL should consider anything you send in an email public - once your recipient gets the email you have NO control over what they will do with it. But at least she could make the case that a confidence was breached.</p><p>Come on people - just because "Web 2.0" encourages you to share your every last little "thought", bodily function, or indiscretion <b>doesn't mean it is a good idea</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , what the Principal did was wrong - full stop.And if the paper knew that the Principal was the one submitting the information and published it anyway , they were also wrong - full stop.But for this girl to be surprised that her little screed got out , given that she posted it in an online form available to anybody who wants to see it shows she was n't thinking.I 'm not afraid of having somebody walk up to me in real life and whip out a copy of this post - if I were , I would n't post it ! It would be a different thing were her posting somehow meaningfully private - had she written it in a personal email to somebody else , for example .
However , you STILL should consider anything you send in an email public - once your recipient gets the email you have NO control over what they will do with it .
But at least she could make the case that a confidence was breached.Come on people - just because " Web 2.0 " encourages you to share your every last little " thought " , bodily function , or indiscretion does n't mean it is a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, what the Principal did was wrong - full stop.And if the paper knew that the Principal was the one submitting the information and published it anyway, they were also wrong - full stop.But for this girl to be surprised that her little screed got out, given that she posted it in an online form available to anybody who wants to see it shows she wasn't thinking.I'm not afraid of having somebody walk up to me in real life and whip out a copy of this post - if I were, I wouldn't post it!It would be a different thing were her posting somehow meaningfully private - had she written it in a personal email to somebody else, for example.
However, you STILL should consider anything you send in an email public - once your recipient gets the email you have NO control over what they will do with it.
But at least she could make the case that a confidence was breached.Come on people - just because "Web 2.0" encourages you to share your every last little "thought", bodily function, or indiscretion doesn't mean it is a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515543</id>
	<title>Fraudulent.</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1246297140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the face of it, this is a fraudulent on the part of the paper:</p><p>- They published the item as if it were submitted by her, which it was not.</p><p>- They published the item as if they had permission to do so.  It appears they did not.</p><p>- They published the item as if it were intended to be published in their paper.  It seems not.</p><p>But copyright is so broken, she should sue for fraud along with much else, as some of the lawyers seem to suggest.  Certainly she has a case for the paper exposing her to harm she did not intend to expose herself to.</p><p>Her parents will probably have to sue individually.</p><p>But more to the point, this paper has, in my opinion, violated enough journalistic ethics to have lost any hope of excusing their conduct.  If I wrote a blog accessible by subscription only, and some editor got a copy of it from a friend, I would NOT expect them to publish it without my permission.  First, by subscription only should mean I don't intend it to be 'public'.  Second, it's not theirs, it's MINE.</p><p>Oh, wait, did the paper get permission from MySpace?  Bet not.  Whammy.</p><p>You can tell I'm not a lawyer.  I'm interesting in what's right, not what's legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the face of it , this is a fraudulent on the part of the paper : - They published the item as if it were submitted by her , which it was not.- They published the item as if they had permission to do so .
It appears they did not.- They published the item as if it were intended to be published in their paper .
It seems not.But copyright is so broken , she should sue for fraud along with much else , as some of the lawyers seem to suggest .
Certainly she has a case for the paper exposing her to harm she did not intend to expose herself to.Her parents will probably have to sue individually.But more to the point , this paper has , in my opinion , violated enough journalistic ethics to have lost any hope of excusing their conduct .
If I wrote a blog accessible by subscription only , and some editor got a copy of it from a friend , I would NOT expect them to publish it without my permission .
First , by subscription only should mean I do n't intend it to be 'public' .
Second , it 's not theirs , it 's MINE.Oh , wait , did the paper get permission from MySpace ?
Bet not .
Whammy.You can tell I 'm not a lawyer .
I 'm interesting in what 's right , not what 's legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the face of it, this is a fraudulent on the part of the paper:- They published the item as if it were submitted by her, which it was not.- They published the item as if they had permission to do so.
It appears they did not.- They published the item as if it were intended to be published in their paper.
It seems not.But copyright is so broken, she should sue for fraud along with much else, as some of the lawyers seem to suggest.
Certainly she has a case for the paper exposing her to harm she did not intend to expose herself to.Her parents will probably have to sue individually.But more to the point, this paper has, in my opinion, violated enough journalistic ethics to have lost any hope of excusing their conduct.
If I wrote a blog accessible by subscription only, and some editor got a copy of it from a friend, I would NOT expect them to publish it without my permission.
First, by subscription only should mean I don't intend it to be 'public'.
Second, it's not theirs, it's MINE.Oh, wait, did the paper get permission from MySpace?
Bet not.
Whammy.You can tell I'm not a lawyer.
I'm interesting in what's right, not what's legal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28525959</id>
	<title>Re:The newspaper did sell copies, yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246360620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL..<br>You funny man you...</p><p>The *gross* revenue would be about $10000 with generous estimates. A newspaper (Coalinga Record) in a place like that hicktown would be lucky to sell 6000 papers at $0.50 per pop, and I have a hard time believing they would make 100\% in ad revenue for the day.</p><p>Do you realize what kind of shitbag place we're talking about?</p><p>This is the paper's website:</p><p>http://www.coalingarecord.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL..You funny man you...The * gross * revenue would be about $ 10000 with generous estimates .
A newspaper ( Coalinga Record ) in a place like that hicktown would be lucky to sell 6000 papers at $ 0.50 per pop , and I have a hard time believing they would make 100 \ % in ad revenue for the day.Do you realize what kind of shitbag place we 're talking about ? This is the paper 's website : http : //www.coalingarecord.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL..You funny man you...The *gross* revenue would be about $10000 with generous estimates.
A newspaper (Coalinga Record) in a place like that hicktown would be lucky to sell 6000 papers at $0.50 per pop, and I have a hard time believing they would make 100\% in ad revenue for the day.Do you realize what kind of shitbag place we're talking about?This is the paper's website:http://www.coalingarecord.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516017</id>
	<title>Slashdot suddenly cares about copyright?</title>
	<author>cliffski</author>
	<datestamp>1246298820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it. This is slashdot. if she was to exercise her right to copyright over her own creative works, would that not make her part of teh evil RIAA and teh MAFIAAA?<br>I'm confused. my browser says this slashdot.org...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it .
This is slashdot .
if she was to exercise her right to copyright over her own creative works , would that not make her part of teh evil RIAA and teh MAFIAAA ? I 'm confused .
my browser says this slashdot.org.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.
This is slashdot.
if she was to exercise her right to copyright over her own creative works, would that not make her part of teh evil RIAA and teh MAFIAAA?I'm confused.
my browser says this slashdot.org...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521559</id>
	<title>California impersonation laws</title>
	<author>ExRex</author>
	<datestamp>1246278000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some excerpts:<p><div class="quote"><p>CALIFORNIA CODES<br>
PENAL CODE<br>
SECTION 528-539</p><p>
529.  Every person who falsely personates another in either his private or official capacity, and in such assumed character either:<br>
   1. (stuff about marriage)<br>
   2. Verifies, publishes, acknowledges, or proves, in the name of another person, any written instrument, with intent that the same may
be recorded, delivered, or used as true; or, <br>
   3. Does any other act whereby, if done by the person falsely personated, he might, in any event, become liable to any suit or
prosecution, or to pay any sum of money, or to incur any charge, forfeiture, or penalty, or whereby any benefit might accrue to the
party personating, or to any other person;<br>
   Is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.</p><p>538a.  Every person who signs any letter addressed to a newspaper with the name of a person other than himself and sends such letter to the newspaper, or causes it to be sent to such newspaper, with intent to lead the newspaper to believe that such letter was written by the person whose name is signed thereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor.</p></div><p>Once the principal has been convicted in court for criminal impersonation the family will have an excellent chance of recouping something.<br>
Of course, they should probably move for a change of venue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some excerpts : CALIFORNIA CODES PENAL CODE SECTION 528-539 529 .
Every person who falsely personates another in either his private or official capacity , and in such assumed character either : 1 .
( stuff about marriage ) 2 .
Verifies , publishes , acknowledges , or proves , in the name of another person , any written instrument , with intent that the same may be recorded , delivered , or used as true ; or , 3 .
Does any other act whereby , if done by the person falsely personated , he might , in any event , become liable to any suit or prosecution , or to pay any sum of money , or to incur any charge , forfeiture , or penalty , or whereby any benefit might accrue to the party personating , or to any other person ; Is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ( $ 10,000 ) , or by imprisonment in the state prison , or in a county jail not exceeding one year , or by both such fine and imprisonment.538a .
Every person who signs any letter addressed to a newspaper with the name of a person other than himself and sends such letter to the newspaper , or causes it to be sent to such newspaper , with intent to lead the newspaper to believe that such letter was written by the person whose name is signed thereto , is guilty of a misdemeanor.Once the principal has been convicted in court for criminal impersonation the family will have an excellent chance of recouping something .
Of course , they should probably move for a change of venue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some excerpts:CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 528-539
529.
Every person who falsely personates another in either his private or official capacity, and in such assumed character either:
   1.
(stuff about marriage)
   2.
Verifies, publishes, acknowledges, or proves, in the name of another person, any written instrument, with intent that the same may
be recorded, delivered, or used as true; or, 
   3.
Does any other act whereby, if done by the person falsely personated, he might, in any event, become liable to any suit or
prosecution, or to pay any sum of money, or to incur any charge, forfeiture, or penalty, or whereby any benefit might accrue to the
party personating, or to any other person;
   Is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.538a.
Every person who signs any letter addressed to a newspaper with the name of a person other than himself and sends such letter to the newspaper, or causes it to be sent to such newspaper, with intent to lead the newspaper to believe that such letter was written by the person whose name is signed thereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor.Once the principal has been convicted in court for criminal impersonation the family will have an excellent chance of recouping something.
Of course, they should probably move for a change of venue.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28529967</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246382580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI The newspaper is no longer in business.  Though it had been in print for over 100 years, starting in 1904, it suffered the fate of many other newspapers.  It was very popular and influential in this small community.  While there seemed to be a lack of quality reporting in how the material was presented, I believe that over the years the paper had served the local community well giving local people what they want local news.  I was sad to see them go.</p><p>More articles on the court rulings in this case can be found at:</p><p>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/07/BARP16TVVN.DTL&amp;hw=lawsuit&amp;sn=005&amp;sc=799<br>and<br>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/myspace\_legally\_public/print.html</p><p>The suit against the newspaper itself was quickly dismissed and was not the reason the paper went out of business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI The newspaper is no longer in business .
Though it had been in print for over 100 years , starting in 1904 , it suffered the fate of many other newspapers .
It was very popular and influential in this small community .
While there seemed to be a lack of quality reporting in how the material was presented , I believe that over the years the paper had served the local community well giving local people what they want local news .
I was sad to see them go.More articles on the court rulings in this case can be found at : http : //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi ? f = /c/a/2009/04/07/BARP16TVVN.DTL&amp;hw = lawsuit&amp;sn = 005&amp;sc = 799andhttp : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/myspace \ _legally \ _public/print.htmlThe suit against the newspaper itself was quickly dismissed and was not the reason the paper went out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI The newspaper is no longer in business.
Though it had been in print for over 100 years, starting in 1904, it suffered the fate of many other newspapers.
It was very popular and influential in this small community.
While there seemed to be a lack of quality reporting in how the material was presented, I believe that over the years the paper had served the local community well giving local people what they want local news.
I was sad to see them go.More articles on the court rulings in this case can be found at:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/07/BARP16TVVN.DTL&amp;hw=lawsuit&amp;sn=005&amp;sc=799andhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/myspace\_legally\_public/print.htmlThe suit against the newspaper itself was quickly dismissed and was not the reason the paper went out of business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515381</id>
	<title>Re:IANAL</title>
	<author>NovaHorizon</author>
	<datestamp>1246296480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow, I know reading the article is a sin.. but you didn't even read the summary..<br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, to bring a copyright claim at all, you first have to register your work with the Copyright Office by mailing it to them with a $35 fee. (There was some inconsistency in the answers here, but the consensus seems to be: You own the copyright on something as soon as you create it, but you can't file a copyright lawsuit until after you've registered your work. However, once you've registered, you can then go back and sue for copyright violations that took place before the registration date. If you register more than 90 days after the date of first publication, you can only sue for actual damages &#226;" your monetary losses, or the infringer's ill-gotten gains &#226;" for violations that took place before you registered the work. But if you register within 90 days of first publication, you can sue for statutory damages and attorney's fees, even for violations that took place before you registered.)</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>wow , I know reading the article is a sin.. but you did n't even read the summary. .   Second , to bring a copyright claim at all , you first have to register your work with the Copyright Office by mailing it to them with a $ 35 fee .
( There was some inconsistency in the answers here , but the consensus seems to be : You own the copyright on something as soon as you create it , but you ca n't file a copyright lawsuit until after you 've registered your work .
However , once you 've registered , you can then go back and sue for copyright violations that took place before the registration date .
If you register more than 90 days after the date of first publication , you can only sue for actual damages   " your monetary losses , or the infringer 's ill-gotten gains   " for violations that took place before you registered the work .
But if you register within 90 days of first publication , you can sue for statutory damages and attorney 's fees , even for violations that took place before you registered .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow, I know reading the article is a sin.. but you didn't even read the summary..
  Second, to bring a copyright claim at all, you first have to register your work with the Copyright Office by mailing it to them with a $35 fee.
(There was some inconsistency in the answers here, but the consensus seems to be: You own the copyright on something as soon as you create it, but you can't file a copyright lawsuit until after you've registered your work.
However, once you've registered, you can then go back and sue for copyright violations that took place before the registration date.
If you register more than 90 days after the date of first publication, you can only sue for actual damages â" your monetary losses, or the infringer's ill-gotten gains â" for violations that took place before you registered the work.
But if you register within 90 days of first publication, you can sue for statutory damages and attorney's fees, even for violations that took place before you registered.
) 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517587</id>
	<title>Re:Duh</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1246304760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then CNN gets ahold of the youtube video (regardless of the source) and posts it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which CNN would <b>never</b> do as a video-letter to the editor. They would incorporate it into a larger story dealing with youths disaffected with their towns and include excerpts of the video as they are appropriate to the topic at hand - you know, fair use. Deliberately mis-attributing the source opens them to fraud &amp; goes a long way towards negating any defense of their intent.
</p><p>Did the paper have a fair use right to use the rant in reporting news - yes.
Did they use the rant in accordance with those rights - no.
Ergo, they did not exercise their fair use rights when publishing the work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then CNN gets ahold of the youtube video ( regardless of the source ) and posts it.Which CNN would never do as a video-letter to the editor .
They would incorporate it into a larger story dealing with youths disaffected with their towns and include excerpts of the video as they are appropriate to the topic at hand - you know , fair use .
Deliberately mis-attributing the source opens them to fraud &amp; goes a long way towards negating any defense of their intent .
Did the paper have a fair use right to use the rant in reporting news - yes .
Did they use the rant in accordance with those rights - no .
Ergo , they did not exercise their fair use rights when publishing the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then CNN gets ahold of the youtube video (regardless of the source) and posts it.Which CNN would never do as a video-letter to the editor.
They would incorporate it into a larger story dealing with youths disaffected with their towns and include excerpts of the video as they are appropriate to the topic at hand - you know, fair use.
Deliberately mis-attributing the source opens them to fraud &amp; goes a long way towards negating any defense of their intent.
Did the paper have a fair use right to use the rant in reporting news - yes.
Did they use the rant in accordance with those rights - no.
Ergo, they did not exercise their fair use rights when publishing the work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28524249</id>
	<title>I dunno you but...</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1246296780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find the oft-repeated idea that not-for-profit works can be exploited at leisure by corporations abhorrent in extreme..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the oft-repeated idea that not-for-profit works can be exploited at leisure by corporations abhorrent in extreme. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the oft-repeated idea that not-for-profit works can be exploited at leisure by corporations abhorrent in extreme..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515429</id>
	<title>Re:What's wrong with this town?</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1246296600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole problem is the forum in which the rant was "posted."  Letters to the editor reach a particular segment of society, far different from the segment that typically kvetches on MySpace, seeing those opinions in black and white on their breakfast table apparently moved some codgers to action, yeah they're misguided idiots, but this isn't the first or last time a crusade has been/will be launched over ridiculous inflation of casual statements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole problem is the forum in which the rant was " posted .
" Letters to the editor reach a particular segment of society , far different from the segment that typically kvetches on MySpace , seeing those opinions in black and white on their breakfast table apparently moved some codgers to action , yeah they 're misguided idiots , but this is n't the first or last time a crusade has been/will be launched over ridiculous inflation of casual statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole problem is the forum in which the rant was "posted.
"  Letters to the editor reach a particular segment of society, far different from the segment that typically kvetches on MySpace, seeing those opinions in black and white on their breakfast table apparently moved some codgers to action, yeah they're misguided idiots, but this isn't the first or last time a crusade has been/will be launched over ridiculous inflation of casual statements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515947</id>
	<title>Re:What's wrong with this town?</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1246298580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a town, of people.  People are not rational.  Even we are people.  Do we hang out with people that dislike us.  Do we shop at stores that are not advertising to our norms.  I am hones enough to admit that there are stores I do not frequent simply because they are not my 'type of stores'.
<p>
The real issue is that everything that is published on the internet is considered fair game.  It was a only a few stories back where we were getting in an uproar because a reasonable judge said, maybe summarizing an article with a link might be a violation of copyright.  Would the newspaper have been in the clear if they had summarized the post with a link to the full post, even if the same damage was caused?  What if the newspaper made a material error in the summary?  The linking issue is the same.  Many people who post what is essentially public content want to control where that material is published or linked from.
</p><p>
This is another expensive lesson that one should be careful what one posts to the internet in a personally identifiable manner.  The lawsuit here is not relevant.  Even if the newspaper was sued, it is unlikely that the lawsuit would bring any significant money.  It was unethical for the newspaper to publish a letter not sent by the original author, although it is unclear that they did not know it was not sent by the original author.  Kids sometimes do unwise things, and it sometimes have disastrous effects on the family. Adults should help kids minimize these mistakes, but some kids are hard headed.  The appropriate  person to bear the burden of the kid's mistake is the parents, not the bystanders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a town , of people .
People are not rational .
Even we are people .
Do we hang out with people that dislike us .
Do we shop at stores that are not advertising to our norms .
I am hones enough to admit that there are stores I do not frequent simply because they are not my 'type of stores' .
The real issue is that everything that is published on the internet is considered fair game .
It was a only a few stories back where we were getting in an uproar because a reasonable judge said , maybe summarizing an article with a link might be a violation of copyright .
Would the newspaper have been in the clear if they had summarized the post with a link to the full post , even if the same damage was caused ?
What if the newspaper made a material error in the summary ?
The linking issue is the same .
Many people who post what is essentially public content want to control where that material is published or linked from .
This is another expensive lesson that one should be careful what one posts to the internet in a personally identifiable manner .
The lawsuit here is not relevant .
Even if the newspaper was sued , it is unlikely that the lawsuit would bring any significant money .
It was unethical for the newspaper to publish a letter not sent by the original author , although it is unclear that they did not know it was not sent by the original author .
Kids sometimes do unwise things , and it sometimes have disastrous effects on the family .
Adults should help kids minimize these mistakes , but some kids are hard headed .
The appropriate person to bear the burden of the kid 's mistake is the parents , not the bystanders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a town, of people.
People are not rational.
Even we are people.
Do we hang out with people that dislike us.
Do we shop at stores that are not advertising to our norms.
I am hones enough to admit that there are stores I do not frequent simply because they are not my 'type of stores'.
The real issue is that everything that is published on the internet is considered fair game.
It was a only a few stories back where we were getting in an uproar because a reasonable judge said, maybe summarizing an article with a link might be a violation of copyright.
Would the newspaper have been in the clear if they had summarized the post with a link to the full post, even if the same damage was caused?
What if the newspaper made a material error in the summary?
The linking issue is the same.
Many people who post what is essentially public content want to control where that material is published or linked from.
This is another expensive lesson that one should be careful what one posts to the internet in a personally identifiable manner.
The lawsuit here is not relevant.
Even if the newspaper was sued, it is unlikely that the lawsuit would bring any significant money.
It was unethical for the newspaper to publish a letter not sent by the original author, although it is unclear that they did not know it was not sent by the original author.
Kids sometimes do unwise things, and it sometimes have disastrous effects on the family.
Adults should help kids minimize these mistakes, but some kids are hard headed.
The appropriate  person to bear the burden of the kid's mistake is the parents, not the bystanders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28523391</id>
	<title>Re:Everything is protected...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246288740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why everyone, including the lawyers quoted in TFA, seems to take it for granted that this "catty rant" had negligible commercial value.<br>Clearly it DID have commercial value to the newspaper, or they wouldn't have published it. Even if that value was just filling a space on a page - that's a damn' difficult thing to do sometimes, on a small-time paper.<br>The paper could have paid for content to publish legally, but they chose instead to publish something for free, but without bothering to make sure they had the right to do so. They damn' well should have to pay on that basis - not only "what was its potential value to the rightful owner?", but also "what was its actual value to the violator?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why everyone , including the lawyers quoted in TFA , seems to take it for granted that this " catty rant " had negligible commercial value.Clearly it DID have commercial value to the newspaper , or they would n't have published it .
Even if that value was just filling a space on a page - that 's a damn ' difficult thing to do sometimes , on a small-time paper.The paper could have paid for content to publish legally , but they chose instead to publish something for free , but without bothering to make sure they had the right to do so .
They damn ' well should have to pay on that basis - not only " what was its potential value to the rightful owner ?
" , but also " what was its actual value to the violator ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why everyone, including the lawyers quoted in TFA, seems to take it for granted that this "catty rant" had negligible commercial value.Clearly it DID have commercial value to the newspaper, or they wouldn't have published it.
Even if that value was just filling a space on a page - that's a damn' difficult thing to do sometimes, on a small-time paper.The paper could have paid for content to publish legally, but they chose instead to publish something for free, but without bothering to make sure they had the right to do so.
They damn' well should have to pay on that basis - not only "what was its potential value to the rightful owner?
", but also "what was its actual value to the violator?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518817</id>
	<title>Im From Coalinga</title>
	<author>armitage787</author>
	<datestamp>1246266480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, So I am from Coalinga i was in High School when all this was going on. First thing I want to say is that if you read around on this case you might hear that there were shots fired at her dad's house. This is an out right fabrication. No shots were ever fired I know quite a few of the police officers in town and none of them can account for any of that sort of thing. Moving on. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.The girl that wrote the blog had come back to coalinga to visit her parents and go to the Football game. At the game her old friends treated her like crap and so she wrote this blog. The reason why this became such a huge deal is because the girl that wrote the blog on Myspace was a "Coalinga Golden Girl". Coalinga is very small and being that it is small everyone knows everyone and when someone goes off to a good college and shows alot of promise we as a town are very proud of them. When she wrote that blog it hurt a lot of people's feelings. I believe she intended on it only targeting a few of her old friends but she didn't choose her words carefully enough to exclude all coalingons. Once word got out that she had written her ode everyone was printing it out and it was circulating the school and everyone was getting really worked up about it. Our principal got wind of it and in his anger decided to submit it to the local paper.
Right or wrong that is how it all started. Coalinga is a small town. When everyone knows everyone stuff like this happens. It is sad to watch, and I was disappointed that the Family lost their business because of it, because they were a good asset to the community in Coalinga.

If you have any other questions about it let me know. . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , So I am from Coalinga i was in High School when all this was going on .
First thing I want to say is that if you read around on this case you might hear that there were shots fired at her dad 's house .
This is an out right fabrication .
No shots were ever fired I know quite a few of the police officers in town and none of them can account for any of that sort of thing .
Moving on .
. .The girl that wrote the blog had come back to coalinga to visit her parents and go to the Football game .
At the game her old friends treated her like crap and so she wrote this blog .
The reason why this became such a huge deal is because the girl that wrote the blog on Myspace was a " Coalinga Golden Girl " .
Coalinga is very small and being that it is small everyone knows everyone and when someone goes off to a good college and shows alot of promise we as a town are very proud of them .
When she wrote that blog it hurt a lot of people 's feelings .
I believe she intended on it only targeting a few of her old friends but she did n't choose her words carefully enough to exclude all coalingons .
Once word got out that she had written her ode everyone was printing it out and it was circulating the school and everyone was getting really worked up about it .
Our principal got wind of it and in his anger decided to submit it to the local paper .
Right or wrong that is how it all started .
Coalinga is a small town .
When everyone knows everyone stuff like this happens .
It is sad to watch , and I was disappointed that the Family lost their business because of it , because they were a good asset to the community in Coalinga .
If you have any other questions about it let me know .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, So I am from Coalinga i was in High School when all this was going on.
First thing I want to say is that if you read around on this case you might hear that there were shots fired at her dad's house.
This is an out right fabrication.
No shots were ever fired I know quite a few of the police officers in town and none of them can account for any of that sort of thing.
Moving on.
. .The girl that wrote the blog had come back to coalinga to visit her parents and go to the Football game.
At the game her old friends treated her like crap and so she wrote this blog.
The reason why this became such a huge deal is because the girl that wrote the blog on Myspace was a "Coalinga Golden Girl".
Coalinga is very small and being that it is small everyone knows everyone and when someone goes off to a good college and shows alot of promise we as a town are very proud of them.
When she wrote that blog it hurt a lot of people's feelings.
I believe she intended on it only targeting a few of her old friends but she didn't choose her words carefully enough to exclude all coalingons.
Once word got out that she had written her ode everyone was printing it out and it was circulating the school and everyone was getting really worked up about it.
Our principal got wind of it and in his anger decided to submit it to the local paper.
Right or wrong that is how it all started.
Coalinga is a small town.
When everyone knows everyone stuff like this happens.
It is sad to watch, and I was disappointed that the Family lost their business because of it, because they were a good asset to the community in Coalinga.
If you have any other questions about it let me know.
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517209</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1246303440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't know, but I don't feel like copyright was designed to keep people from publicizing already public writings.</p></div></blockquote><p>They didn't publicize her writing. They did not create a news article saying "Hey this bimbo hates us &amp; go look at it here." They published - as in created and distributed 1 copy for each newspaper printed - her work in its entirety as though it had been fully authorized by submitting it to the "Letters to the Editor" section of the paper.
</p><p>Point blank, she should win a copyright lawsuit. Fair use is not a valid defense to printing a work in it's entirety with no comments or critique of the contents. On the other hand, about all she's eligible to win is legal fees and "We're sorry &amp; won't do it again".
</p><p>As for the lawyer who said:</p><blockquote><div><p>Under (1), the use could be found to be for criticism, comment and (by the paper) news reporting (and the cases also consider 1st amendment factors under this one)</p></div> </blockquote><p>
I think he was drunk when he answered.
</p><ul> <li>criticism<p>They didn't do any critiquing of the work. They just published it.</p></li>
<li>Comment<p>They didn't use it as a comment on an issue or other work. They just published it.</p></li>
<li>News reporting<p>There was no attempt to report this as news - not even to say "Hey, this bitch wrote {blah} on her myspace page, let's lynch her". It was presented as an unsolicited letter to the editor.</p></li>
<li>First amendment<p>Get real. The first amendment certainly grants the paper the right to publish a rebuttal to the rant and to report on the rant. As part of a larger story discussing it, they might even be able to publish the entire work as presented on myspace. It doesn't give a paper the right to publish other peoples works in their entirety outside the framework of an actual report on the work. If it does, I am so going to start a paper &amp; publish best selling books and movie scripts in my entertainment section - I'll save a fortune on that whole pesky licensing thing.</p></li>
</ul><p> <b>If</b> the paper had addressed the rant as an actual newsworthy item and handled it as such, they could have claimed fair use. They didn't. They took a work and fabricated the semblance of permission by routing it through their "Letters to the Editor" section. They made commercial use of someone else's work by deliberately misleading their readers as to the origins of the material if not the author.
</p><p>I think that a case for fraud could be made - the newspaper attempted to obtain goods or services (readers) through false pretenses (claiming a work published elsewhere as a letter to their editor).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , but I do n't feel like copyright was designed to keep people from publicizing already public writings.They did n't publicize her writing .
They did not create a news article saying " Hey this bimbo hates us &amp; go look at it here .
" They published - as in created and distributed 1 copy for each newspaper printed - her work in its entirety as though it had been fully authorized by submitting it to the " Letters to the Editor " section of the paper .
Point blank , she should win a copyright lawsuit .
Fair use is not a valid defense to printing a work in it 's entirety with no comments or critique of the contents .
On the other hand , about all she 's eligible to win is legal fees and " We 're sorry &amp; wo n't do it again " .
As for the lawyer who said : Under ( 1 ) , the use could be found to be for criticism , comment and ( by the paper ) news reporting ( and the cases also consider 1st amendment factors under this one ) I think he was drunk when he answered .
criticismThey did n't do any critiquing of the work .
They just published it .
CommentThey did n't use it as a comment on an issue or other work .
They just published it .
News reportingThere was no attempt to report this as news - not even to say " Hey , this bitch wrote { blah } on her myspace page , let 's lynch her " .
It was presented as an unsolicited letter to the editor .
First amendmentGet real .
The first amendment certainly grants the paper the right to publish a rebuttal to the rant and to report on the rant .
As part of a larger story discussing it , they might even be able to publish the entire work as presented on myspace .
It does n't give a paper the right to publish other peoples works in their entirety outside the framework of an actual report on the work .
If it does , I am so going to start a paper &amp; publish best selling books and movie scripts in my entertainment section - I 'll save a fortune on that whole pesky licensing thing .
If the paper had addressed the rant as an actual newsworthy item and handled it as such , they could have claimed fair use .
They did n't .
They took a work and fabricated the semblance of permission by routing it through their " Letters to the Editor " section .
They made commercial use of someone else 's work by deliberately misleading their readers as to the origins of the material if not the author .
I think that a case for fraud could be made - the newspaper attempted to obtain goods or services ( readers ) through false pretenses ( claiming a work published elsewhere as a letter to their editor ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, but I don't feel like copyright was designed to keep people from publicizing already public writings.They didn't publicize her writing.
They did not create a news article saying "Hey this bimbo hates us &amp; go look at it here.
" They published - as in created and distributed 1 copy for each newspaper printed - her work in its entirety as though it had been fully authorized by submitting it to the "Letters to the Editor" section of the paper.
Point blank, she should win a copyright lawsuit.
Fair use is not a valid defense to printing a work in it's entirety with no comments or critique of the contents.
On the other hand, about all she's eligible to win is legal fees and "We're sorry &amp; won't do it again".
As for the lawyer who said:Under (1), the use could be found to be for criticism, comment and (by the paper) news reporting (and the cases also consider 1st amendment factors under this one) 
I think he was drunk when he answered.
criticismThey didn't do any critiquing of the work.
They just published it.
CommentThey didn't use it as a comment on an issue or other work.
They just published it.
News reportingThere was no attempt to report this as news - not even to say "Hey, this bitch wrote {blah} on her myspace page, let's lynch her".
It was presented as an unsolicited letter to the editor.
First amendmentGet real.
The first amendment certainly grants the paper the right to publish a rebuttal to the rant and to report on the rant.
As part of a larger story discussing it, they might even be able to publish the entire work as presented on myspace.
It doesn't give a paper the right to publish other peoples works in their entirety outside the framework of an actual report on the work.
If it does, I am so going to start a paper &amp; publish best selling books and movie scripts in my entertainment section - I'll save a fortune on that whole pesky licensing thing.
If the paper had addressed the rant as an actual newsworthy item and handled it as such, they could have claimed fair use.
They didn't.
They took a work and fabricated the semblance of permission by routing it through their "Letters to the Editor" section.
They made commercial use of someone else's work by deliberately misleading their readers as to the origins of the material if not the author.
I think that a case for fraud could be made - the newspaper attempted to obtain goods or services (readers) through false pretenses (claiming a work published elsewhere as a letter to their editor).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517953</id>
	<title>Clearly not fair use.</title>
	<author>asdfndsagse</author>
	<datestamp>1246306380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fair use requires a transformation, the copies the newspaper published have the exact same use as the one posted on myspace, and therefor fair use defense of the entire work is quite difficult. It was this transformation of use that was the central point in both the Google Images fair use verdict as well as in <em>Betamax</em>, two places in which the entire work was copied (albeit in low res re Google), however the use was transformational and served a differnt purpose from the origional published copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fair use requires a transformation , the copies the newspaper published have the exact same use as the one posted on myspace , and therefor fair use defense of the entire work is quite difficult .
It was this transformation of use that was the central point in both the Google Images fair use verdict as well as in Betamax , two places in which the entire work was copied ( albeit in low res re Google ) , however the use was transformational and served a differnt purpose from the origional published copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fair use requires a transformation, the copies the newspaper published have the exact same use as the one posted on myspace, and therefor fair use defense of the entire work is quite difficult.
It was this transformation of use that was the central point in both the Google Images fair use verdict as well as in Betamax, two places in which the entire work was copied (albeit in low res re Google), however the use was transformational and served a differnt purpose from the origional published copies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517493</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>arekusu\_ou</author>
	<datestamp>1246304460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is it a lapse in judgement?  He accomplished what he intended, emotional, financial, and physical distress to the girl and her family by extension.  Only thing lacking was a suicide or actual murder.  If I was petty, vindictive, and amoral, I could only wish my plots went so well.</p><p>All in all though, whether he misrepresentated himself when he presented the piece to the newspaper or the newspaper published something in someone elses name, knowing she did not submit it, is the question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it a lapse in judgement ?
He accomplished what he intended , emotional , financial , and physical distress to the girl and her family by extension .
Only thing lacking was a suicide or actual murder .
If I was petty , vindictive , and amoral , I could only wish my plots went so well.All in all though , whether he misrepresentated himself when he presented the piece to the newspaper or the newspaper published something in someone elses name , knowing she did not submit it , is the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it a lapse in judgement?
He accomplished what he intended, emotional, financial, and physical distress to the girl and her family by extension.
Only thing lacking was a suicide or actual murder.
If I was petty, vindictive, and amoral, I could only wish my plots went so well.All in all though, whether he misrepresentated himself when he presented the piece to the newspaper or the newspaper published something in someone elses name, knowing she did not submit it, is the question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515117</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>JamesBarger</author>
	<datestamp>1246295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. This is something every respectable journalism school teaches students not to do in practice. A journalist is betraying his profession when he intentionally sets out to "get" someone or hurt their reputation without a true news angle or some compelling reason to convey the information -- especially when the victim is not a public figure. Printing a quote or small excerpt from the original piece within a larger commentary or news story might be acceptable, but publishing the work, in its entirety, as if it had been submitted to the editor by the author, when it was not, is absolutely against good professional practice. That kind of unethical action -- if that's what happened -- is also a good hint that a basis for a lawsuit may linger within the facts (e.g. a common law tort action, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress), although determining that would require more information and analysis by a qualified lawyer.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
This is something every respectable journalism school teaches students not to do in practice .
A journalist is betraying his profession when he intentionally sets out to " get " someone or hurt their reputation without a true news angle or some compelling reason to convey the information -- especially when the victim is not a public figure .
Printing a quote or small excerpt from the original piece within a larger commentary or news story might be acceptable , but publishing the work , in its entirety , as if it had been submitted to the editor by the author , when it was not , is absolutely against good professional practice .
That kind of unethical action -- if that 's what happened -- is also a good hint that a basis for a lawsuit may linger within the facts ( e.g .
a common law tort action , such as intentional infliction of emotional distress ) , although determining that would require more information and analysis by a qualified lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
This is something every respectable journalism school teaches students not to do in practice.
A journalist is betraying his profession when he intentionally sets out to "get" someone or hurt their reputation without a true news angle or some compelling reason to convey the information -- especially when the victim is not a public figure.
Printing a quote or small excerpt from the original piece within a larger commentary or news story might be acceptable, but publishing the work, in its entirety, as if it had been submitted to the editor by the author, when it was not, is absolutely against good professional practice.
That kind of unethical action -- if that's what happened -- is also a good hint that a basis for a lawsuit may linger within the facts (e.g.
a common law tort action, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress), although determining that would require more information and analysis by a qualified lawyer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515197</id>
	<title>don't sue, bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246295880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> She shouldn't bother suing because her myspace page is public.  But the newspaper was able to fill its pages because of her work, and that means that they profited due to her actions.  That says to me that she should bill them.  I don't know how much reporters get paid per column inch, but that is what she should charge them.  It won't be much, because reporters have to fill a lot of column inches to live well, but it is the best chance she has for getting something out of this.</p><p> Major power blocks in the US want people to pay for usage (think RIAA, MPAA, etc), and if that is the road we're going down, then every consumer who redistributes should pay.  That newspaper redistributed her content, therefore she is entitled to payment.  Anyone at the RIAA will swear to that on a stack of bibles. </p><p>

- doug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She should n't bother suing because her myspace page is public .
But the newspaper was able to fill its pages because of her work , and that means that they profited due to her actions .
That says to me that she should bill them .
I do n't know how much reporters get paid per column inch , but that is what she should charge them .
It wo n't be much , because reporters have to fill a lot of column inches to live well , but it is the best chance she has for getting something out of this .
Major power blocks in the US want people to pay for usage ( think RIAA , MPAA , etc ) , and if that is the road we 're going down , then every consumer who redistributes should pay .
That newspaper redistributed her content , therefore she is entitled to payment .
Anyone at the RIAA will swear to that on a stack of bibles .
- doug</tokentext>
<sentencetext> She shouldn't bother suing because her myspace page is public.
But the newspaper was able to fill its pages because of her work, and that means that they profited due to her actions.
That says to me that she should bill them.
I don't know how much reporters get paid per column inch, but that is what she should charge them.
It won't be much, because reporters have to fill a lot of column inches to live well, but it is the best chance she has for getting something out of this.
Major power blocks in the US want people to pay for usage (think RIAA, MPAA, etc), and if that is the road we're going down, then every consumer who redistributes should pay.
That newspaper redistributed her content, therefore she is entitled to payment.
Anyone at the RIAA will swear to that on a stack of bibles.
- doug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516997</id>
	<title>IANAL but</title>
	<author>Pvt\_Ryan</author>
	<datestamp>1246302600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd have thought the newspaper's use would have been commercial as it was added to entice readers to read. She should have attached a EULA...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have thought the newspaper 's use would have been commercial as it was added to entice readers to read .
She should have attached a EULA... : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have thought the newspaper's use would have been commercial as it was added to entice readers to read.
She should have attached a EULA... :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515275</id>
	<title>What other papers?</title>
	<author>Bryan Gividen</author>
	<datestamp>1246296180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Wikipedia page for Coalinga, California (where I assume this is taking place) estimates the 2007 population at just over 18,000 people. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga,\_California). It seems that the paper involved, the Hanford Sentinel, services all of King County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings\_County,\_California) which has a little over 150,000 people total. Granted, I am sure the LA Times or some other large circulation paper could condemn them, I doubt they cater to the same audience as those subscribing to a small-town oriented paper like the Sentinel.<br> <br>Still, I agree with your point - people need to shun this circulation for its lack of journalistic integrity. Sadly, there aren't a lot of competitors (to my knowledge - someone have better knowledge?) to wag their finger at them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wikipedia page for Coalinga , California ( where I assume this is taking place ) estimates the 2007 population at just over 18,000 people .
( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga , \ _California ) . It seems that the paper involved , the Hanford Sentinel , services all of King County ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings \ _County , \ _California ) which has a little over 150,000 people total .
Granted , I am sure the LA Times or some other large circulation paper could condemn them , I doubt they cater to the same audience as those subscribing to a small-town oriented paper like the Sentinel .
Still , I agree with your point - people need to shun this circulation for its lack of journalistic integrity .
Sadly , there are n't a lot of competitors ( to my knowledge - someone have better knowledge ?
) to wag their finger at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wikipedia page for Coalinga, California (where I assume this is taking place) estimates the 2007 population at just over 18,000 people.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalinga,\_California). It seems that the paper involved, the Hanford Sentinel, services all of King County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings\_County,\_California) which has a little over 150,000 people total.
Granted, I am sure the LA Times or some other large circulation paper could condemn them, I doubt they cater to the same audience as those subscribing to a small-town oriented paper like the Sentinel.
Still, I agree with your point - people need to shun this circulation for its lack of journalistic integrity.
Sadly, there aren't a lot of competitors (to my knowledge - someone have better knowledge?
) to wag their finger at them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28524425</id>
	<title>Re:What's wrong with this town?</title>
	<author>Lunzo</author>
	<datestamp>1246298400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>this isn't the first or last time a crusade has been/will be launched over ridiculous inflation of casual statements.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

I believe it was when Saladin's rant about how he hates Rome that got printed without his permission in "Civic Vatican Suckium" that launched the 1st Crusade.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is n't the first or last time a crusade has been/will be launched over ridiculous inflation of casual statements .
I believe it was when Saladin 's rant about how he hates Rome that got printed without his permission in " Civic Vatican Suckium " that launched the 1st Crusade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this isn't the first or last time a crusade has been/will be launched over ridiculous inflation of casual statements.
I believe it was when Saladin's rant about how he hates Rome that got printed without his permission in "Civic Vatican Suckium" that launched the 1st Crusade.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515865</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1246298280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading elsewhere, the girl pulled the post from MySpace a few days after posting it, found out the principal had already passed it along to the editor, and asked them not to publish it. At that point, the publisher said they wouldn't, and then turned around and did it anyway.</p><p>But on the other hand, the editor in question was fired over the incident. Not much else the paper could have done at that point, one of the things about being an editor is that you don't have many people looking over your shoulder to see what you are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading elsewhere , the girl pulled the post from MySpace a few days after posting it , found out the principal had already passed it along to the editor , and asked them not to publish it .
At that point , the publisher said they would n't , and then turned around and did it anyway.But on the other hand , the editor in question was fired over the incident .
Not much else the paper could have done at that point , one of the things about being an editor is that you do n't have many people looking over your shoulder to see what you are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading elsewhere, the girl pulled the post from MySpace a few days after posting it, found out the principal had already passed it along to the editor, and asked them not to publish it.
At that point, the publisher said they wouldn't, and then turned around and did it anyway.But on the other hand, the editor in question was fired over the incident.
Not much else the paper could have done at that point, one of the things about being an editor is that you don't have many people looking over your shoulder to see what you are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515449</id>
	<title>Hopefully Not Too Redundant</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1246296660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a rush, haven't read the full post or comments yet, but this is screaming in my head:</p><p><i>Normally the "damages" for unauthorized copying of a MySpace post would be so close to zero, that a moral victory in court is all you could get.</i></p><p>I don't think it's about "damages". Doesn't willful infringement for commercial gain carry extra penalties? Jammie got hit with $80k each for willful infringement not for commercial gain.</p><p>What am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a rush , have n't read the full post or comments yet , but this is screaming in my head : Normally the " damages " for unauthorized copying of a MySpace post would be so close to zero , that a moral victory in court is all you could get.I do n't think it 's about " damages " .
Does n't willful infringement for commercial gain carry extra penalties ?
Jammie got hit with $ 80k each for willful infringement not for commercial gain.What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a rush, haven't read the full post or comments yet, but this is screaming in my head:Normally the "damages" for unauthorized copying of a MySpace post would be so close to zero, that a moral victory in court is all you could get.I don't think it's about "damages".
Doesn't willful infringement for commercial gain carry extra penalties?
Jammie got hit with $80k each for willful infringement not for commercial gain.What am I missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28520407</id>
	<title>Re:Country Mouse</title>
	<author>gv250</author>
	<datestamp>1246272120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did the lawyers for both sides stipulate to these "facts"? Or were they somehow proven in the trial court?</p> </div><p>The appellate decision says this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>        Since the appeal is from the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, the
facts are derived from the complaint. This court must give the complaint a reasonable
interpretation and assume the truth of all material facts properly pleaded.</p></div><p>I don't know what that means, but I presume it answers your question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the lawyers for both sides stipulate to these " facts " ?
Or were they somehow proven in the trial court ?
The appellate decision says this : Since the appeal is from the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend , the facts are derived from the complaint .
This court must give the complaint a reasonable interpretation and assume the truth of all material facts properly pleaded.I do n't know what that means , but I presume it answers your question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the lawyers for both sides stipulate to these "facts"?
Or were they somehow proven in the trial court?
The appellate decision says this:        Since the appeal is from the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, the
facts are derived from the complaint.
This court must give the complaint a reasonable
interpretation and assume the truth of all material facts properly pleaded.I don't know what that means, but I presume it answers your question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515123</id>
	<title>Yeah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"One of Coalinga&#226;(TM)s longest traditions is the Annual Horned Toad Derby"</p><p>I'm with the girl.  I hate Coalinga too, despite never having been there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One of Coalinga   ( TM ) s longest traditions is the Annual Horned Toad Derby " I 'm with the girl .
I hate Coalinga too , despite never having been there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One of Coalingaâ(TM)s longest traditions is the Annual Horned Toad Derby"I'm with the girl.
I hate Coalinga too, despite never having been there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515459</id>
	<title>Re:What's wrong with this town?</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1246296720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's wrong with these people? I bet half the teenagers and college-aged kids in that town agree that  Coalinga sucks.</p></div><p>Not only that, but now half of everybody on the internet thinks Coalinga is a backwards shit-hole. Nice work Coalinga!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with these people ?
I bet half the teenagers and college-aged kids in that town agree that Coalinga sucks.Not only that , but now half of everybody on the internet thinks Coalinga is a backwards shit-hole .
Nice work Coalinga !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with these people?
I bet half the teenagers and college-aged kids in that town agree that  Coalinga sucks.Not only that, but now half of everybody on the internet thinks Coalinga is a backwards shit-hole.
Nice work Coalinga!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514989</id>
	<title>How often do lawyers really say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246294920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I'm sure that I'm right about this, because I'm a lawyer?"</p></div></blockquote><p>Any decent lawyer knows that unsettled areas of the law are, by definition, unsettled.  Cases can end up in court because the facts are in dispute, but they can also end up in court because the law is not clear with regards to the situation.</p><p>The most common answer you get from a lawyer are the words: "it depends."  An undisclosed fact, a pertinent case not considered, or the whims of a judge and jury can all affect how a case would play out if tried.</p><p>A lawyer saying "I'm right, because I'm a lawyer" would be like a programmer saying "this program is bug free, because I'm a programmer."  It just doesn't (or at least shouldn't) happen that often.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm sure that I 'm right about this , because I 'm a lawyer ?
" Any decent lawyer knows that unsettled areas of the law are , by definition , unsettled .
Cases can end up in court because the facts are in dispute , but they can also end up in court because the law is not clear with regards to the situation.The most common answer you get from a lawyer are the words : " it depends .
" An undisclosed fact , a pertinent case not considered , or the whims of a judge and jury can all affect how a case would play out if tried.A lawyer saying " I 'm right , because I 'm a lawyer " would be like a programmer saying " this program is bug free , because I 'm a programmer .
" It just does n't ( or at least should n't ) happen that often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm sure that I'm right about this, because I'm a lawyer?
"Any decent lawyer knows that unsettled areas of the law are, by definition, unsettled.
Cases can end up in court because the facts are in dispute, but they can also end up in court because the law is not clear with regards to the situation.The most common answer you get from a lawyer are the words: "it depends.
"  An undisclosed fact, a pertinent case not considered, or the whims of a judge and jury can all affect how a case would play out if tried.A lawyer saying "I'm right, because I'm a lawyer" would be like a programmer saying "this program is bug free, because I'm a programmer.
"  It just doesn't (or at least shouldn't) happen that often.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515951</id>
	<title>Re:Whatever the legal question</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246298640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well also, whatever the legal question, it doesn't seem to me like the real problem here is the publication of her writing.  Her rant against the town was already public, and I only have so much sympathy for people who post things on sites like MySpace and then get upset when those posts "become public".
</p><p>Does she technically have a case for copyright infringement?  I don't know, but I don't feel like copyright was designed to keep people from publicizing already public writings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well also , whatever the legal question , it does n't seem to me like the real problem here is the publication of her writing .
Her rant against the town was already public , and I only have so much sympathy for people who post things on sites like MySpace and then get upset when those posts " become public " .
Does she technically have a case for copyright infringement ?
I do n't know , but I do n't feel like copyright was designed to keep people from publicizing already public writings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well also, whatever the legal question, it doesn't seem to me like the real problem here is the publication of her writing.
Her rant against the town was already public, and I only have so much sympathy for people who post things on sites like MySpace and then get upset when those posts "become public".
Does she technically have a case for copyright infringement?
I don't know, but I don't feel like copyright was designed to keep people from publicizing already public writings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514963</id>
	<title>Is that so?</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1246294740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now if I understand what this guy was told by the lawyers is correct, and let me summarize my understanding based on what we have been told in the article. You create something and you automatically own the copyright, <b>BUT</b> you <i>don't really own them</i> until you plop down 35 bucks? Hmm. Well then. That sounds like to me that every newspaper, magazine, booklet, etc, etc for every article they publish they <b>have</b> to cough up 35 bucks for each and every one? That doesn't hardly sound right to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if I understand what this guy was told by the lawyers is correct , and let me summarize my understanding based on what we have been told in the article .
You create something and you automatically own the copyright , BUT you do n't really own them until you plop down 35 bucks ?
Hmm. Well then .
That sounds like to me that every newspaper , magazine , booklet , etc , etc for every article they publish they have to cough up 35 bucks for each and every one ?
That does n't hardly sound right to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if I understand what this guy was told by the lawyers is correct, and let me summarize my understanding based on what we have been told in the article.
You create something and you automatically own the copyright, BUT you don't really own them until you plop down 35 bucks?
Hmm. Well then.
That sounds like to me that every newspaper, magazine, booklet, etc, etc for every article they publish they have to cough up 35 bucks for each and every one?
That doesn't hardly sound right to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28529967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28520407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28525959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28524425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28523391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28520101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28549781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_1331218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28524425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28523391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28549781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28518901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28520407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28525959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_1331218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28520101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28529967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28514871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28516557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517985
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28521509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28517493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28515641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_1331218.28519541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
