<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_2144232</id>
	<title>Judge May Take "Fair Use" Away From Jury</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247579220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"In what I can only describe as a shocker, the Judge in <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=SONY\_v\_Tenenbaum">SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</a> has, on her own, issued an order <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/judge-is-considering-removing-fair-use.html">questioning whether the jury will be allowed to decide</a> the 'fair use' issue at all, or whether the Judge herself should decide it. <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/sony\_tenenbaum\_090714DecisionFairUseJury.pdf">Judge Nancy Gertner's decision</a> (PDF) notes that the courts have traditionally submitted the fair use defense to the jury, but questions whether that was appropriate, since the courts have referred to it as an 'equitable' &mdash; as opposed to a 'legal' &mdash; defense. This decision came from out of the blue, as neither party had raised this issue. IMHO the Judge is barking up the wrong tree. For one, all across the legal spectrum in the US, 'equitable' defenses to 'legal' claims are triable to a jury. Secondly, as the Judge herself notes, the courts have traditionally submitted the issue to the jury. It also seems a bit unfair to bring up a totally new issue like that and give the parties only 6 days to do their research and writing on the subject, at a time when they are feverishly preparing for a July 27th trial."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " In what I can only describe as a shocker , the Judge in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum has , on her own , issued an order questioning whether the jury will be allowed to decide the 'fair use ' issue at all , or whether the Judge herself should decide it .
Judge Nancy Gertner 's decision ( PDF ) notes that the courts have traditionally submitted the fair use defense to the jury , but questions whether that was appropriate , since the courts have referred to it as an 'equitable '    as opposed to a 'legal '    defense .
This decision came from out of the blue , as neither party had raised this issue .
IMHO the Judge is barking up the wrong tree .
For one , all across the legal spectrum in the US , 'equitable ' defenses to 'legal ' claims are triable to a jury .
Secondly , as the Judge herself notes , the courts have traditionally submitted the issue to the jury .
It also seems a bit unfair to bring up a totally new issue like that and give the parties only 6 days to do their research and writing on the subject , at a time when they are feverishly preparing for a July 27th trial .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In what I can only describe as a shocker, the Judge in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum has, on her own, issued an order questioning whether the jury will be allowed to decide the 'fair use' issue at all, or whether the Judge herself should decide it.
Judge Nancy Gertner's decision (PDF) notes that the courts have traditionally submitted the fair use defense to the jury, but questions whether that was appropriate, since the courts have referred to it as an 'equitable' — as opposed to a 'legal' — defense.
This decision came from out of the blue, as neither party had raised this issue.
IMHO the Judge is barking up the wrong tree.
For one, all across the legal spectrum in the US, 'equitable' defenses to 'legal' claims are triable to a jury.
Secondly, as the Judge herself notes, the courts have traditionally submitted the issue to the jury.
It also seems a bit unfair to bring up a totally new issue like that and give the parties only 6 days to do their research and writing on the subject, at a time when they are feverishly preparing for a July 27th trial.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699565</id>
	<title>Judge Gertner rocks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>- I've had Judge Gertner save my ass. She's very smart, sees through nonsense, very willing to take on authority, government, etc.
- It's not whether you can send fair use to a jury, it's whether you have to. If it's equitable with no damages, it can be handled every time by summary judgment even if there are issues of fact.
- Juries are shitty at all complex civil matters; terminally shitty at intellectual property; and the U.S. marriage to civil juries is unusual and kind of stupid. If imprisonment is what's at stake, juries make sense. If it's
about a TRO or civil damages for some kind of abstract infringement, juries make no sense. Other countries under common law and substantially similar copyright law would not use a jury.
- Don't get all patriotic. Civil jury mistakes and artifacts are a core reason why the U.S. is polluted with so many lawyers, and so many rich lawyers.
- Don't assume fair use is better before a jury. It's just more random.
- It's odd for Judge Gertner to bring it up, agreed. But if it's a watershed issue both parties obviously should have been pursuing given their positions, but were afraid to touch, it's something she would do.
- Slashdot is such an incredible fountain of ignorance, isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>- I 've had Judge Gertner save my ass .
She 's very smart , sees through nonsense , very willing to take on authority , government , etc .
- It 's not whether you can send fair use to a jury , it 's whether you have to .
If it 's equitable with no damages , it can be handled every time by summary judgment even if there are issues of fact .
- Juries are shitty at all complex civil matters ; terminally shitty at intellectual property ; and the U.S. marriage to civil juries is unusual and kind of stupid .
If imprisonment is what 's at stake , juries make sense .
If it 's about a TRO or civil damages for some kind of abstract infringement , juries make no sense .
Other countries under common law and substantially similar copyright law would not use a jury .
- Do n't get all patriotic .
Civil jury mistakes and artifacts are a core reason why the U.S. is polluted with so many lawyers , and so many rich lawyers .
- Do n't assume fair use is better before a jury .
It 's just more random .
- It 's odd for Judge Gertner to bring it up , agreed .
But if it 's a watershed issue both parties obviously should have been pursuing given their positions , but were afraid to touch , it 's something she would do .
- Slashdot is such an incredible fountain of ignorance , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- I've had Judge Gertner save my ass.
She's very smart, sees through nonsense, very willing to take on authority, government, etc.
- It's not whether you can send fair use to a jury, it's whether you have to.
If it's equitable with no damages, it can be handled every time by summary judgment even if there are issues of fact.
- Juries are shitty at all complex civil matters; terminally shitty at intellectual property; and the U.S. marriage to civil juries is unusual and kind of stupid.
If imprisonment is what's at stake, juries make sense.
If it's
about a TRO or civil damages for some kind of abstract infringement, juries make no sense.
Other countries under common law and substantially similar copyright law would not use a jury.
- Don't get all patriotic.
Civil jury mistakes and artifacts are a core reason why the U.S. is polluted with so many lawyers, and so many rich lawyers.
- Don't assume fair use is better before a jury.
It's just more random.
- It's odd for Judge Gertner to bring it up, agreed.
But if it's a watershed issue both parties obviously should have been pursuing given their positions, but were afraid to touch, it's something she would do.
- Slashdot is such an incredible fountain of ignorance, isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702347</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247666460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What percentage of music that is available today do you think would be available had there NOT been a recording industry for the last 100 years?  In other words, how many of the currently recorded artists would still have chosen to enter the business if the only way they could make any money was by touring?  What people like you fail to grasp is that the only reason many people choose to enter the music business is to make money, and YOU are the richer for it.  Take away that incentive, and the music landscape will be far different, and not for the better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What percentage of music that is available today do you think would be available had there NOT been a recording industry for the last 100 years ?
In other words , how many of the currently recorded artists would still have chosen to enter the business if the only way they could make any money was by touring ?
What people like you fail to grasp is that the only reason many people choose to enter the music business is to make money , and YOU are the richer for it .
Take away that incentive , and the music landscape will be far different , and not for the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What percentage of music that is available today do you think would be available had there NOT been a recording industry for the last 100 years?
In other words, how many of the currently recorded artists would still have chosen to enter the business if the only way they could make any money was by touring?
What people like you fail to grasp is that the only reason many people choose to enter the music business is to make money, and YOU are the richer for it.
Take away that incentive, and the music landscape will be far different, and not for the better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699107</id>
	<title>Who needs juries...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when Obama's in charge?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when Obama 's in charge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when Obama's in charge?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699423</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1247586600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to prefix that with something along the lines of "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberties:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>However, it's arguable as to whether that's really applicable in this particular instance.  If you're downloading a crapload of MP3s and sticking them on your iPod to listen to, then that's hardly fair use.  If a student is being sued for using music in an instructional video, then yeah... start going through the boxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to prefix that with something along the lines of " There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberties : ... " However , it 's arguable as to whether that 's really applicable in this particular instance .
If you 're downloading a crapload of MP3s and sticking them on your iPod to listen to , then that 's hardly fair use .
If a student is being sued for using music in an instructional video , then yeah... start going through the boxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to prefix that with something along the lines of "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberties: ..."However, it's arguable as to whether that's really applicable in this particular instance.
If you're downloading a crapload of MP3s and sticking them on your iPod to listen to, then that's hardly fair use.
If a student is being sued for using music in an instructional video, then yeah... start going through the boxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699025</id>
	<title>NewYorkCountryLawyer is a little bitch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last thing I wanted to do this Saturday night was spend several hours writing, editing, and typing this letter. However, I needed to do it because it's sincerely the best way to ask Ray Beckerman to rephrase his criticisms in a more reasoned way. Let me cut to the chase: Ray is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for him to reinforce the impression that inane blackguards&#226;"as opposed to Ray's assistants&#226;"are striving to expose and neutralize Ray's enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. Quasi-snappish and illiterate, his prevarications resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that there is no evidence to support Ray's accusations. What I mean is that the tone of his opuscula is eerily reminiscent of that of antihumanist pinheads of the late 1940s in the sense that the impact of his wanton, lawless declamations is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that Ray claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. I respond that his arrogance will lead him to make things worse quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "ultramicrochemistry".</p><p>If an attempt to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature isn't grumpy, it certainly is mean-spirited. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Ray will deprive people of dignity and autonomy. And to overcome these fears, we must admonish Ray not seven times, but seventy times seven. You may wonder why he is afraid of change. It's simply because he wants to annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character. Faugh.</p><p>Even though Ray's apostles want so much to twist my words six ways for Sunday that the concept of right vs. wrong never comes up, this does not negate the fact that the poisonous wine of nepotism had been distilled long before Ray entered the scene. Ray is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. He likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what Ray is pushing is both mumpish and adversarial.</p><p>If truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then I have frequently criticized Ray's unspoken plan to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of racism, defeatism, child molestation, and halitosis. Ray hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that Ray wants to get me thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that the spectrum of views between libertinism and fetishism is not a line but a circle at which hectoring quacks and the most depraved mythomaniacs I've ever seen meet. To properly place Ray somewhere in that spectrum, one needs to realize that if Ray could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to install a puppet government that pledges allegiance to his villainous junta. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that Ray has spent untold hours trying to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that materialistic goofballs are intrigued and puzzled by his amalgam of pretentious pr&#195;&#166;torianism and power-drunk Jacobinism&#226;"a tangled web of KKK, Freudian, encounter-therapy, populist, Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last thing I wanted to do this Saturday night was spend several hours writing , editing , and typing this letter .
However , I needed to do it because it 's sincerely the best way to ask Ray Beckerman to rephrase his criticisms in a more reasoned way .
Let me cut to the chase : Ray is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me .
I guess that 's because we have n't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for him to reinforce the impression that inane blackguards   " as opposed to Ray 's assistants   " are striving to expose and neutralize Ray 's enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate .
Quasi-snappish and illiterate , his prevarications resemble a dilapidated shed .
Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse , proving my claim that I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that there is no evidence to support Ray 's accusations .
What I mean is that the tone of his opuscula is eerily reminiscent of that of antihumanist pinheads of the late 1940s in the sense that the impact of his wanton , lawless declamations is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation .
Evil will preside over the land .
Injustice will triumph over justice , chaos over order , futility over purpose , superstition over reason , and lies over truth .
Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that Ray claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy .
I respond that his arrogance will lead him to make things worse quicker than you can double-check the spelling of " ultramicrochemistry " .If an attempt to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature is n't grumpy , it certainly is mean-spirited .
We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives .
We must overcome the fear that Ray will deprive people of dignity and autonomy .
And to overcome these fears , we must admonish Ray not seven times , but seventy times seven .
You may wonder why he is afraid of change .
It 's simply because he wants to annihilate a person 's personality , individuality , will , and character .
Faugh.Even though Ray 's apostles want so much to twist my words six ways for Sunday that the concept of right vs. wrong never comes up , this does not negate the fact that the poisonous wine of nepotism had been distilled long before Ray entered the scene .
Ray is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity .
He likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners .
However , when it comes right down to it , what Ray is pushing is both mumpish and adversarial.If truth , like beauty , is in the eye of the beholder , then I have frequently criticized Ray 's unspoken plan to make me the target of a constant , consistent , systematic , sustained campaign of attacks .
He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of racism , defeatism , child molestation , and halitosis .
Ray hopes that by delegitimizing me this way , no one will listen to me when I say that Ray wants to get me thrown in jail .
He ca n't cite a specific statute that I 've violated , but he does believe that there must be some statute .
This tells me that the spectrum of views between libertinism and fetishism is not a line but a circle at which hectoring quacks and the most depraved mythomaniacs I 've ever seen meet .
To properly place Ray somewhere in that spectrum , one needs to realize that if Ray could have one wish , he 'd wish for the ability to install a puppet government that pledges allegiance to his villainous junta .
Then , people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that Ray has spent untold hours trying to base racial definitions on lineage , phrenological characteristics , skin hue , and religion .
During that time , did it ever once occur to him that materialistic goofballs are intrigued and puzzled by his amalgam of pretentious pr     torianism and power-drunk Jacobinism   " a tangled web of KKK , Freudian , encounter-therapy , populist , Ayn Rand-like , and Marxist notion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last thing I wanted to do this Saturday night was spend several hours writing, editing, and typing this letter.
However, I needed to do it because it's sincerely the best way to ask Ray Beckerman to rephrase his criticisms in a more reasoned way.
Let me cut to the chase: Ray is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me.
I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for him to reinforce the impression that inane blackguardsâ"as opposed to Ray's assistantsâ"are striving to expose and neutralize Ray's enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate.
Quasi-snappish and illiterate, his prevarications resemble a dilapidated shed.
Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that there is no evidence to support Ray's accusations.
What I mean is that the tone of his opuscula is eerily reminiscent of that of antihumanist pinheads of the late 1940s in the sense that the impact of his wanton, lawless declamations is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation.
Evil will preside over the land.
Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth.
Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that Ray claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy.
I respond that his arrogance will lead him to make things worse quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "ultramicrochemistry".If an attempt to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature isn't grumpy, it certainly is mean-spirited.
We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives.
We must overcome the fear that Ray will deprive people of dignity and autonomy.
And to overcome these fears, we must admonish Ray not seven times, but seventy times seven.
You may wonder why he is afraid of change.
It's simply because he wants to annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character.
Faugh.Even though Ray's apostles want so much to twist my words six ways for Sunday that the concept of right vs. wrong never comes up, this does not negate the fact that the poisonous wine of nepotism had been distilled long before Ray entered the scene.
Ray is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity.
He likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners.
However, when it comes right down to it, what Ray is pushing is both mumpish and adversarial.If truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then I have frequently criticized Ray's unspoken plan to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks.
He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of racism, defeatism, child molestation, and halitosis.
Ray hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that Ray wants to get me thrown in jail.
He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute.
This tells me that the spectrum of views between libertinism and fetishism is not a line but a circle at which hectoring quacks and the most depraved mythomaniacs I've ever seen meet.
To properly place Ray somewhere in that spectrum, one needs to realize that if Ray could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to install a puppet government that pledges allegiance to his villainous junta.
Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that Ray has spent untold hours trying to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion.
During that time, did it ever once occur to him that materialistic goofballs are intrigued and puzzled by his amalgam of pretentious prÃ¦torianism and power-drunk Jacobinismâ"a tangled web of KKK, Freudian, encounter-therapy, populist, Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notion</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699189</id>
	<title>You sure it's not Judge Judy?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247584560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...because that's the only female US Judge I'm familiar with. (Well her at that copy cat from "People's court", but I can never remember her name). If that's representative then your judges are opinionated, pre-judge everything, apply the law in a slipshod way based on wether or not she likes you and wether or not you show her respect. The number of times I've seen her behave in a way that I considered irrational and inequitable is amazing. So this would fit right in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...because that 's the only female US Judge I 'm familiar with .
( Well her at that copy cat from " People 's court " , but I can never remember her name ) .
If that 's representative then your judges are opinionated , pre-judge everything , apply the law in a slipshod way based on wether or not she likes you and wether or not you show her respect .
The number of times I 've seen her behave in a way that I considered irrational and inequitable is amazing .
So this would fit right in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because that's the only female US Judge I'm familiar with.
(Well her at that copy cat from "People's court", but I can never remember her name).
If that's representative then your judges are opinionated, pre-judge everything, apply the law in a slipshod way based on wether or not she likes you and wether or not you show her respect.
The number of times I've seen her behave in a way that I considered irrational and inequitable is amazing.
So this would fit right in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287</id>
	<title>Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fellow pirates,</p><p>I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty.  I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing <em>someone else</em> as the bad guy.  Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership.  I am overjoyed.</p><p>Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take.  I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.</p><p>I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work.  I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software.  When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work.  I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted.  If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/18/0311216/Harvard-Study-Says-Weak-Copyright-Benefits-Society" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this one</a> [slashdot.org], amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.</p><p>According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours."  Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do.  John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming.  It's genius.  The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate.  We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work.  Excellent job.</p><p>I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are.  Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've <a href="http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/30/0036206" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">pretended to care about plagiarism</a> [slashdot.org], we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda.  I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me.  It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something.  Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is.  That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.</p><p>EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good.  Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code."  I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me.  I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL.  I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences.  I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.</p><p>Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching.  Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt.  Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations.  Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.</p><p>Yours truly,<br>A fellow Slashbot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fellow pirates,I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty .
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong , but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever , it 's easier for me to accept what I 'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy .
Once on the forefront of relevant IT news , Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership .
I am overjoyed.Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking , I 'm just going to take .
I 'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.I do n't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work .
I 'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software .
When their game comes out , I 'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work .
I 'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted .
If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty , I 'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint , such as this one [ slashdot.org ] , amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.According to that study , it 's okay to not pay people for their work because there 's some vague hope that they 'll make up the difference in income through " concerts and speaking tours .
" Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do .
John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming .
It 's genius .
The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate .
We 've managed to stretch the truth so far that we 're actually telling ourselves that we 're helping artists by not paying them for their work .
Excellent job.I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are .
Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement , and they 've pretended to care about plagiarism [ slashdot.org ] , we 're supposed to go along with Slashdot 's anti-copyright agenda .
I 'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me .
It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something .
Remember , I 'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is .
That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong , yet the GPL is good .
Piracy is n't theft , yet GPL violations are referred to as " stolen GPL code .
" I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me .
I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law , and if I want to get rid of copyright , my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL .
I do n't care , because I 'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free , not about the consequences .
I want to get rid of copyrights because I 've been told that copyrights are the bad guy , and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.Fellow pirates , let us continue our selfish leeching .
Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt .
Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations .
Making money is wrong , even though Slashdot displays ads , and it cost me money to buy the computer I 'm using to pirate stuff.Yours truly,A fellow Slashbot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fellow pirates,I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty.
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy.
Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership.
I am overjoyed.Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take.
I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work.
I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software.
When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work.
I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted.
If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one [slashdot.org], amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours.
"  Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do.
John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming.
It's genius.
The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate.
We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work.
Excellent job.I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are.
Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism [slashdot.org], we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda.
I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me.
It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something.
Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is.
That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good.
Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code.
"  I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me.
I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL.
I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences.
I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching.
Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt.
Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations.
Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.Yours truly,A fellow Slashbot</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</id>
	<title>You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are dull incandescent bulbs hung down by wire over a set of towering oak podiums. Behind you are endless rows of rusty metal folding chairs, all occupied by elephants and donkeys, except for a few rats toward the front. The bailiff is an Argrue, standing in the shady area against the wall. You don't know what an Argrue is, but you can guess it's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.</p><p>The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel, which would be fine if it didn't leave so many marks on the wood when it's banged, and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet. The smaller podium has a guillotine attached to it near the front, with the microphone being placed in front of the slot where you would place your head.</p><p>You have in your inventory a rope, which is binding your hands together, and a bright orange jumpsuit of -255 AGI, which you are currently wearing. The only exit is DOWN, through a trap door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are dull incandescent bulbs hung down by wire over a set of towering oak podiums .
Behind you are endless rows of rusty metal folding chairs , all occupied by elephants and donkeys , except for a few rats toward the front .
The bailiff is an Argrue , standing in the shady area against the wall .
You do n't know what an Argrue is , but you can guess it 's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel , which would be fine if it did n't leave so many marks on the wood when it 's banged , and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet .
The smaller podium has a guillotine attached to it near the front , with the microphone being placed in front of the slot where you would place your head.You have in your inventory a rope , which is binding your hands together , and a bright orange jumpsuit of -255 AGI , which you are currently wearing .
The only exit is DOWN , through a trap door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are dull incandescent bulbs hung down by wire over a set of towering oak podiums.
Behind you are endless rows of rusty metal folding chairs, all occupied by elephants and donkeys, except for a few rats toward the front.
The bailiff is an Argrue, standing in the shady area against the wall.
You don't know what an Argrue is, but you can guess it's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel, which would be fine if it didn't leave so many marks on the wood when it's banged, and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet.
The smaller podium has a guillotine attached to it near the front, with the microphone being placed in front of the slot where you would place your head.You have in your inventory a rope, which is binding your hands together, and a bright orange jumpsuit of -255 AGI, which you are currently wearing.
The only exit is DOWN, through a trap door.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701781</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247661780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Information is not entirely non-scarce. The distribution/copying costs are heading towards zero, true. But the creation of information has costs tagged to it. So it's kind of mixed in comparison to "natural" goods that actually are completely scarce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Information is not entirely non-scarce .
The distribution/copying costs are heading towards zero , true .
But the creation of information has costs tagged to it .
So it 's kind of mixed in comparison to " natural " goods that actually are completely scarce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information is not entirely non-scarce.
The distribution/copying costs are heading towards zero, true.
But the creation of information has costs tagged to it.
So it's kind of mixed in comparison to "natural" goods that actually are completely scarce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700219</id>
	<title>Priorities</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247593920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.</i> </p><p>"Fair Use" usually boils down to the question of whether the geek with a broadband connection is entitled to his free movie fix - or has to stand in line with the peons at Blockbuster.</p><p>I have said this before:</p><p> The juror is not your comrade-in-arms, he does not share the geek's sense of entitlement. He is a middle-aged, middle class, small-C conservative who respects the system and has come to do a job.</p><p>Let him define "fair use" and you risk being hammered into the ground like Jammie Thomas.</p><p>Loose talk about guns casts the geek as a psychopath.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballot , Soap , Jury , Ammo ; they should be used in that order .
" Fair Use " usually boils down to the question of whether the geek with a broadband connection is entitled to his free movie fix - or has to stand in line with the peons at Blockbuster.I have said this before : The juror is not your comrade-in-arms , he does not share the geek 's sense of entitlement .
He is a middle-aged , middle class , small-C conservative who respects the system and has come to do a job.Let him define " fair use " and you risk being hammered into the ground like Jammie Thomas.Loose talk about guns casts the geek as a psychopath .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.
"Fair Use" usually boils down to the question of whether the geek with a broadband connection is entitled to his free movie fix - or has to stand in line with the peons at Blockbuster.I have said this before: The juror is not your comrade-in-arms, he does not share the geek's sense of entitlement.
He is a middle-aged, middle class, small-C conservative who respects the system and has come to do a job.Let him define "fair use" and you risk being hammered into the ground like Jammie Thomas.Loose talk about guns casts the geek as a psychopath.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699179</id>
	<title>unfair?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having been a party in a lawsuit that was decided by the US Court of Appeals on the basis of an issue that was neither raised nor briefed at either the trial level or the appellate level, all I can say is that this sounds quite normal to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been a party in a lawsuit that was decided by the US Court of Appeals on the basis of an issue that was neither raised nor briefed at either the trial level or the appellate level , all I can say is that this sounds quite normal to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been a party in a lawsuit that was decided by the US Court of Appeals on the basis of an issue that was neither raised nor briefed at either the trial level or the appellate level, all I can say is that this sounds quite normal to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28706215</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1247685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are an example of my point:</p><p>"The slashdot community has been getting pissed at the lack of reasoning power in hypercapitalist america, it seems in general that america has an excessive amount of brain dead people and anti-intellectualism, and the rise of super corporate indoctrinated nerd drones, this anti intellectualism and lack of intellectual depth increasingly found in certain americans or others so indoctrinated against intellectual understanding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...."</p><p>I'm sorry but you are not even well read enough to take place in the discussion, this is what I mean, you are inexperienced and ignorant of the larger issues.</p><p>Your pro market bullshit ignores the infringement on peoples rights having taken place, not only that you ignored</p><p>Thomas Babington Macaulay's speech in the House of Commons, 5 February 1841 on the extension of the term of copyright protections:</p><p><a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1233629&amp;cid=27957631" title="slashdot.org">http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1233629&amp;cid=27957631</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>The man predicted everything that is happening NOW and even he thought it was unjust.</p><p>Non scarcity exists, excessive anti intellectual free market types don't like it... too bad nature's not going to change her non scarcity of information policy.</p><p>Content creators were <b>granted those rights by the public</b>, that was the whole original purpose of patent and copyright and they were to be for LIMITED TIME, not the other way around.</p><p>The fact that you believe the current system is ok shows your profound ignorance of the matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are an example of my point : " The slashdot community has been getting pissed at the lack of reasoning power in hypercapitalist america , it seems in general that america has an excessive amount of brain dead people and anti-intellectualism , and the rise of super corporate indoctrinated nerd drones , this anti intellectualism and lack of intellectual depth increasingly found in certain americans or others so indoctrinated against intellectual understanding .... " I 'm sorry but you are not even well read enough to take place in the discussion , this is what I mean , you are inexperienced and ignorant of the larger issues.Your pro market bullshit ignores the infringement on peoples rights having taken place , not only that you ignoredThomas Babington Macaulay 's speech in the House of Commons , 5 February 1841 on the extension of the term of copyright protections : http : //ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1233629&amp;cid = 27957631 [ slashdot.org ] The man predicted everything that is happening NOW and even he thought it was unjust.Non scarcity exists , excessive anti intellectual free market types do n't like it... too bad nature 's not going to change her non scarcity of information policy.Content creators were granted those rights by the public , that was the whole original purpose of patent and copyright and they were to be for LIMITED TIME , not the other way around.The fact that you believe the current system is ok shows your profound ignorance of the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are an example of my point:"The slashdot community has been getting pissed at the lack of reasoning power in hypercapitalist america, it seems in general that america has an excessive amount of brain dead people and anti-intellectualism, and the rise of super corporate indoctrinated nerd drones, this anti intellectualism and lack of intellectual depth increasingly found in certain americans or others so indoctrinated against intellectual understanding ...."I'm sorry but you are not even well read enough to take place in the discussion, this is what I mean, you are inexperienced and ignorant of the larger issues.Your pro market bullshit ignores the infringement on peoples rights having taken place, not only that you ignoredThomas Babington Macaulay's speech in the House of Commons, 5 February 1841 on the extension of the term of copyright protections:http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1233629&amp;cid=27957631 [slashdot.org]The man predicted everything that is happening NOW and even he thought it was unjust.Non scarcity exists, excessive anti intellectual free market types don't like it... too bad nature's not going to change her non scarcity of information policy.Content creators were granted those rights by the public, that was the whole original purpose of patent and copyright and they were to be for LIMITED TIME, not the other way around.The fact that you believe the current system is ok shows your profound ignorance of the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701849</id>
	<title>Re:All this negativity-- am I missing something?</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1247662440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As to whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing for Judge Gertner, as opposed to the jury, to decide the fair use defense, I just don't know.<br> <br>What I do know is that <br>-there are essentially 2 cases here, an injunction case and a money damages case;<br>-the injunction case is tried by the judge, the damages case by the jury,<br>-the fair use defense is a defense to both,<br>-the jury gets to decide it for the money damages case, the judge for the injunction side of the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As to whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing for Judge Gertner , as opposed to the jury , to decide the fair use defense , I just do n't know .
What I do know is that -there are essentially 2 cases here , an injunction case and a money damages case ; -the injunction case is tried by the judge , the damages case by the jury,-the fair use defense is a defense to both,-the jury gets to decide it for the money damages case , the judge for the injunction side of the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As to whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing for Judge Gertner, as opposed to the jury, to decide the fair use defense, I just don't know.
What I do know is that -there are essentially 2 cases here, an injunction case and a money damages case;-the injunction case is tried by the judge, the damages case by the jury,-the fair use defense is a defense to both,-the jury gets to decide it for the money damages case, the judge for the injunction side of the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700969</id>
	<title>Re:Hey... that's not FAIR!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247648580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they are afraid that the jury might side with people, over groups like the RIAA? Why should the general public be able to decide when the RIAA/MPAA can make money?<br> <br>Oh, wait,..... Isn't our government "Of the people, for the people, and by the people?", I mean, aren't we (the people as a whole) supposed to make decisions about what is fair/legal/moral/... and whats not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they are afraid that the jury might side with people , over groups like the RIAA ?
Why should the general public be able to decide when the RIAA/MPAA can make money ?
Oh , wait,..... Is n't our government " Of the people , for the people , and by the people ?
" , I mean , are n't we ( the people as a whole ) supposed to make decisions about what is fair/legal/moral/... and whats not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they are afraid that the jury might side with people, over groups like the RIAA?
Why should the general public be able to decide when the RIAA/MPAA can make money?
Oh, wait,..... Isn't our government "Of the people, for the people, and by the people?
", I mean, aren't we (the people as a whole) supposed to make decisions about what is fair/legal/moral/... and whats not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699371</id>
	<title>IANAL, but you are right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judges decide matters of law, juries decide matters of fact.</p><p>Something like fair use could be either, depending on the circumstances.  Contract law is a good example.  Suppose that there is a case about a contract:  If the contract is clearly written, and its meaning is easily determined by reading it, a judge will decide; based on law.  On the other hand, if the contract's meaning isn't obvious, witnesses might be called to clarify what the intent of the signing parties was.  In that case, there may be a dispute about facts and a jury would decide.</p><p>Of course, the judge may make a mistake about who decides and, in that case, there would probably be an appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judges decide matters of law , juries decide matters of fact.Something like fair use could be either , depending on the circumstances .
Contract law is a good example .
Suppose that there is a case about a contract : If the contract is clearly written , and its meaning is easily determined by reading it , a judge will decide ; based on law .
On the other hand , if the contract 's meaning is n't obvious , witnesses might be called to clarify what the intent of the signing parties was .
In that case , there may be a dispute about facts and a jury would decide.Of course , the judge may make a mistake about who decides and , in that case , there would probably be an appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judges decide matters of law, juries decide matters of fact.Something like fair use could be either, depending on the circumstances.
Contract law is a good example.
Suppose that there is a case about a contract:  If the contract is clearly written, and its meaning is easily determined by reading it, a judge will decide; based on law.
On the other hand, if the contract's meaning isn't obvious, witnesses might be called to clarify what the intent of the signing parties was.
In that case, there may be a dispute about facts and a jury would decide.Of course, the judge may make a mistake about who decides and, in that case, there would probably be an appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701075</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>mirkob</author>
	<datestamp>1247650620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with some reservation in some areas i certainly undersign it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with some reservation in some areas i certainly undersign it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with some reservation in some areas i certainly undersign it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701399</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247656200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you fire the jury all at once then you won't have to reload...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you fire the jury all at once then you wo n't have to reload.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you fire the jury all at once then you won't have to reload...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702233</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1247665860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck that, I'm looking forward to you guys pulling out the ammo. Let's end this shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck that , I 'm looking forward to you guys pulling out the ammo .
Let 's end this shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck that, I'm looking forward to you guys pulling out the ammo.
Let's end this shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699837</id>
	<title>Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer is a little bitch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You spent several hours going to a website and typing Ray's name into a form to autogenerate a rambling complaint letter? Poor little troll, either you have the slowest Internet connection of us all, or someone must have punched you in the nose and broke all your little fingers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You spent several hours going to a website and typing Ray 's name into a form to autogenerate a rambling complaint letter ?
Poor little troll , either you have the slowest Internet connection of us all , or someone must have punched you in the nose and broke all your little fingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You spent several hours going to a website and typing Ray's name into a form to autogenerate a rambling complaint letter?
Poor little troll, either you have the slowest Internet connection of us all, or someone must have punched you in the nose and broke all your little fingers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702705</id>
	<title>Not just Delaware</title>
	<author>philarete</author>
	<datestamp>1247668560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tennessee, Mississippi, and New Jersey also have separate courts of equity, known as "Chancery Courts".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tennessee , Mississippi , and New Jersey also have separate courts of equity , known as " Chancery Courts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tennessee, Mississippi, and New Jersey also have separate courts of equity, known as "Chancery Courts".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case the judge is adjudicating the law.  There is a legal question about whether it is the province of the judge or jury to decide the value of a claim to the equitable defense of fair use.  You might ask why that would be a question in the first place.  Mr. Beckerman (aka NewYorkCountryLawyer) has presented his side, but allow me to summarize the issue in less biased language.</p><p>American law is in large part derived from English common law.  The common law had, for historical reasons, two parallel systems of courts, law courts and equity courts (I am ignoring the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts for the sake of brevity).  Legal claims were brought before law courts, and law courts could give legal remedies.  Legal claims are what we would think of as most normal kinds of claims (trespass, breach of contract, etc), and legal remedies are typically money damages.</p><p>The courts of equity, on the other hand, heard equitable claims and granted equitable remedies.  They also followed the rules of equity rather than legal rules.  It is convenient (though somewhat imprecise) to say that where the law is concerned with hard and fast rules, equity is concerned with fairness.  Thus, equity courts heard cases where the common law courts failed to administer justice, whether because a rule was unfair in the particular case or because no cause of action existed to cover the particular case.  Equitable remedies were also more flexible than straightforward money damages: equity courts tended to give relief in the form of an injunction.  So, for example, where the law might compel a defendant who stole a painting to pay the owner its value, equity would compel the defendant to return the actual painting because it is a unique thing that cannot truly be replaced for any price.</p><p>So, being a British colony, America inherited this dual court system.  Although the federal courts and all states but Delaware have since merged the courts of law and equity, the distinction between legal &amp; equitable claims, legal &amp; equitable defenses, and legal &amp; equitable relief remains.</p><p>What has any of this got to do with fair use and the jury?  Well, although the law courts often had factual issues decided by juries, the equitable courts did not have juries.  Thus, there is a long-standing precedent that issues of equity are decided by the judge, not the jury, and fair use has been described by many courts as an equitable defense to the legal claim of copyright infringement.  If you recall from the description of equity above, it amounts to a claim that, even if the defendant did infringe the plaintiff's copyright, it would not be fair or just to hold the defendant liable in this case.</p><p>You may note that fair use is codified in 17 USC 107, but that is essentially a codification of the preexisting equitable defense.  Thus, some courts have found that the codification into law did not destroy the essential equitable character of the defense.</p><p>On the other hand, there are a lot of court cases where the fair use defense was submitted to a jury.  Now, it could be that that happened because the judges in those cases had the law wrong or that neither side brought up the issue and the default is to submit fact-intensive questions like fair use to the jury.  Or it could be that those judges had the law correct and for various reasons fair use is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury.  That is what the judge would like the sides in this case to brief her on, so that she can decide that legal question before the trial begins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case the judge is adjudicating the law .
There is a legal question about whether it is the province of the judge or jury to decide the value of a claim to the equitable defense of fair use .
You might ask why that would be a question in the first place .
Mr. Beckerman ( aka NewYorkCountryLawyer ) has presented his side , but allow me to summarize the issue in less biased language.American law is in large part derived from English common law .
The common law had , for historical reasons , two parallel systems of courts , law courts and equity courts ( I am ignoring the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts for the sake of brevity ) .
Legal claims were brought before law courts , and law courts could give legal remedies .
Legal claims are what we would think of as most normal kinds of claims ( trespass , breach of contract , etc ) , and legal remedies are typically money damages.The courts of equity , on the other hand , heard equitable claims and granted equitable remedies .
They also followed the rules of equity rather than legal rules .
It is convenient ( though somewhat imprecise ) to say that where the law is concerned with hard and fast rules , equity is concerned with fairness .
Thus , equity courts heard cases where the common law courts failed to administer justice , whether because a rule was unfair in the particular case or because no cause of action existed to cover the particular case .
Equitable remedies were also more flexible than straightforward money damages : equity courts tended to give relief in the form of an injunction .
So , for example , where the law might compel a defendant who stole a painting to pay the owner its value , equity would compel the defendant to return the actual painting because it is a unique thing that can not truly be replaced for any price.So , being a British colony , America inherited this dual court system .
Although the federal courts and all states but Delaware have since merged the courts of law and equity , the distinction between legal &amp; equitable claims , legal &amp; equitable defenses , and legal &amp; equitable relief remains.What has any of this got to do with fair use and the jury ?
Well , although the law courts often had factual issues decided by juries , the equitable courts did not have juries .
Thus , there is a long-standing precedent that issues of equity are decided by the judge , not the jury , and fair use has been described by many courts as an equitable defense to the legal claim of copyright infringement .
If you recall from the description of equity above , it amounts to a claim that , even if the defendant did infringe the plaintiff 's copyright , it would not be fair or just to hold the defendant liable in this case.You may note that fair use is codified in 17 USC 107 , but that is essentially a codification of the preexisting equitable defense .
Thus , some courts have found that the codification into law did not destroy the essential equitable character of the defense.On the other hand , there are a lot of court cases where the fair use defense was submitted to a jury .
Now , it could be that that happened because the judges in those cases had the law wrong or that neither side brought up the issue and the default is to submit fact-intensive questions like fair use to the jury .
Or it could be that those judges had the law correct and for various reasons fair use is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury .
That is what the judge would like the sides in this case to brief her on , so that she can decide that legal question before the trial begins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case the judge is adjudicating the law.
There is a legal question about whether it is the province of the judge or jury to decide the value of a claim to the equitable defense of fair use.
You might ask why that would be a question in the first place.
Mr. Beckerman (aka NewYorkCountryLawyer) has presented his side, but allow me to summarize the issue in less biased language.American law is in large part derived from English common law.
The common law had, for historical reasons, two parallel systems of courts, law courts and equity courts (I am ignoring the admiralty and ecclesiastical courts for the sake of brevity).
Legal claims were brought before law courts, and law courts could give legal remedies.
Legal claims are what we would think of as most normal kinds of claims (trespass, breach of contract, etc), and legal remedies are typically money damages.The courts of equity, on the other hand, heard equitable claims and granted equitable remedies.
They also followed the rules of equity rather than legal rules.
It is convenient (though somewhat imprecise) to say that where the law is concerned with hard and fast rules, equity is concerned with fairness.
Thus, equity courts heard cases where the common law courts failed to administer justice, whether because a rule was unfair in the particular case or because no cause of action existed to cover the particular case.
Equitable remedies were also more flexible than straightforward money damages: equity courts tended to give relief in the form of an injunction.
So, for example, where the law might compel a defendant who stole a painting to pay the owner its value, equity would compel the defendant to return the actual painting because it is a unique thing that cannot truly be replaced for any price.So, being a British colony, America inherited this dual court system.
Although the federal courts and all states but Delaware have since merged the courts of law and equity, the distinction between legal &amp; equitable claims, legal &amp; equitable defenses, and legal &amp; equitable relief remains.What has any of this got to do with fair use and the jury?
Well, although the law courts often had factual issues decided by juries, the equitable courts did not have juries.
Thus, there is a long-standing precedent that issues of equity are decided by the judge, not the jury, and fair use has been described by many courts as an equitable defense to the legal claim of copyright infringement.
If you recall from the description of equity above, it amounts to a claim that, even if the defendant did infringe the plaintiff's copyright, it would not be fair or just to hold the defendant liable in this case.You may note that fair use is codified in 17 USC 107, but that is essentially a codification of the preexisting equitable defense.
Thus, some courts have found that the codification into law did not destroy the essential equitable character of the defense.On the other hand, there are a lot of court cases where the fair use defense was submitted to a jury.
Now, it could be that that happened because the judges in those cases had the law wrong or that neither side brought up the issue and the default is to submit fact-intensive questions like fair use to the jury.
Or it could be that those judges had the law correct and for various reasons fair use is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury.
That is what the judge would like the sides in this case to brief her on, so that she can decide that legal question before the trial begins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699421</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>robinesque</author>
	<datestamp>1247586600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lol i get it: boxes</htmltext>
<tokenext>lol i get it : boxes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol i get it: boxes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1247652780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell? Yet you want all of this at the terms <b>you</b>? Who gave you the right? If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, <b>you don't get to use the product</b>. That's just not how a free market works, and you know it.<br> <br>I have absolutely <b>no</b> issue with any of what's going on except for two things:<br> <br>1. Corporate lobbying. Corporations should not be able to buy legislation. End of story.<br>2. Government bailouts. In a free market, a business which fails is a business which fails. There's a reason for that failure; It's a sign that the business model or product is no longer financially lucrative, and the business needs to shape up or ship out. I'm bordering on refusing to pay any tax and risking imprisonment for this blatant disregard for free market economics. If the gooberment propped up every single failing business in the western world in this time of financial crysis, the World Bank would be (metaphorically, at least) empty.<br> <br>Nice rant, though. Eloquent, cites sources, and emotionally provocative. Too bad you missed the bigger picture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your " ownership " of a product are fair or not , you still want to be able to use the product they sell ?
Yet you want all of this at the terms you ?
Who gave you the right ?
If you do n't want to abide by a specific term or condition , you do n't get to use the product .
That 's just not how a free market works , and you know it .
I have absolutely no issue with any of what 's going on except for two things : 1 .
Corporate lobbying .
Corporations should not be able to buy legislation .
End of story.2 .
Government bailouts .
In a free market , a business which fails is a business which fails .
There 's a reason for that failure ; It 's a sign that the business model or product is no longer financially lucrative , and the business needs to shape up or ship out .
I 'm bordering on refusing to pay any tax and risking imprisonment for this blatant disregard for free market economics .
If the gooberment propped up every single failing business in the western world in this time of financial crysis , the World Bank would be ( metaphorically , at least ) empty .
Nice rant , though .
Eloquent , cites sources , and emotionally provocative .
Too bad you missed the bigger picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell?
Yet you want all of this at the terms you?
Who gave you the right?
If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, you don't get to use the product.
That's just not how a free market works, and you know it.
I have absolutely no issue with any of what's going on except for two things: 1.
Corporate lobbying.
Corporations should not be able to buy legislation.
End of story.2.
Government bailouts.
In a free market, a business which fails is a business which fails.
There's a reason for that failure; It's a sign that the business model or product is no longer financially lucrative, and the business needs to shape up or ship out.
I'm bordering on refusing to pay any tax and risking imprisonment for this blatant disregard for free market economics.
If the gooberment propped up every single failing business in the western world in this time of financial crysis, the World Bank would be (metaphorically, at least) empty.
Nice rant, though.
Eloquent, cites sources, and emotionally provocative.
Too bad you missed the bigger picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699187</id>
	<title>That</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes perfect sense. After all, fair use has been taken away from everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes perfect sense .
After all , fair use has been taken away from everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes perfect sense.
After all, fair use has been taken away from everyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704839</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>pcfixup4ua</author>
	<datestamp>1247680140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not sure you can have what is going on without the two things that you listed.   Bill Gates saw 30 years ago that there would come a point where the United states would no longer manufacture anything, and that the only wealthy people would be those who would control the processes to how things are made.  He applied this model to computer software, licensing it to companies (IBM) who would actually manufacture the product and sell it, while he would collect Royalties.  Watch as Microsoft sheds a lot of its workforce over the next 10 or 20 years and become more of a patent holding company collecting royalties for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundataion.  (There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but there will most likely be no true innovation for the next 20-30 years or more, and those who survive will be the ones who can monetize what has already been done.
The corporate lobby will extend this to eliminate fair use and the public domain.  Everything will be covered by a copyright, patent, or trademark.  Want to learn 2+2=4 you will have to pay a royalty to the owner of the copyright to the numbers 2 and 4, the copyright of the symbols "+" and "=" and the patent covering the addition of numbers.  (ok I am being a little sarcastic)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure you can have what is going on without the two things that you listed .
Bill Gates saw 30 years ago that there would come a point where the United states would no longer manufacture anything , and that the only wealthy people would be those who would control the processes to how things are made .
He applied this model to computer software , licensing it to companies ( IBM ) who would actually manufacture the product and sell it , while he would collect Royalties .
Watch as Microsoft sheds a lot of its workforce over the next 10 or 20 years and become more of a patent holding company collecting royalties for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundataion .
( There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself , but there will most likely be no true innovation for the next 20-30 years or more , and those who survive will be the ones who can monetize what has already been done .
The corporate lobby will extend this to eliminate fair use and the public domain .
Everything will be covered by a copyright , patent , or trademark .
Want to learn 2 + 2 = 4 you will have to pay a royalty to the owner of the copyright to the numbers 2 and 4 , the copyright of the symbols " + " and " = " and the patent covering the addition of numbers .
( ok I am being a little sarcastic )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure you can have what is going on without the two things that you listed.
Bill Gates saw 30 years ago that there would come a point where the United states would no longer manufacture anything, and that the only wealthy people would be those who would control the processes to how things are made.
He applied this model to computer software, licensing it to companies (IBM) who would actually manufacture the product and sell it, while he would collect Royalties.
Watch as Microsoft sheds a lot of its workforce over the next 10 or 20 years and become more of a patent holding company collecting royalties for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundataion.
(There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but there will most likely be no true innovation for the next 20-30 years or more, and those who survive will be the ones who can monetize what has already been done.
The corporate lobby will extend this to eliminate fair use and the public domain.
Everything will be covered by a copyright, patent, or trademark.
Want to learn 2+2=4 you will have to pay a royalty to the owner of the copyright to the numbers 2 and 4, the copyright of the symbols "+" and "=" and the patent covering the addition of numbers.
(ok I am being a little sarcastic)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699939</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are dull incandescent bulbs hung down by wire over a set of towering oak podiums. Behind you are endless rows of rusty metal folding chairs, all occupied by elephants and donkeys, except for a few rats toward the front. The bailiff is an Argrue, standing in the shady area against the wall. You don't know what an Argrue is, but you can guess it's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.</p><p>The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel, which would be fine if it didn't leave so many marks on the wood when it's banged, and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet. The smaller podium has a guillotine attached to it near the front, with the microphone being placed in front of the slot where you would place your head.</p><p>You have in your inventory a rope, which is binding your hands together, and a bright orange jumpsuit of -255 AGI, which you are currently wearing. The only exit is DOWN, through a trap door.</p></div><p>WTF are you talking about? How is this insightful in any way?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are dull incandescent bulbs hung down by wire over a set of towering oak podiums .
Behind you are endless rows of rusty metal folding chairs , all occupied by elephants and donkeys , except for a few rats toward the front .
The bailiff is an Argrue , standing in the shady area against the wall .
You do n't know what an Argrue is , but you can guess it 's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel , which would be fine if it did n't leave so many marks on the wood when it 's banged , and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet .
The smaller podium has a guillotine attached to it near the front , with the microphone being placed in front of the slot where you would place your head.You have in your inventory a rope , which is binding your hands together , and a bright orange jumpsuit of -255 AGI , which you are currently wearing .
The only exit is DOWN , through a trap door.WTF are you talking about ?
How is this insightful in any way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are dull incandescent bulbs hung down by wire over a set of towering oak podiums.
Behind you are endless rows of rusty metal folding chairs, all occupied by elephants and donkeys, except for a few rats toward the front.
The bailiff is an Argrue, standing in the shady area against the wall.
You don't know what an Argrue is, but you can guess it's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel, which would be fine if it didn't leave so many marks on the wood when it's banged, and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet.
The smaller podium has a guillotine attached to it near the front, with the microphone being placed in front of the slot where you would place your head.You have in your inventory a rope, which is binding your hands together, and a bright orange jumpsuit of -255 AGI, which you are currently wearing.
The only exit is DOWN, through a trap door.WTF are you talking about?
How is this insightful in any way?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28715745</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247754840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would be an excellent economics teacher.  Your thinking is "reality-based"!  I respect those who deal with Facts &amp; Reality.</p><p>I really am not an anonymous coward; but I lose passwords, and then the sites will not let me re-register; and because I am a computer illiterate, I throw my hands up.</p><p>http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would be an excellent economics teacher .
Your thinking is " reality-based " !
I respect those who deal with Facts &amp; Reality.I really am not an anonymous coward ; but I lose passwords , and then the sites will not let me re-register ; and because I am a computer illiterate , I throw my hands up.http : //publiushuldah.wordpress.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would be an excellent economics teacher.
Your thinking is "reality-based"!
I respect those who deal with Facts &amp; Reality.I really am not an anonymous coward; but I lose passwords, and then the sites will not let me re-register; and because I am a computer illiterate, I throw my hands up.http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702265</id>
	<title>Re:Hey... that's not FAIR!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247666100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smell a bribe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell a bribe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell a bribe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28717231</id>
	<title>Re:Judge Gertner rocks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you have summary judgment if there are issues of fact?? Even if the judge is the fact-finder, there can't be summary judgment if there are issues of fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you have summary judgment if there are issues of fact ? ?
Even if the judge is the fact-finder , there ca n't be summary judgment if there are issues of fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you have summary judgment if there are issues of fact??
Even if the judge is the fact-finder, there can't be summary judgment if there are issues of fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702587</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1247667960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When a few people have tried that, they tend to end up in Federal prison for a long time, and they don't exactly get crowds of like-minded supporters pulling open the prison doors.</p></div><p>My hint: you don't just roll through those in order, you need to complete each step. If you can't, in pursuing your cause, reliably obtain enough sympathetic jury members to acquit you then you don't have enough support in the general population to win a revolution.
<br> <br>
I guess you really nail it when you say "When a few people have tried that...". A few isn't enough, if you only have a few, that's still soapbox time. It isn't a lack of courage, there's nothing unpatriotic about wanting to avoid civil war:
<br> <br>
<i>Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should

not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all

experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while

evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to

which they are accustomed.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a few people have tried that , they tend to end up in Federal prison for a long time , and they do n't exactly get crowds of like-minded supporters pulling open the prison doors.My hint : you do n't just roll through those in order , you need to complete each step .
If you ca n't , in pursuing your cause , reliably obtain enough sympathetic jury members to acquit you then you do n't have enough support in the general population to win a revolution .
I guess you really nail it when you say " When a few people have tried that... " .
A few is n't enough , if you only have a few , that 's still soapbox time .
It is n't a lack of courage , there 's nothing unpatriotic about wanting to avoid civil war : Prudence , indeed , will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ; and accordingly all experience hath shown , that mankind are more disposed to suffer , while evils are sufferable , than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a few people have tried that, they tend to end up in Federal prison for a long time, and they don't exactly get crowds of like-minded supporters pulling open the prison doors.My hint: you don't just roll through those in order, you need to complete each step.
If you can't, in pursuing your cause, reliably obtain enough sympathetic jury members to acquit you then you don't have enough support in the general population to win a revolution.
I guess you really nail it when you say "When a few people have tried that...".
A few isn't enough, if you only have a few, that's still soapbox time.
It isn't a lack of courage, there's nothing unpatriotic about wanting to avoid civil war:
 
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should

not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all

experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while

evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to

which they are accustomed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28708405</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247652960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are actually going to compare selling bread to a starving population with copyright violations?  Are you insane?  You are aware that bread is pretty much the bare minimum required to survive, and entertainment is nothing but a luxury, right?  A more appropriate comparison would be with the scumbag looters that come out during a power failure - it has suddenly become easy for me to take things I don't want to pay for, so therefore it is OK.  Oddly enough, I have never seen looting portrayed as some sort of noble rebellion against the high price of jewelry.
</p><p>As for your equally asinine comparison to the Boston Tea Party - well let's see.  On the one hand we have a group of people who are willing to risk arrest or death, and at the very least are willing to sacrifice by going without something they want (tea), to protest against someone who forcibly takes their money and gives little in return for it.  On the other hand, we have a bunch of yahoos who hide behind anonymity, are willing to sacrifice nothing at all, and whose 'demand' is that OTHER PEOPLE (artists, publishers, whatever) sacrifice FOR THEM (by giving away their work), so they can have stuff for free. Great comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are actually going to compare selling bread to a starving population with copyright violations ?
Are you insane ?
You are aware that bread is pretty much the bare minimum required to survive , and entertainment is nothing but a luxury , right ?
A more appropriate comparison would be with the scumbag looters that come out during a power failure - it has suddenly become easy for me to take things I do n't want to pay for , so therefore it is OK. Oddly enough , I have never seen looting portrayed as some sort of noble rebellion against the high price of jewelry .
As for your equally asinine comparison to the Boston Tea Party - well let 's see .
On the one hand we have a group of people who are willing to risk arrest or death , and at the very least are willing to sacrifice by going without something they want ( tea ) , to protest against someone who forcibly takes their money and gives little in return for it .
On the other hand , we have a bunch of yahoos who hide behind anonymity , are willing to sacrifice nothing at all , and whose 'demand ' is that OTHER PEOPLE ( artists , publishers , whatever ) sacrifice FOR THEM ( by giving away their work ) , so they can have stuff for free .
Great comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are actually going to compare selling bread to a starving population with copyright violations?
Are you insane?
You are aware that bread is pretty much the bare minimum required to survive, and entertainment is nothing but a luxury, right?
A more appropriate comparison would be with the scumbag looters that come out during a power failure - it has suddenly become easy for me to take things I don't want to pay for, so therefore it is OK.  Oddly enough, I have never seen looting portrayed as some sort of noble rebellion against the high price of jewelry.
As for your equally asinine comparison to the Boston Tea Party - well let's see.
On the one hand we have a group of people who are willing to risk arrest or death, and at the very least are willing to sacrifice by going without something they want (tea), to protest against someone who forcibly takes their money and gives little in return for it.
On the other hand, we have a bunch of yahoos who hide behind anonymity, are willing to sacrifice nothing at all, and whose 'demand' is that OTHER PEOPLE (artists, publishers, whatever) sacrifice FOR THEM (by giving away their work), so they can have stuff for free.
Great comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28705493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28708999</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>thefolkmetal</author>
	<datestamp>1247655540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>don't know what an Argrue is, but you can guess it's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.</p></div><p>You mean a selectively (read: In) bred Grue?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't know what an Argrue is , but you can guess it 's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.You mean a selectively ( read : In ) bred Grue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't know what an Argrue is, but you can guess it's like what Arkansas is to Kansas and it looks vicious.You mean a selectively (read: In) bred Grue?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28703377</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247672040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right, so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell? Yet you want all of this at the terms you? Who gave you the right? If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, you don't get to use the product. That's just not how a free market works, and you know it.</p></div><p>If the publisher imposes conditions on a product, and they are the only sellers of that product, where is the free market?
Take a Madonna album, how many different publishers are there and how do their conditions and prices compare? If there is only one how can it be a free market? <br>
If you like a song and want to play it to an audience, who gave them the right to stop you or charge you money? Why?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your " ownership " of a product are fair or not , you still want to be able to use the product they sell ?
Yet you want all of this at the terms you ?
Who gave you the right ?
If you do n't want to abide by a specific term or condition , you do n't get to use the product .
That 's just not how a free market works , and you know it.If the publisher imposes conditions on a product , and they are the only sellers of that product , where is the free market ?
Take a Madonna album , how many different publishers are there and how do their conditions and prices compare ?
If there is only one how can it be a free market ?
If you like a song and want to play it to an audience , who gave them the right to stop you or charge you money ?
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell?
Yet you want all of this at the terms you?
Who gave you the right?
If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, you don't get to use the product.
That's just not how a free market works, and you know it.If the publisher imposes conditions on a product, and they are the only sellers of that product, where is the free market?
Take a Madonna album, how many different publishers are there and how do their conditions and prices compare?
If there is only one how can it be a free market?
If you like a song and want to play it to an audience, who gave them the right to stop you or charge you money?
Why?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699859</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1247590560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>
&gt;look innocent
<br>
I see no innocent here.
<br>
&gt;
</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; look innocent I see no innocent here .
&gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt;look innocent

I see no innocent here.
&gt;
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700659</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247599500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>copyright is nothing more than a courtesy paid to the creators of non tangible things.  never treat it as anything more substantial than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>copyright is nothing more than a courtesy paid to the creators of non tangible things .
never treat it as anything more substantial than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>copyright is nothing more than a courtesy paid to the creators of non tangible things.
never treat it as anything more substantial than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699767</id>
	<title>Seems like a call for the Pirate Party US</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1247589540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard there was one that formed in Canada.  Has one been set up in the US yet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard there was one that formed in Canada .
Has one been set up in the US yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard there was one that formed in Canada.
Has one been set up in the US yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699561</id>
	<title>Oh,well</title>
	<author>BatGnat</author>
	<datestamp>1247587560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can anyone say appeal. Wont matter who wins..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone say appeal .
Wont matter who wins. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone say appeal.
Wont matter who wins..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28705813</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1247683740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Well, since the most expensive movies are not worth watching outside of a *good* movie theater, I'd say the trend is clearly there."</i> <p>
I dunno about that really. Many people out there, self included, have invested in some pretty good gear to watch movies on at home. I have pretty high end projector, I have a screaming good stereo system (I do need to upgrade my surround processor) and can pretty much duplicate the best of a movie theater. In addition, I have an open bar, access to the kitchen, I can pick and choose the company I keep to watch it, and I can pause things whenever I need another drink or potty break.</p><p>
I've only been to like two or so movies OUT at a public theater in like the past 7 years. </p><p>
I can't be the only one out there doing this...as that the equipment, decent stuff is getting to the price level of more of the general public.</p><p>
Besides, if you have a chick over to watch a movie...you are MUCH closer to your bedroom, than if you are at a movie house.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Well , since the most expensive movies are not worth watching outside of a * good * movie theater , I 'd say the trend is clearly there .
" I dunno about that really .
Many people out there , self included , have invested in some pretty good gear to watch movies on at home .
I have pretty high end projector , I have a screaming good stereo system ( I do need to upgrade my surround processor ) and can pretty much duplicate the best of a movie theater .
In addition , I have an open bar , access to the kitchen , I can pick and choose the company I keep to watch it , and I can pause things whenever I need another drink or potty break .
I 've only been to like two or so movies OUT at a public theater in like the past 7 years .
I ca n't be the only one out there doing this...as that the equipment , decent stuff is getting to the price level of more of the general public .
Besides , if you have a chick over to watch a movie...you are MUCH closer to your bedroom , than if you are at a movie house .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Well, since the most expensive movies are not worth watching outside of a *good* movie theater, I'd say the trend is clearly there.
" 
I dunno about that really.
Many people out there, self included, have invested in some pretty good gear to watch movies on at home.
I have pretty high end projector, I have a screaming good stereo system (I do need to upgrade my surround processor) and can pretty much duplicate the best of a movie theater.
In addition, I have an open bar, access to the kitchen, I can pick and choose the company I keep to watch it, and I can pause things whenever I need another drink or potty break.
I've only been to like two or so movies OUT at a public theater in like the past 7 years.
I can't be the only one out there doing this...as that the equipment, decent stuff is getting to the price level of more of the general public.
Besides, if you have a chick over to watch a movie...you are MUCH closer to your bedroom, than if you are at a movie house.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699365</id>
	<title>Tro7lk0re</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">users. Surprise Slashdot's BSD's aaclaimed Th3re are some</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>users .
Surprise Slashdot 's BSD 's aaclaimed Th3re are some [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>users.
Surprise Slashdot's BSD's aaclaimed Th3re are some [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702785</id>
	<title>Time for some Jury Nullification</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1247668980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do a little public service and inform your fellow citizens about jury nullification.  This is a vastly UNDER-utilized tool that the citizens can use to protect themselves from tyranny and idiocy in the law.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_Nullification" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_Nullification</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>" . . . if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute . . . Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."</p><p>The jury can do what THEY think is right and fair and ignore "orders" from the judge.  As an aside, I've always wondered why the hell we have to treat judges as if they were royalty.  You have to rise when they enter the courtroom, and they sit on a throne in their black robes looking down at everyone. WTF?  They're nothing more than appointed government officials, and these procedures serve to reinforce their image as an authority figure to the jurors.  If a law is idiotic and un-just, I think it's the DUTY of the jury to toss the case.  Of course every case is unique, but I'd be inclined to nullify any offense related to piracy without profit, minor drug possession, civil disobedience or other victimless "crimes".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do a little public service and inform your fellow citizens about jury nullification .
This is a vastly UNDER-utilized tool that the citizens can use to protect themselves from tyranny and idiocy in the law.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury \ _Nullification [ wikipedia.org ] " .
. .
if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense , it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute .
. .
Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment .
" The jury can do what THEY think is right and fair and ignore " orders " from the judge .
As an aside , I 've always wondered why the hell we have to treat judges as if they were royalty .
You have to rise when they enter the courtroom , and they sit on a throne in their black robes looking down at everyone .
WTF ? They 're nothing more than appointed government officials , and these procedures serve to reinforce their image as an authority figure to the jurors .
If a law is idiotic and un-just , I think it 's the DUTY of the jury to toss the case .
Of course every case is unique , but I 'd be inclined to nullify any offense related to piracy without profit , minor drug possession , civil disobedience or other victimless " crimes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do a little public service and inform your fellow citizens about jury nullification.
This is a vastly UNDER-utilized tool that the citizens can use to protect themselves from tyranny and idiocy in the law.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_Nullification [wikipedia.org]" .
. .
if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute .
. .
Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.
"The jury can do what THEY think is right and fair and ignore "orders" from the judge.
As an aside, I've always wondered why the hell we have to treat judges as if they were royalty.
You have to rise when they enter the courtroom, and they sit on a throne in their black robes looking down at everyone.
WTF?  They're nothing more than appointed government officials, and these procedures serve to reinforce their image as an authority figure to the jurors.
If a law is idiotic and un-just, I think it's the DUTY of the jury to toss the case.
Of course every case is unique, but I'd be inclined to nullify any offense related to piracy without profit, minor drug possession, civil disobedience or other victimless "crimes".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699523</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, boxes of ballots, bars of soap...  they all become lethal projectiles at sufficient speed, but I don't understand the jury. Why not just launch jurors one at a time? It would require greater targeting precision but you would need a lot less energy, and it should make your reload time a lot shorter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , boxes of ballots , bars of soap... they all become lethal projectiles at sufficient speed , but I do n't understand the jury .
Why not just launch jurors one at a time ?
It would require greater targeting precision but you would need a lot less energy , and it should make your reload time a lot shorter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, boxes of ballots, bars of soap...  they all become lethal projectiles at sufficient speed, but I don't understand the jury.
Why not just launch jurors one at a time?
It would require greater targeting precision but you would need a lot less energy, and it should make your reload time a lot shorter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701979</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1247663940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for your reply. One point sticks out to me, or at least was in my mind while I read the rest of the comment:<p><div class="quote"><p>This is the public's revenge for creating unjust terms in the first place</p></div><p>That is unethical. "I don't agree with your terms, so I'm going to steal your product to spite you!" isn't the answer. Boycott, and voting with your money would be both ethical and effective, if enough would engage in it. The company has not straw-man of "piracy" or "theft" to brainwash shareholders terrified by slumping profits and bamboozle courts over infringement of imaginary property rights.<br> <br>The trouble is, everyone seems to want their cake, and eat it.<br> <br>TNSTAAFL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for your reply .
One point sticks out to me , or at least was in my mind while I read the rest of the comment : This is the public 's revenge for creating unjust terms in the first placeThat is unethical .
" I do n't agree with your terms , so I 'm going to steal your product to spite you !
" is n't the answer .
Boycott , and voting with your money would be both ethical and effective , if enough would engage in it .
The company has not straw-man of " piracy " or " theft " to brainwash shareholders terrified by slumping profits and bamboozle courts over infringement of imaginary property rights .
The trouble is , everyone seems to want their cake , and eat it .
TNSTAAFL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for your reply.
One point sticks out to me, or at least was in my mind while I read the rest of the comment:This is the public's revenge for creating unjust terms in the first placeThat is unethical.
"I don't agree with your terms, so I'm going to steal your product to spite you!
" isn't the answer.
Boycott, and voting with your money would be both ethical and effective, if enough would engage in it.
The company has not straw-man of "piracy" or "theft" to brainwash shareholders terrified by slumping profits and bamboozle courts over infringement of imaginary property rights.
The trouble is, everyone seems to want their cake, and eat it.
TNSTAAFL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699825</id>
	<title>What does PirateBay, and Sweden have to say ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700237</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1247594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couple of things briefly before I get back to studying for the bar exam, so this post would be as METICULOUSLY RESEARCHED as I am known for WORLDWIDE:</p><p>1. courts have been doing more than adjudging disputes since John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.<br>2. there has indeed been a trend toward keeping more things away from the jury in recent years; I know many older legal practitioners and judges hate this and have called this trend elitist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Couple of things briefly before I get back to studying for the bar exam , so this post would be as METICULOUSLY RESEARCHED as I am known for WORLDWIDE : 1. courts have been doing more than adjudging disputes since John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.2 .
there has indeed been a trend toward keeping more things away from the jury in recent years ; I know many older legal practitioners and judges hate this and have called this trend elitist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couple of things briefly before I get back to studying for the bar exam, so this post would be as METICULOUSLY RESEARCHED as I am known for WORLDWIDE:1. courts have been doing more than adjudging disputes since John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.2.
there has indeed been a trend toward keeping more things away from the jury in recent years; I know many older legal practitioners and judges hate this and have called this trend elitist</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701381</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>Andy\_R</author>
	<datestamp>1247655780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nigRT2KmCE" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nigRT2KmCE</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 4nigRT2KmCE [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nigRT2KmCE [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28720171</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>sydbarrett74</author>
	<datestamp>1247771640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What will movies turn into? Will there be a resurgence of live performances?</p></div><p>Good point, and the answer is yes. Once CGI gets to the point where the studios can create bespoke virtual 'actors' and no longer have to pay tens of millions per movie to the meatspace variety, we will see a renaissance of live acting. Thespians who can really <em>act</em> as opposed to looking good up on a big screen will flourish. Those who got by purely on looks will have to go back to sweeping floors.<br> <br>BTW, to see where CGI and the use of virtual actors are headed, just watch <em>The Curious Case of Benjamin Button</em>. Hint: the old dude is mostly ones and zeroes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will movies turn into ?
Will there be a resurgence of live performances ? Good point , and the answer is yes .
Once CGI gets to the point where the studios can create bespoke virtual 'actors ' and no longer have to pay tens of millions per movie to the meatspace variety , we will see a renaissance of live acting .
Thespians who can really act as opposed to looking good up on a big screen will flourish .
Those who got by purely on looks will have to go back to sweeping floors .
BTW , to see where CGI and the use of virtual actors are headed , just watch The Curious Case of Benjamin Button .
Hint : the old dude is mostly ones and zeroes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will movies turn into?
Will there be a resurgence of live performances?Good point, and the answer is yes.
Once CGI gets to the point where the studios can create bespoke virtual 'actors' and no longer have to pay tens of millions per movie to the meatspace variety, we will see a renaissance of live acting.
Thespians who can really act as opposed to looking good up on a big screen will flourish.
Those who got by purely on looks will have to go back to sweeping floors.
BTW, to see where CGI and the use of virtual actors are headed, just watch The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Hint: the old dude is mostly ones and zeroes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702299</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Moryath</author>
	<datestamp>1247666220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.</p><p>Courts have repeatedly ruled time and again that if the transaction takes the form of a sale (see: <a href="http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Softman:v:Adobe.htm" title="economicexpert.com">Softman V Adobe</a> [economicexpert.com] for one example) then it is governed by the legal rights of a SALE, and any restrictions of those are unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.</p><p>Those rights include, among other things, the right to modify what you have purchased and the right of first sale.</p><p>Where it gets fucking stupid is that the software companies - and even some companies selling plastic bits these days - want to try to classify everything as a "license" rather than admit it's a sale. All we really need to do to fix the system is to abolish the "license" crap in the legal code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit.Courts have repeatedly ruled time and again that if the transaction takes the form of a sale ( see : Softman V Adobe [ economicexpert.com ] for one example ) then it is governed by the legal rights of a SALE , and any restrictions of those are unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.Those rights include , among other things , the right to modify what you have purchased and the right of first sale.Where it gets fucking stupid is that the software companies - and even some companies selling plastic bits these days - want to try to classify everything as a " license " rather than admit it 's a sale .
All we really need to do to fix the system is to abolish the " license " crap in the legal code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.Courts have repeatedly ruled time and again that if the transaction takes the form of a sale (see: Softman V Adobe [economicexpert.com] for one example) then it is governed by the legal rights of a SALE, and any restrictions of those are unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.Those rights include, among other things, the right to modify what you have purchased and the right of first sale.Where it gets fucking stupid is that the software companies - and even some companies selling plastic bits these days - want to try to classify everything as a "license" rather than admit it's a sale.
All we really need to do to fix the system is to abolish the "license" crap in the legal code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699539</id>
	<title>they need to take rights off of faggots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and throw their worthless child molesting asses in the ovens.<br> <br>DIE FAGGOTS DIE</htmltext>
<tokenext>and throw their worthless child molesting asses in the ovens .
DIE FAGGOTS DIE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and throw their worthless child molesting asses in the ovens.
DIE FAGGOTS DIE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702645</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1247668260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel, which would be fine if it didn't leave so many marks on the wood when it's banged, and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet.</p></div><p>Everyone who had a mental image of Terry Gilliam when they read this line, raise your hand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel , which would be fine if it did n't leave so many marks on the wood when it 's banged , and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet.Everyone who had a mental image of Terry Gilliam when they read this line , raise your hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge uses a battle axe in place of a gavel, which would be fine if it didn't leave so many marks on the wood when it's banged, and wears an ancient Norse viking helmet.Everyone who had a mental image of Terry Gilliam when they read this line, raise your hand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28707369</id>
	<title>Seconded</title>
	<author>Jaazaniah</author>
	<datestamp>1247690940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most eloquently put. I second this statement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most eloquently put .
I second this statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most eloquently put.
I second this statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702375</id>
	<title>Re:Hey... that's not FAIR!</title>
	<author>LVSlushdat</author>
	<datestamp>1247666640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you want to bet, a nice big check just came in the mail for the judge, with a return address of RIAA.......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you want to bet , a nice big check just came in the mail for the judge , with a return address of RIAA...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you want to bet, a nice big check just came in the mail for the judge, with a return address of RIAA.......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28708431</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1247653080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought you might find this interesting:</p><p><a href="http://www.p2pconsortium.com/index.php?s=e8cf8a9cb0038199f63fd87e1c69bf61&amp;showtopic=15260&amp;pid=130042&amp;st=0&amp;#entry130042" title="p2pconsortium.com">http://www.p2pconsortium.com/index.php?s=e8cf8a9cb0038199f63fd87e1c69bf61&amp;showtopic=15260&amp;pid=130042&amp;st=0&amp;#entry130042</a> [p2pconsortium.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought you might find this interesting : http : //www.p2pconsortium.com/index.php ? s = e8cf8a9cb0038199f63fd87e1c69bf61&amp;showtopic = 15260&amp;pid = 130042&amp;st = 0&amp; # entry130042 [ p2pconsortium.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought you might find this interesting:http://www.p2pconsortium.com/index.php?s=e8cf8a9cb0038199f63fd87e1c69bf61&amp;showtopic=15260&amp;pid=130042&amp;st=0&amp;#entry130042 [p2pconsortium.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699279</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1247585220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bathe first dammit! Stinking while in line to vote is just wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bathe first dammit !
Stinking while in line to vote is just wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bathe first dammit!
Stinking while in line to vote is just wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700013</id>
	<title>Re:Automatic Appeal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is, but then you open up a whole can of FUBAR over judicial powers in the meantime. This is basically a judge saying "you cannot use this defense". By extension, ANY defense that is deemed "equitable" isn't permitted either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is , but then you open up a whole can of FUBAR over judicial powers in the meantime .
This is basically a judge saying " you can not use this defense " .
By extension , ANY defense that is deemed " equitable " is n't permitted either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is, but then you open up a whole can of FUBAR over judicial powers in the meantime.
This is basically a judge saying "you cannot use this defense".
By extension, ANY defense that is deemed "equitable" isn't permitted either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702621</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247668140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice rant, except you're 100\% wrong.  What happens if you open a hardware store and refuse to sell to black people?  Or open a theater with no handicap seating?  Or use bait and switch advertising?</p><p>The fact is we have a lot of laws about what you can do with YOUR product and how you can sell it, and what rights you have, and what rights the consumer has, regardless of whether you agree with them or not as the property owner/seller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice rant , except you 're 100 \ % wrong .
What happens if you open a hardware store and refuse to sell to black people ?
Or open a theater with no handicap seating ?
Or use bait and switch advertising ? The fact is we have a lot of laws about what you can do with YOUR product and how you can sell it , and what rights you have , and what rights the consumer has , regardless of whether you agree with them or not as the property owner/seller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice rant, except you're 100\% wrong.
What happens if you open a hardware store and refuse to sell to black people?
Or open a theater with no handicap seating?
Or use bait and switch advertising?The fact is we have a lot of laws about what you can do with YOUR product and how you can sell it, and what rights you have, and what rights the consumer has, regardless of whether you agree with them or not as the property owner/seller.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700443</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.</p></div><p>Comma he said, apropos of nothing at all .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballot , Soap , Jury , Ammo ; they should be used in that order.Comma he said , apropos of nothing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.Comma he said, apropos of nothing at all .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702939</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1247669700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let him define "fair use" and you risk being hammered into the ground like Jammie Thomas.</i></p><p>Ya, except that it certainly looks like Jammie did in fact download the songs..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let him define " fair use " and you risk being hammered into the ground like Jammie Thomas.Ya , except that it certainly looks like Jammie did in fact download the songs. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let him define "fair use" and you risk being hammered into the ground like Jammie Thomas.Ya, except that it certainly looks like Jammie did in fact download the songs..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699505</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1247587020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are eaten by a grue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are eaten by a grue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are eaten by a grue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700017</id>
	<title>Re:Hey... that's not FAIR!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replying to trolls should be modded off topic. Including this post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replying to trolls should be modded off topic .
Including this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replying to trolls should be modded off topic.
Including this post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699223</id>
	<title>Achem. Mistrial.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judge is attempting to countermand the authority of the jury? Ah, I think someone's rusty on their Constitution. Jury's in this country have the ability to declare the law itself unconstitutional or cruel and unusual and have it struck down. It's not something judges like to advertise, and this one is probably concerned that they might wake up and say "hey wait a minute...", remember their Constitutional readings from high school, and put a big fat bullet in the entire debate.</p><p>Either that, or the judge wants to guarantee a whole new trial, because that's what a move like this is going to cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge is attempting to countermand the authority of the jury ?
Ah , I think someone 's rusty on their Constitution .
Jury 's in this country have the ability to declare the law itself unconstitutional or cruel and unusual and have it struck down .
It 's not something judges like to advertise , and this one is probably concerned that they might wake up and say " hey wait a minute... " , remember their Constitutional readings from high school , and put a big fat bullet in the entire debate.Either that , or the judge wants to guarantee a whole new trial , because that 's what a move like this is going to cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge is attempting to countermand the authority of the jury?
Ah, I think someone's rusty on their Constitution.
Jury's in this country have the ability to declare the law itself unconstitutional or cruel and unusual and have it struck down.
It's not something judges like to advertise, and this one is probably concerned that they might wake up and say "hey wait a minute...", remember their Constitutional readings from high school, and put a big fat bullet in the entire debate.Either that, or the judge wants to guarantee a whole new trial, because that's what a move like this is going to cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28705493</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Aris Katsaris</author>
	<datestamp>1247682480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That is unethical.</i></p><p>Do you hold the same belief for the Boston Tea Party? Unethical to take hold of that tea?</p><p><i> "I don't agree with your terms, so I'm going to steal your product to spite you!" isn't the answer.</i></p><p>It always has been the answer. When the rules imposed from above fail to seem legitimate in the eyes of the population, the population no longer follows them. If you sell bread to a starving population at too high a price, the populace breaks open your warehouses and takes it for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is unethical.Do you hold the same belief for the Boston Tea Party ?
Unethical to take hold of that tea ?
" I do n't agree with your terms , so I 'm going to steal your product to spite you !
" is n't the answer.It always has been the answer .
When the rules imposed from above fail to seem legitimate in the eyes of the population , the population no longer follows them .
If you sell bread to a starving population at too high a price , the populace breaks open your warehouses and takes it for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is unethical.Do you hold the same belief for the Boston Tea Party?
Unethical to take hold of that tea?
"I don't agree with your terms, so I'm going to steal your product to spite you!
" isn't the answer.It always has been the answer.
When the rules imposed from above fail to seem legitimate in the eyes of the population, the population no longer follows them.
If you sell bread to a starving population at too high a price, the populace breaks open your warehouses and takes it for themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701323</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1247654700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Signed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Signed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Signed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699877</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1247590680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Best summary evar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best summary evar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best summary evar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704909</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1247680380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The return of music to being a service would mean the death of the "recording industry."</p><p>Record companies are not going to reinvent themselves; they're too set in their ways. They're going to fight, tooth and nail, to continue to do what they've been doing all along. Most dying industries eventually die (buggy whip industry), but some are big enough to legislate their way to survival (tobacco industry). The RIAA is trying to do the latter, and probably a lot more successfully than we'd like to admit.</p><p>Of course, I like to think their success is temporary, but with Biden as VP, I'm not so sure anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The return of music to being a service would mean the death of the " recording industry .
" Record companies are not going to reinvent themselves ; they 're too set in their ways .
They 're going to fight , tooth and nail , to continue to do what they 've been doing all along .
Most dying industries eventually die ( buggy whip industry ) , but some are big enough to legislate their way to survival ( tobacco industry ) .
The RIAA is trying to do the latter , and probably a lot more successfully than we 'd like to admit.Of course , I like to think their success is temporary , but with Biden as VP , I 'm not so sure anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The return of music to being a service would mean the death of the "recording industry.
"Record companies are not going to reinvent themselves; they're too set in their ways.
They're going to fight, tooth and nail, to continue to do what they've been doing all along.
Most dying industries eventually die (buggy whip industry), but some are big enough to legislate their way to survival (tobacco industry).
The RIAA is trying to do the latter, and probably a lot more successfully than we'd like to admit.Of course, I like to think their success is temporary, but with Biden as VP, I'm not so sure anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699363</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1247586060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.</p></div><p>When a few people have tried that, they tend to end up in Federal prison for a long time, and they don't exactly get crowds of like-minded supporters pulling open the prison doors.</p><p>It's an interesting idea to espouse, but lets be honest, 99.99999\% of us lack the courage to be that patriotic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballot , Soap , Jury , Ammo ; they should be used in that order.When a few people have tried that , they tend to end up in Federal prison for a long time , and they do n't exactly get crowds of like-minded supporters pulling open the prison doors.It 's an interesting idea to espouse , but lets be honest , 99.99999 \ % of us lack the courage to be that patriotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.When a few people have tried that, they tend to end up in Federal prison for a long time, and they don't exactly get crowds of like-minded supporters pulling open the prison doors.It's an interesting idea to espouse, but lets be honest, 99.99999\% of us lack the courage to be that patriotic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28711849</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>plnix0</author>
	<datestamp>1247672820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trouble is, we've already lost the first and the third. When was the last jury nullification case you've heard of? Arguing about whether juries can consider fair use is moot when they've already lost the power to judge the law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trouble is , we 've already lost the first and the third .
When was the last jury nullification case you 've heard of ?
Arguing about whether juries can consider fair use is moot when they 've already lost the power to judge the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trouble is, we've already lost the first and the third.
When was the last jury nullification case you've heard of?
Arguing about whether juries can consider fair use is moot when they've already lost the power to judge the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701201</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1247652720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No... I think the soapbox comes before the ballot box.  Otherwise I might have to wait years to have a slight hope of affecting change, and even then I won;t because I need to convince other people that they want the change as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No... I think the soapbox comes before the ballot box .
Otherwise I might have to wait years to have a slight hope of affecting change , and even then I won ; t because I need to convince other people that they want the change as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No... I think the soapbox comes before the ballot box.
Otherwise I might have to wait years to have a slight hope of affecting change, and even then I won;t because I need to convince other people that they want the change as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699723</id>
	<title>If you dig deeper, you will find...</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1247589120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the judge is either an ex-lawyer of SONY or has a family member working in a high position in RIAA/MPAA.<br>It always is the case.<br>In fact i wouldn't be surprised if he has a financial interest in a RIAA member.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the judge is either an ex-lawyer of SONY or has a family member working in a high position in RIAA/MPAA.It always is the case.In fact i would n't be surprised if he has a financial interest in a RIAA member .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the judge is either an ex-lawyer of SONY or has a family member working in a high position in RIAA/MPAA.It always is the case.In fact i wouldn't be surprised if he has a financial interest in a RIAA member.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699183</id>
	<title>depends...</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1247584500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shocker\_(hand\_gesture)" title="wikipedia.org">what I can only describe as a shocker...</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>what I can only describe as a shocker... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what I can only describe as a shocker... [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699385</id>
	<title>Now I'm really confused...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>t also seems a bit <strong>unfair</strong> to bring up a totally new issue</p></div></blockquote><p>So this court and law stuff is supposed to be all about <em>fairness</em>?? It seems like it's always a lawyer fucking somebody, the judge fucking you over, or lawyers fucking each other, or a lawyer fucking their client, or two people fucking each other, while their lawyers fuck them too and the judge is just watching.<br>Yeah I really though court was just about fucking people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>t also seems a bit unfair to bring up a totally new issueSo this court and law stuff is supposed to be all about fairness ? ?
It seems like it 's always a lawyer fucking somebody , the judge fucking you over , or lawyers fucking each other , or a lawyer fucking their client , or two people fucking each other , while their lawyers fuck them too and the judge is just watching.Yeah I really though court was just about fucking people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>t also seems a bit unfair to bring up a totally new issueSo this court and law stuff is supposed to be all about fairness??
It seems like it's always a lawyer fucking somebody, the judge fucking you over, or lawyers fucking each other, or a lawyer fucking their client, or two people fucking each other, while their lawyers fuck them too and the judge is just watching.Yeah I really though court was just about fucking people.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</id>
	<title>What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NYCL, perhaps you can enlighten us all - it seems to me of late that more judges are going beyond what I understand is the scope of a judge's job (to adjudicate the law) and into "deciding" cases based on matters OUTSIDE the scope of law.</p><p>Am I misremembering what I learned back in 6th grade about the role of the judiciary in the legal system, or are these judges indeed going beyond the scope of their position?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NYCL , perhaps you can enlighten us all - it seems to me of late that more judges are going beyond what I understand is the scope of a judge 's job ( to adjudicate the law ) and into " deciding " cases based on matters OUTSIDE the scope of law.Am I misremembering what I learned back in 6th grade about the role of the judiciary in the legal system , or are these judges indeed going beyond the scope of their position ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NYCL, perhaps you can enlighten us all - it seems to me of late that more judges are going beyond what I understand is the scope of a judge's job (to adjudicate the law) and into "deciding" cases based on matters OUTSIDE the scope of law.Am I misremembering what I learned back in 6th grade about the role of the judiciary in the legal system, or are these judges indeed going beyond the scope of their position?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1247594220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You get points for a cleverly presented argument. Here are a few thoughts of my own, slightly less entertainingly put:</p><p>Consider the music industry. Originally, musicians were recompensed for performances. Musicians were service providers. Then the ability to record music came along, and the model switched from service provision, to primarily widget distribution. In this instance, the widgets were LPs whose manufacture and supply was limited due to the difficulty of making perfect copies (each generation of copy would degrade the signal).</p><p>The current music industry organisations would love to perpetuate the "widget distribution" model. Unfortunately, the advent of digital technology means the constraint on perfect copies has been smashed. The industry is trying its hardest to close the stable door after the horse has bolted by throwing up various technical and legal hurdles to "perfect copy" distribution. Despite their best attempts they are failing. The market quite clearly is answering with its feet. If copyright violation is a crime then a massive chunk of the population are criminals.</p><p>What the music industry need to accept is that the business model is changing back from widget distribution to primarily service provision (i.e. performances). This is similar to the effect open source is having on the software industry, changing the model (in some spaces) to profit from service provision rather than box sales.</p><p>Having accepted that the industry model is changing back to service provision, free digital music distribution can be considered low cost advertising for the performers. The fact that some segments of the music industry around packaging and sales (arguably less important than the artists) will be made redundant is just tough. They will find other jobs and the title of "record industry executive" will join blacksmith, phrenologist and horse-and-buggy repairman in the history books.</p><p>The same transition happened with performance art: live performances/plays turned into movies. What will movies turn into? Will there be a resurgence of live performances? Or perhaps the astronomical costs of movies needs to just come down a bit to make them more statistically likely to be profitable?</p><p>Software is already making the transition as stated before. Open source as well as the advent of leased services from the cloud are putting a slow but inexorable end to box sales.</p><p>Books are an interesting case.  I don't know how that industry will pan out. Some authors however are embracing the new opportunities. Some people - even "selfish leechers" like myself - are happy to pay for books. On that point, I should point out that in the last 12 months I have been to the concerts of three big acts and forked over almost $500 in tickets and merchandising. A large proportion of that money will go straight to the artists' pockets - far more so than if I had spent $500 on their CDs/DVDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You get points for a cleverly presented argument .
Here are a few thoughts of my own , slightly less entertainingly put : Consider the music industry .
Originally , musicians were recompensed for performances .
Musicians were service providers .
Then the ability to record music came along , and the model switched from service provision , to primarily widget distribution .
In this instance , the widgets were LPs whose manufacture and supply was limited due to the difficulty of making perfect copies ( each generation of copy would degrade the signal ) .The current music industry organisations would love to perpetuate the " widget distribution " model .
Unfortunately , the advent of digital technology means the constraint on perfect copies has been smashed .
The industry is trying its hardest to close the stable door after the horse has bolted by throwing up various technical and legal hurdles to " perfect copy " distribution .
Despite their best attempts they are failing .
The market quite clearly is answering with its feet .
If copyright violation is a crime then a massive chunk of the population are criminals.What the music industry need to accept is that the business model is changing back from widget distribution to primarily service provision ( i.e .
performances ) . This is similar to the effect open source is having on the software industry , changing the model ( in some spaces ) to profit from service provision rather than box sales.Having accepted that the industry model is changing back to service provision , free digital music distribution can be considered low cost advertising for the performers .
The fact that some segments of the music industry around packaging and sales ( arguably less important than the artists ) will be made redundant is just tough .
They will find other jobs and the title of " record industry executive " will join blacksmith , phrenologist and horse-and-buggy repairman in the history books.The same transition happened with performance art : live performances/plays turned into movies .
What will movies turn into ?
Will there be a resurgence of live performances ?
Or perhaps the astronomical costs of movies needs to just come down a bit to make them more statistically likely to be profitable ? Software is already making the transition as stated before .
Open source as well as the advent of leased services from the cloud are putting a slow but inexorable end to box sales.Books are an interesting case .
I do n't know how that industry will pan out .
Some authors however are embracing the new opportunities .
Some people - even " selfish leechers " like myself - are happy to pay for books .
On that point , I should point out that in the last 12 months I have been to the concerts of three big acts and forked over almost $ 500 in tickets and merchandising .
A large proportion of that money will go straight to the artists ' pockets - far more so than if I had spent $ 500 on their CDs/DVDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get points for a cleverly presented argument.
Here are a few thoughts of my own, slightly less entertainingly put:Consider the music industry.
Originally, musicians were recompensed for performances.
Musicians were service providers.
Then the ability to record music came along, and the model switched from service provision, to primarily widget distribution.
In this instance, the widgets were LPs whose manufacture and supply was limited due to the difficulty of making perfect copies (each generation of copy would degrade the signal).The current music industry organisations would love to perpetuate the "widget distribution" model.
Unfortunately, the advent of digital technology means the constraint on perfect copies has been smashed.
The industry is trying its hardest to close the stable door after the horse has bolted by throwing up various technical and legal hurdles to "perfect copy" distribution.
Despite their best attempts they are failing.
The market quite clearly is answering with its feet.
If copyright violation is a crime then a massive chunk of the population are criminals.What the music industry need to accept is that the business model is changing back from widget distribution to primarily service provision (i.e.
performances). This is similar to the effect open source is having on the software industry, changing the model (in some spaces) to profit from service provision rather than box sales.Having accepted that the industry model is changing back to service provision, free digital music distribution can be considered low cost advertising for the performers.
The fact that some segments of the music industry around packaging and sales (arguably less important than the artists) will be made redundant is just tough.
They will find other jobs and the title of "record industry executive" will join blacksmith, phrenologist and horse-and-buggy repairman in the history books.The same transition happened with performance art: live performances/plays turned into movies.
What will movies turn into?
Will there be a resurgence of live performances?
Or perhaps the astronomical costs of movies needs to just come down a bit to make them more statistically likely to be profitable?Software is already making the transition as stated before.
Open source as well as the advent of leased services from the cloud are putting a slow but inexorable end to box sales.Books are an interesting case.
I don't know how that industry will pan out.
Some authors however are embracing the new opportunities.
Some people - even "selfish leechers" like myself - are happy to pay for books.
On that point, I should point out that in the last 12 months I have been to the concerts of three big acts and forked over almost $500 in tickets and merchandising.
A large proportion of that money will go straight to the artists' pockets - far more so than if I had spent $500 on their CDs/DVDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699791</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;FUCK THIS SHIT</p><p>I'm sorry, I don't understand.</p><p>&gt;LIKE HELL YOU DON'T, I'M UNPLUGGING THIS DAMN GAME</p><p>You don't have the guts, meatbag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; FUCK THIS SHITI 'm sorry , I do n't understand. &gt; LIKE HELL YOU DO N'T , I 'M UNPLUGGING THIS DAMN GAMEYou do n't have the guts , meatbag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;FUCK THIS SHITI'm sorry, I don't understand.&gt;LIKE HELL YOU DON'T, I'M UNPLUGGING THIS DAMN GAMEYou don't have the guts, meatbag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700097</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say that--but the thing to remember--is there've been a few times in this country's history when people *have* reached for the ammo box.  And won.</p><p>Never against the federal government--but against violent and corrupt local officials when the federal government refused to do its job.  I know I'd refuse to convict anyone who went after anything in the judicial branch that made it common practice to encourage ignoring the constitution.  Problem is--you'd have to lie about that in order to be able to exercise your right to participate in a jury...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say that--but the thing to remember--is there 've been a few times in this country 's history when people * have * reached for the ammo box .
And won.Never against the federal government--but against violent and corrupt local officials when the federal government refused to do its job .
I know I 'd refuse to convict anyone who went after anything in the judicial branch that made it common practice to encourage ignoring the constitution .
Problem is--you 'd have to lie about that in order to be able to exercise your right to participate in a jury.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say that--but the thing to remember--is there've been a few times in this country's history when people *have* reached for the ammo box.
And won.Never against the federal government--but against violent and corrupt local officials when the federal government refused to do its job.
I know I'd refuse to convict anyone who went after anything in the judicial branch that made it common practice to encourage ignoring the constitution.
Problem is--you'd have to lie about that in order to be able to exercise your right to participate in a jury...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701753</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Sapphon</author>
	<datestamp>1247661360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have been to the concerts of three big acts and forked over almost $500 in tickets and merchandising. A large proportion of that money will go straight to the artists' pockets - far more so than if I had spent $500 on their CDs/DVDs.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That used to be true, but isn't any more. From personal conversations with successful bands (The Living End and Hilltop Hoods) I know that the days of bands being screwed around by record labels &ndash; the Courtney Love model &ndash; are in decline. Bands can now make plenty of money off CD/electronic music sales. Plenty of bands even use tours as "loss leaders" to promote themselves in areas where their exposure is low to guage reception and generate music sales. As example I again refer to the two aforementioned bands' tours in (continental) Europe.<br>
<br>
Conclusion: some bands make more from touring, others from music sales. The relationship varies from band to band, from tour to tour, and even from album to album depending on what sort of contract they have. The popular generalisation that merch and concerts support bands more than CD sales isn't as true now as it was 10 years ago.<br>
<br>
(As an aside: the rest of your post is insightful and I agree with near all of it)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been to the concerts of three big acts and forked over almost $ 500 in tickets and merchandising .
A large proportion of that money will go straight to the artists ' pockets - far more so than if I had spent $ 500 on their CDs/DVDs .
That used to be true , but is n't any more .
From personal conversations with successful bands ( The Living End and Hilltop Hoods ) I know that the days of bands being screwed around by record labels    the Courtney Love model    are in decline .
Bands can now make plenty of money off CD/electronic music sales .
Plenty of bands even use tours as " loss leaders " to promote themselves in areas where their exposure is low to guage reception and generate music sales .
As example I again refer to the two aforementioned bands ' tours in ( continental ) Europe .
Conclusion : some bands make more from touring , others from music sales .
The relationship varies from band to band , from tour to tour , and even from album to album depending on what sort of contract they have .
The popular generalisation that merch and concerts support bands more than CD sales is n't as true now as it was 10 years ago .
( As an aside : the rest of your post is insightful and I agree with near all of it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been to the concerts of three big acts and forked over almost $500 in tickets and merchandising.
A large proportion of that money will go straight to the artists' pockets - far more so than if I had spent $500 on their CDs/DVDs.
That used to be true, but isn't any more.
From personal conversations with successful bands (The Living End and Hilltop Hoods) I know that the days of bands being screwed around by record labels – the Courtney Love model – are in decline.
Bands can now make plenty of money off CD/electronic music sales.
Plenty of bands even use tours as "loss leaders" to promote themselves in areas where their exposure is low to guage reception and generate music sales.
As example I again refer to the two aforementioned bands' tours in (continental) Europe.
Conclusion: some bands make more from touring, others from music sales.
The relationship varies from band to band, from tour to tour, and even from album to album depending on what sort of contract they have.
The popular generalisation that merch and concerts support bands more than CD sales isn't as true now as it was 10 years ago.
(As an aside: the rest of your post is insightful and I agree with near all of it)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699317</id>
	<title>I'm cynical.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has the judge been bought out or does she just not care about the rights of the defendant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has the judge been bought out or does she just not care about the rights of the defendant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has the judge been bought out or does she just not care about the rights of the defendant?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699985</id>
	<title>Re:Automatic Appeal?</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1247591580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Begging for an appeal maybe, but the appellate would probably refer it back to trial to have a jury decide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Begging for an appeal maybe , but the appellate would probably refer it back to trial to have a jury decide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Begging for an appeal maybe, but the appellate would probably refer it back to trial to have a jury decide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702443</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247667120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not talking about pirating a game for your personal use -- that just seems wrong.</p><p>But about copyright in general, the book "Free Culture" makes a point that many of the current defenders of extreme copyrights made their business by breaking or evading existing laws. The author makes a point that, without creative sharing and public domain, Western culture would suffer greatly. And that, in fact, the music, book and movie industries have misbehaved in the past, and in fact made their fortunes by stifling competition and/or evading patent and copyright laws. It's just that now it suits them to have them enforced. This puts the issue in a different light, doesn't it. They cannot argue that unreasonable copyright like it exists today is good for culture and business, just that it's good for keeping the current copyright holders safe -- an issue far less interesting for Joe Public.</p><p>"Free Culture" also argues that copyright law AND IT'S PRACTICE as it currently exist in the US makes it very hard, if not impossible, to take advantage of Fair Use to make, say, an indie documentary. In fact, everything "indie" (note: indie, not pirated) suffers, simply because they don't get to employ expensive lawyers to fight a protracted battle against big copyright owners to prove they can show, say, a 5-second clip of the Simpsons (there is an anecdote in the book about this, where it's argued that Fox are greedy bastards that will go after you just because they can and have the deeper pockets).</p><p>None of what I said justifies pirating anything, of course. It does justify fighting for Fair Use and the Public Domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not talking about pirating a game for your personal use -- that just seems wrong.But about copyright in general , the book " Free Culture " makes a point that many of the current defenders of extreme copyrights made their business by breaking or evading existing laws .
The author makes a point that , without creative sharing and public domain , Western culture would suffer greatly .
And that , in fact , the music , book and movie industries have misbehaved in the past , and in fact made their fortunes by stifling competition and/or evading patent and copyright laws .
It 's just that now it suits them to have them enforced .
This puts the issue in a different light , does n't it .
They can not argue that unreasonable copyright like it exists today is good for culture and business , just that it 's good for keeping the current copyright holders safe -- an issue far less interesting for Joe Public .
" Free Culture " also argues that copyright law AND IT 'S PRACTICE as it currently exist in the US makes it very hard , if not impossible , to take advantage of Fair Use to make , say , an indie documentary .
In fact , everything " indie " ( note : indie , not pirated ) suffers , simply because they do n't get to employ expensive lawyers to fight a protracted battle against big copyright owners to prove they can show , say , a 5-second clip of the Simpsons ( there is an anecdote in the book about this , where it 's argued that Fox are greedy bastards that will go after you just because they can and have the deeper pockets ) .None of what I said justifies pirating anything , of course .
It does justify fighting for Fair Use and the Public Domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not talking about pirating a game for your personal use -- that just seems wrong.But about copyright in general, the book "Free Culture" makes a point that many of the current defenders of extreme copyrights made their business by breaking or evading existing laws.
The author makes a point that, without creative sharing and public domain, Western culture would suffer greatly.
And that, in fact, the music, book and movie industries have misbehaved in the past, and in fact made their fortunes by stifling competition and/or evading patent and copyright laws.
It's just that now it suits them to have them enforced.
This puts the issue in a different light, doesn't it.
They cannot argue that unreasonable copyright like it exists today is good for culture and business, just that it's good for keeping the current copyright holders safe -- an issue far less interesting for Joe Public.
"Free Culture" also argues that copyright law AND IT'S PRACTICE as it currently exist in the US makes it very hard, if not impossible, to take advantage of Fair Use to make, say, an indie documentary.
In fact, everything "indie" (note: indie, not pirated) suffers, simply because they don't get to employ expensive lawyers to fight a protracted battle against big copyright owners to prove they can show, say, a 5-second clip of the Simpsons (there is an anecdote in the book about this, where it's argued that Fox are greedy bastards that will go after you just because they can and have the deeper pockets).None of what I said justifies pirating anything, of course.
It does justify fighting for Fair Use and the Public Domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702709</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>P0ltergeist333</author>
	<datestamp>1247668560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May chance smile upon you. You did not quite cover every single point, but you hit a lot of big ones. I undersign as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May chance smile upon you .
You did not quite cover every single point , but you hit a lot of big ones .
I undersign as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May chance smile upon you.
You did not quite cover every single point, but you hit a lot of big ones.
I undersign as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699329</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1247585580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's simple: our judges and legislators are making up the rules as they go along. Many of them are out of control and are being bought and sold if not stalked and threatened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple : our judges and legislators are making up the rules as they go along .
Many of them are out of control and are being bought and sold if not stalked and threatened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple: our judges and legislators are making up the rules as they go along.
Many of them are out of control and are being bought and sold if not stalked and threatened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28716281</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>It's its</author>
	<datestamp>1247757240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does "weaseled it is way" mean?

</p><p> <a href="http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html" title="uwaterloo.ca" rel="nofollow">Please re-learn 2nd grade grammar.</a> [uwaterloo.ca]

</p><p>Sincerely,
</p><p>The informed members of Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does " weaseled it is way " mean ?
Please re-learn 2nd grade grammar .
[ uwaterloo.ca ] Sincerely , The informed members of Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does "weaseled it is way" mean?
Please re-learn 2nd grade grammar.
[uwaterloo.ca]

Sincerely,
The informed members of Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28698985</id>
	<title>You better lose the Jews, whitey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Jews you lose so to win you must lose the Jews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Jews you lose so to win you must lose the Jews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Jews you lose so to win you must lose the Jews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28710889</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247665620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an ageist take on it.

</p><p>I wonder how old that judge is, and what the average age is for judges.  I'm guessing the average is over 50.  And it's a popular notion that old dogs can't learn new tricks.  This is a little different than the suggestion that non-geeks such as lawyers just don't "get it".

</p><p>For matters involving disruptive technologies, perhaps we'd all be better off with very young judges, and juries.  And young lawmakers.  We've gotten poor results in the Pirate Bay trial, Jammie Thomas's 2 trials, and now there's this.  And in a review of the question about bias in the Pirate Bay trial, we got another poor result.  The Pirate Party's membership is highly skewed towards youth.  I can't forget that judge in the Napster case losing it with that "created a monster" pejoration.  Monster indeed!  The RIAA's entire campaign would have no legs but for such attitudes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an ageist take on it .
I wonder how old that judge is , and what the average age is for judges .
I 'm guessing the average is over 50 .
And it 's a popular notion that old dogs ca n't learn new tricks .
This is a little different than the suggestion that non-geeks such as lawyers just do n't " get it " .
For matters involving disruptive technologies , perhaps we 'd all be better off with very young judges , and juries .
And young lawmakers .
We 've gotten poor results in the Pirate Bay trial , Jammie Thomas 's 2 trials , and now there 's this .
And in a review of the question about bias in the Pirate Bay trial , we got another poor result .
The Pirate Party 's membership is highly skewed towards youth .
I ca n't forget that judge in the Napster case losing it with that " created a monster " pejoration .
Monster indeed !
The RIAA 's entire campaign would have no legs but for such attitudes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an ageist take on it.
I wonder how old that judge is, and what the average age is for judges.
I'm guessing the average is over 50.
And it's a popular notion that old dogs can't learn new tricks.
This is a little different than the suggestion that non-geeks such as lawyers just don't "get it".
For matters involving disruptive technologies, perhaps we'd all be better off with very young judges, and juries.
And young lawmakers.
We've gotten poor results in the Pirate Bay trial, Jammie Thomas's 2 trials, and now there's this.
And in a review of the question about bias in the Pirate Bay trial, we got another poor result.
The Pirate Party's membership is highly skewed towards youth.
I can't forget that judge in the Napster case losing it with that "created a monster" pejoration.
Monster indeed!
The RIAA's entire campaign would have no legs but for such attitudes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702943</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247669700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell?</i></p><p>If you sell me a thing, I own that thing and I have the right to use it any way I wish, so long as its use is legal (I can use a firearm to hunt rabbits, use it as a crutch if I hurt my leg hunting raabbits, use it as a club in a half-dead rabbit, but not to hunt people). Your use of quotes around the word "ownership" is not just a lie, but a damned lie.</p><p>If you sell me a book, I can do anything I want with that book except distribute copies. I can sell it, loan it out, mark on the pages, shoot it with my rabbit gun, ANYTHING. The same goes with software.</p><p>I think it's you who is missing the bigger picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your " ownership " of a product are fair or not , you still want to be able to use the product they sell ? If you sell me a thing , I own that thing and I have the right to use it any way I wish , so long as its use is legal ( I can use a firearm to hunt rabbits , use it as a crutch if I hurt my leg hunting raabbits , use it as a club in a half-dead rabbit , but not to hunt people ) .
Your use of quotes around the word " ownership " is not just a lie , but a damned lie.If you sell me a book , I can do anything I want with that book except distribute copies .
I can sell it , loan it out , mark on the pages , shoot it with my rabbit gun , ANYTHING .
The same goes with software.I think it 's you who is missing the bigger picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell?If you sell me a thing, I own that thing and I have the right to use it any way I wish, so long as its use is legal (I can use a firearm to hunt rabbits, use it as a crutch if I hurt my leg hunting raabbits, use it as a club in a half-dead rabbit, but not to hunt people).
Your use of quotes around the word "ownership" is not just a lie, but a damned lie.If you sell me a book, I can do anything I want with that book except distribute copies.
I can sell it, loan it out, mark on the pages, shoot it with my rabbit gun, ANYTHING.
The same goes with software.I think it's you who is missing the bigger picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28703641</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>shredswithpiks</author>
	<datestamp>1247673720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, you don't get to use the product. That's just not how a free market works, and you know it.</p></div><p>If I don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, THEY don't get to sell me the product. That is how a free market works, and you know it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want to abide by a specific term or condition , you do n't get to use the product .
That 's just not how a free market works , and you know it.If I do n't want to abide by a specific term or condition , THEY do n't get to sell me the product .
That is how a free market works , and you know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, you don't get to use the product.
That's just not how a free market works, and you know it.If I don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, THEY don't get to sell me the product.
That is how a free market works, and you know it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701565</id>
	<title>Throwing the Case?</title>
	<author>macs4all</author>
	<datestamp>1247658900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if the Judge is deliberately giving the Defendant an easily-appealable point (bad/missing jury instruction), so that if it goes the RIAA's way, the Defendant can raise that issue on appeal, and the whole verdict would almost certainly be thrown out.<br> <br>
Bad/missing jury instruction is a oft-won appeal issue; so methinks this is a clever strategy by the judge to "help" the Defendant, without appearing to do so.<br> <br>

Otherwise, the Judge should get a brain scan, so they can actually find that brain tumor.<br> <br>
IANAL (nor a neurosurgeon for that matter), but jus' sayin'...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the Judge is deliberately giving the Defendant an easily-appealable point ( bad/missing jury instruction ) , so that if it goes the RIAA 's way , the Defendant can raise that issue on appeal , and the whole verdict would almost certainly be thrown out .
Bad/missing jury instruction is a oft-won appeal issue ; so methinks this is a clever strategy by the judge to " help " the Defendant , without appearing to do so .
Otherwise , the Judge should get a brain scan , so they can actually find that brain tumor .
IANAL ( nor a neurosurgeon for that matter ) , but jus ' sayin'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the Judge is deliberately giving the Defendant an easily-appealable point (bad/missing jury instruction), so that if it goes the RIAA's way, the Defendant can raise that issue on appeal, and the whole verdict would almost certainly be thrown out.
Bad/missing jury instruction is a oft-won appeal issue; so methinks this is a clever strategy by the judge to "help" the Defendant, without appearing to do so.
Otherwise, the Judge should get a brain scan, so they can actually find that brain tumor.
IANAL (nor a neurosurgeon for that matter), but jus' sayin'...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699015</id>
	<title>IANAL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IVERYRETENTIVE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IVERYRETENTIVE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IVERYRETENTIVE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699763</id>
	<title>Keith Henson got screwed the same way.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1247589480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when the scientologists first sued him for breaking copyright on one of Hubbard's sillier screeds (he made a copy to give to the judge in Grady Ward's case), he wasn't allowed to claim that copying a work to bring it to the attention of law enforcement was fair use.  The jury never got to hear the argument.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when the scientologists first sued him for breaking copyright on one of Hubbard 's sillier screeds ( he made a copy to give to the judge in Grady Ward 's case ) , he was n't allowed to claim that copying a work to bring it to the attention of law enforcement was fair use .
The jury never got to hear the argument.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when the scientologists first sued him for breaking copyright on one of Hubbard's sillier screeds (he made a copy to give to the judge in Grady Ward's case), he wasn't allowed to claim that copying a work to bring it to the attention of law enforcement was fair use.
The jury never got to hear the argument.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699595</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.</p></div><p>Too bad - I was on a jury, but we hadn't finished Soap or Ballot yet, so I just rolled over.  I mean, I <b>had to use them in that order</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballot , Soap , Jury , Ammo ; they should be used in that order.Too bad - I was on a jury , but we had n't finished Soap or Ballot yet , so I just rolled over .
I mean , I had to use them in that order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.Too bad - I was on a jury, but we hadn't finished Soap or Ballot yet, so I just rolled over.
I mean, I had to use them in that order.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28753863</id>
	<title>hello</title>
	<author>harie00</author>
	<datestamp>1248082140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wondered if anyone knew what projects are lined up for Jury ? I know he and his girlfriend were at the Irish Film awards a few weeks ago. I'd be surprised if ROME doesnt result in a lot of work for him.

harie

<a href="http://www.fastrealestate.net/" title="fastrealestate.net" rel="nofollow">real estate</a> [fastrealestate.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wondered if anyone knew what projects are lined up for Jury ?
I know he and his girlfriend were at the Irish Film awards a few weeks ago .
I 'd be surprised if ROME doesnt result in a lot of work for him .
harie real estate [ fastrealestate.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wondered if anyone knew what projects are lined up for Jury ?
I know he and his girlfriend were at the Irish Film awards a few weeks ago.
I'd be surprised if ROME doesnt result in a lot of work for him.
harie

real estate [fastrealestate.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701639</id>
	<title>If it's war they want...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247660160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No justice, no peace.</p><p>If it's war they want, well, they'll get it.  We have not yet begun to fight!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No justice , no peace.If it 's war they want , well , they 'll get it .
We have not yet begun to fight !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No justice, no peace.If it's war they want, well, they'll get it.
We have not yet begun to fight!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701761</id>
	<title>Re:You sure it's not Judge Judy?</title>
	<author>Archibald Buttle</author>
	<datestamp>1247661540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You might want to pick up a newspaper more than once a year.  A female US judge is the #1 news story in just about all of them for the last week.</p></div><p>Not in any of the papers here in the UK....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to pick up a newspaper more than once a year .
A female US judge is the # 1 news story in just about all of them for the last week.Not in any of the papers here in the UK... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to pick up a newspaper more than once a year.
A female US judge is the #1 news story in just about all of them for the last week.Not in any of the papers here in the UK....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701321</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>bemymonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247654700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why this is modded troll. Sure, it's well thought out and glorious in its self-loathing - is that such a bad thing on Slashdot? Seems like a fine post to me - one that actually made me think about my own media purchasing &amp; pirating habits...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why this is modded troll .
Sure , it 's well thought out and glorious in its self-loathing - is that such a bad thing on Slashdot ?
Seems like a fine post to me - one that actually made me think about my own media purchasing &amp; pirating habits.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why this is modded troll.
Sure, it's well thought out and glorious in its self-loathing - is that such a bad thing on Slashdot?
Seems like a fine post to me - one that actually made me think about my own media purchasing &amp; pirating habits...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701629</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>atmtarzy</author>
	<datestamp>1247660040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right, so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell? Yet you want all of this at the terms you?</p></div><p>There is nothing wrong with "wanting" to use a product some creator/publisher creates, or "wanting" to set the terms of the transfer.  It's called demand, something I am very sure you are aware of, seeing as how you are so insistent on maintaining a Free Market.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, you don't get to use the product.</p></div><p>This certainly would be a great rule to use, in the case where each party in an agreement offers fair terms.  However, in the cases where one party imposes terms and conditions that a significant portion of the public perceives as unjust, then the public pirates/steals/recreates their benefits of the agreement.  In each of those cases, the victim of the piracy/theft/recreation does not gain a thing.  This is the public's revenge for creating unjust terms in the first place, and unfortunately the piracy/theft/recreation victim does suffer an actual loss in the case of theft (I like to think that if the public could just as easily create an actual copy of the desired device as steal it, they would make the copy, so this loss in the case of theft is mostly a secondary effect caused by physical constraints rather than a primary effect of obtaining the technology of the device).  And the public gains technology.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have absolutely no issue with any of what's going on except for two things:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Corporate Lobbying (and) Government Bailouts</p></div><p>I agree that corporations shouldn't be allowed to buy legislation.  That's just stupid for any government remotely close to democracy.  I don't know if corporations are 'buying' legislation so much as just spending an outrageously disproportionate amount of money on legislation compared to money from person-oriented PACs, which is still stupid, in my opinion, though the blame in this case isn't so much on the system, as it is on the players.</p><p>As far as Government Bailouts, and letting businesses fail when they fail go, I would agree with you, in a world where a business goes down because it was out-competed by some other company, who is there to pick up new customers marooned by the failed business.  In some cases, however, like the case of AIG, etc., I don't think there were other businesses capable of providing the same services AIG/etc provided on the level AIG/etc provided them.  The unfortunate thing is that there isn't much in the way of alternatives for dealing with AIG-like situations, so our congressmen came up with the great idea of copying the big-bank business strategy of giving/loaning out large quantities of money it never had.  The only way to 'solve' this crisis completely is to go back in time and keep it from happening to the scale it did; basically to force AIG/etc to be a significantly smaller business, so that when it failed, it didn't take half the world (exaggeration) with it.  For now though, we just deal with the fact that we screwed up, and try to regain normalcy as quickly as we comfortably can (hence the strategy of loaning/giving out money).</p><p>Sorry if this isn't entirely understandable.  I'm not the most eloquent writer.  And for the record, I would mod your post up, so that at the very least it gets refuted by more adept writers, or confirmed by more advanced thinkers.  I just figured nobody would ever actually come back to this story and reply to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your " ownership " of a product are fair or not , you still want to be able to use the product they sell ?
Yet you want all of this at the terms you ? There is nothing wrong with " wanting " to use a product some creator/publisher creates , or " wanting " to set the terms of the transfer .
It 's called demand , something I am very sure you are aware of , seeing as how you are so insistent on maintaining a Free Market.If you do n't want to abide by a specific term or condition , you do n't get to use the product.This certainly would be a great rule to use , in the case where each party in an agreement offers fair terms .
However , in the cases where one party imposes terms and conditions that a significant portion of the public perceives as unjust , then the public pirates/steals/recreates their benefits of the agreement .
In each of those cases , the victim of the piracy/theft/recreation does not gain a thing .
This is the public 's revenge for creating unjust terms in the first place , and unfortunately the piracy/theft/recreation victim does suffer an actual loss in the case of theft ( I like to think that if the public could just as easily create an actual copy of the desired device as steal it , they would make the copy , so this loss in the case of theft is mostly a secondary effect caused by physical constraints rather than a primary effect of obtaining the technology of the device ) .
And the public gains technology.I have absolutely no issue with any of what 's going on except for two things : ... Corporate Lobbying ( and ) Government BailoutsI agree that corporations should n't be allowed to buy legislation .
That 's just stupid for any government remotely close to democracy .
I do n't know if corporations are 'buying ' legislation so much as just spending an outrageously disproportionate amount of money on legislation compared to money from person-oriented PACs , which is still stupid , in my opinion , though the blame in this case is n't so much on the system , as it is on the players.As far as Government Bailouts , and letting businesses fail when they fail go , I would agree with you , in a world where a business goes down because it was out-competed by some other company , who is there to pick up new customers marooned by the failed business .
In some cases , however , like the case of AIG , etc. , I do n't think there were other businesses capable of providing the same services AIG/etc provided on the level AIG/etc provided them .
The unfortunate thing is that there is n't much in the way of alternatives for dealing with AIG-like situations , so our congressmen came up with the great idea of copying the big-bank business strategy of giving/loaning out large quantities of money it never had .
The only way to 'solve ' this crisis completely is to go back in time and keep it from happening to the scale it did ; basically to force AIG/etc to be a significantly smaller business , so that when it failed , it did n't take half the world ( exaggeration ) with it .
For now though , we just deal with the fact that we screwed up , and try to regain normalcy as quickly as we comfortably can ( hence the strategy of loaning/giving out money ) .Sorry if this is n't entirely understandable .
I 'm not the most eloquent writer .
And for the record , I would mod your post up , so that at the very least it gets refuted by more adept writers , or confirmed by more advanced thinkers .
I just figured nobody would ever actually come back to this story and reply to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, so... Whether the terms content creators / publishers impose on your "ownership" of a product are fair or not, you still want to be able to use the product they sell?
Yet you want all of this at the terms you?There is nothing wrong with "wanting" to use a product some creator/publisher creates, or "wanting" to set the terms of the transfer.
It's called demand, something I am very sure you are aware of, seeing as how you are so insistent on maintaining a Free Market.If you don't want to abide by a specific term or condition, you don't get to use the product.This certainly would be a great rule to use, in the case where each party in an agreement offers fair terms.
However, in the cases where one party imposes terms and conditions that a significant portion of the public perceives as unjust, then the public pirates/steals/recreates their benefits of the agreement.
In each of those cases, the victim of the piracy/theft/recreation does not gain a thing.
This is the public's revenge for creating unjust terms in the first place, and unfortunately the piracy/theft/recreation victim does suffer an actual loss in the case of theft (I like to think that if the public could just as easily create an actual copy of the desired device as steal it, they would make the copy, so this loss in the case of theft is mostly a secondary effect caused by physical constraints rather than a primary effect of obtaining the technology of the device).
And the public gains technology.I have absolutely no issue with any of what's going on except for two things: ... Corporate Lobbying (and) Government BailoutsI agree that corporations shouldn't be allowed to buy legislation.
That's just stupid for any government remotely close to democracy.
I don't know if corporations are 'buying' legislation so much as just spending an outrageously disproportionate amount of money on legislation compared to money from person-oriented PACs, which is still stupid, in my opinion, though the blame in this case isn't so much on the system, as it is on the players.As far as Government Bailouts, and letting businesses fail when they fail go, I would agree with you, in a world where a business goes down because it was out-competed by some other company, who is there to pick up new customers marooned by the failed business.
In some cases, however, like the case of AIG, etc., I don't think there were other businesses capable of providing the same services AIG/etc provided on the level AIG/etc provided them.
The unfortunate thing is that there isn't much in the way of alternatives for dealing with AIG-like situations, so our congressmen came up with the great idea of copying the big-bank business strategy of giving/loaning out large quantities of money it never had.
The only way to 'solve' this crisis completely is to go back in time and keep it from happening to the scale it did; basically to force AIG/etc to be a significantly smaller business, so that when it failed, it didn't take half the world (exaggeration) with it.
For now though, we just deal with the fact that we screwed up, and try to regain normalcy as quickly as we comfortably can (hence the strategy of loaning/giving out money).Sorry if this isn't entirely understandable.
I'm not the most eloquent writer.
And for the record, I would mod your post up, so that at the very least it gets refuted by more adept writers, or confirmed by more advanced thinkers.
I just figured nobody would ever actually come back to this story and reply to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700103</id>
	<title>All this negativity-- am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1247592600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NYCL and others who know a thing or two about USA law:

</p><p>My understanding at the moment is that if a Judge decides that the issue is an equitable one rather than a legal one, there is no need for a jury. And that in an equitable case, the Judge's duty is to determine what is fair compensation for the actual damages done. It doesn't seem like there can be any punitive damages awarded in an equity judgment.

</p><p>Would this mean that Judge Gerstner could decide in favor of the RIAA, and award them compensation based on $0.79 per proven instance of copyright infringement, if that seemed the fair thing to do?

</p><p>It would seem that if she decides this is an issue of equity, then the awards written into the DMCA would be guidelines that she might feel would only apply to commercial infringers who press a hundred thousand copies of a CD (which is apparently the kind of infringement that the USA Congress had in mind when they wrote the law). That it would not be equitable to impose those fines on a casual copyright infringer who may have cost the record companies a dozen sales (if that). So maybe this is a good thing?

</p><p>I am so confused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NYCL and others who know a thing or two about USA law : My understanding at the moment is that if a Judge decides that the issue is an equitable one rather than a legal one , there is no need for a jury .
And that in an equitable case , the Judge 's duty is to determine what is fair compensation for the actual damages done .
It does n't seem like there can be any punitive damages awarded in an equity judgment .
Would this mean that Judge Gerstner could decide in favor of the RIAA , and award them compensation based on $ 0.79 per proven instance of copyright infringement , if that seemed the fair thing to do ?
It would seem that if she decides this is an issue of equity , then the awards written into the DMCA would be guidelines that she might feel would only apply to commercial infringers who press a hundred thousand copies of a CD ( which is apparently the kind of infringement that the USA Congress had in mind when they wrote the law ) .
That it would not be equitable to impose those fines on a casual copyright infringer who may have cost the record companies a dozen sales ( if that ) .
So maybe this is a good thing ?
I am so confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NYCL and others who know a thing or two about USA law:

My understanding at the moment is that if a Judge decides that the issue is an equitable one rather than a legal one, there is no need for a jury.
And that in an equitable case, the Judge's duty is to determine what is fair compensation for the actual damages done.
It doesn't seem like there can be any punitive damages awarded in an equity judgment.
Would this mean that Judge Gerstner could decide in favor of the RIAA, and award them compensation based on $0.79 per proven instance of copyright infringement, if that seemed the fair thing to do?
It would seem that if she decides this is an issue of equity, then the awards written into the DMCA would be guidelines that she might feel would only apply to commercial infringers who press a hundred thousand copies of a CD (which is apparently the kind of infringement that the USA Congress had in mind when they wrote the law).
That it would not be equitable to impose those fines on a casual copyright infringer who may have cost the record companies a dozen sales (if that).
So maybe this is a good thing?
I am so confused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699473</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; GO NORTH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; GO NORTH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; GO NORTH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247595240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear misinformed,</p><p>Due to the advent of technological advancement and the internet, formerly scarce works have become common and easily downloaded due to the <b>non scarce nature of information</b>, this has got westerners and excessively pro corporate, pro business peoples panties in a twist from which they have never recovered.  Capitalist philosophy only makes sense when an item a person wants to consume is scarce, otherwise the "evil" socialist economics can work (and piracy is a lesson in that it works FYI).  Therefore copyright has become a highly charged issue because nature of information and political economic ideology of western capitalism are at odds.</p><p>According to neoclassical economics because of the non scarce nature of digital works, their worth should be driven down towards zero and many businesses should be going bankrupt, note that this has not happened and the Movie industry has recently broken box office records.  Please refer to Dark Knight released in 2008 in the following list below of top grossing box office movies of all time.</p><p> <a href="http://www.movieweb.com/movies/boxoffice/alltime.php" title="movieweb.com">http://www.movieweb.com/movies/boxoffice/alltime.php</a> [movieweb.com] </p><p>The nature of copyright and software licensing has always been questionable from the outset, because the public was not informed enough to mount resistance to the idea of software licensing and EULA's.  So many industries got their way by way of public ignorance.  Industries later gathered together lobbying more as the internet rose to power and their response to non scarcity of information was in the form of the DMCA</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital\_Millennium\_Copyright\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital\_Millennium\_Copyright\_Act</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Which added to the already dubious practice of licensing software (individuals never own their software) which most nerds have always thought dubious at best (See: Linux)</p><p>The advent of the DMCA and licensing prevents legitimate owners of software from outright owning and modifying what they bought due to crazy EULA's and liscensing that weaseled it's way into "normalcy" due to public technological ignorance, which attempted to limit software owners rights to ownership and rights to develop their own software to work with the software they already own.  This has pissed off the informed who understand these issues.  See: Bnetd</p><p> <a href="http://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd" title="eff.org">http://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd</a> [eff.org] </p><p>Corporations and the bad kinds of capitalists alike have been trying to wrest individual ownership from the people by infringing on their individual rights to own the products they buy. Software companies have always been one of the worst industries due to the idea of licensing software to individuals, rather then individuals being able to own software outright and do whatever they wish with it.</p><p>Enterprising individuals like John carmack who released open source doom, etc, and Volition Inc of Freespace 2 fame (see: <a href="http://scp.indiegames.us/" title="indiegames.us">http://scp.indiegames.us/</a> [indiegames.us] ) have been breaths of fresh air for the informed among us as they understand the deeper issues of software patents, copyright and software ownership by and large.</p><p>John carmack does not believe in software patents, and is tired of the stupid shit that such patents and overzealous and excessive copyright abuses, to see his frustrations and problems with such see here:</p><p> <a href="http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2004/07/4048.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2004/07/4048.ars</a> [arstechnica.com] </p><p>The slashdot community has been getting pissed at the lack of reasoning power in hypercapitalist america, it seems in general that america has an excessive amount of brain dead people and anti-intellectualism, and the rise of super corporate indoctrinated nerd drones, this anti intellectualism and lack of intellectual depth increasingly found in certain americans or others so indoctrinated against intellectual understanding is epitomized in the following link</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear misinformed,Due to the advent of technological advancement and the internet , formerly scarce works have become common and easily downloaded due to the non scarce nature of information , this has got westerners and excessively pro corporate , pro business peoples panties in a twist from which they have never recovered .
Capitalist philosophy only makes sense when an item a person wants to consume is scarce , otherwise the " evil " socialist economics can work ( and piracy is a lesson in that it works FYI ) .
Therefore copyright has become a highly charged issue because nature of information and political economic ideology of western capitalism are at odds.According to neoclassical economics because of the non scarce nature of digital works , their worth should be driven down towards zero and many businesses should be going bankrupt , note that this has not happened and the Movie industry has recently broken box office records .
Please refer to Dark Knight released in 2008 in the following list below of top grossing box office movies of all time .
http : //www.movieweb.com/movies/boxoffice/alltime.php [ movieweb.com ] The nature of copyright and software licensing has always been questionable from the outset , because the public was not informed enough to mount resistance to the idea of software licensing and EULA 's .
So many industries got their way by way of public ignorance .
Industries later gathered together lobbying more as the internet rose to power and their response to non scarcity of information was in the form of the DMCA http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital \ _Millennium \ _Copyright \ _Act [ wikipedia.org ] Which added to the already dubious practice of licensing software ( individuals never own their software ) which most nerds have always thought dubious at best ( See : Linux ) The advent of the DMCA and licensing prevents legitimate owners of software from outright owning and modifying what they bought due to crazy EULA 's and liscensing that weaseled it 's way into " normalcy " due to public technological ignorance , which attempted to limit software owners rights to ownership and rights to develop their own software to work with the software they already own .
This has pissed off the informed who understand these issues .
See : Bnetd http : //www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd [ eff.org ] Corporations and the bad kinds of capitalists alike have been trying to wrest individual ownership from the people by infringing on their individual rights to own the products they buy .
Software companies have always been one of the worst industries due to the idea of licensing software to individuals , rather then individuals being able to own software outright and do whatever they wish with it.Enterprising individuals like John carmack who released open source doom , etc , and Volition Inc of Freespace 2 fame ( see : http : //scp.indiegames.us/ [ indiegames.us ] ) have been breaths of fresh air for the informed among us as they understand the deeper issues of software patents , copyright and software ownership by and large.John carmack does not believe in software patents , and is tired of the stupid shit that such patents and overzealous and excessive copyright abuses , to see his frustrations and problems with such see here : http : //arstechnica.com/old/content/2004/07/4048.ars [ arstechnica.com ] The slashdot community has been getting pissed at the lack of reasoning power in hypercapitalist america , it seems in general that america has an excessive amount of brain dead people and anti-intellectualism , and the rise of super corporate indoctrinated nerd drones , this anti intellectualism and lack of intellectual depth increasingly found in certain americans or others so indoctrinated against intellectual understanding is epitomized in the following link</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear misinformed,Due to the advent of technological advancement and the internet, formerly scarce works have become common and easily downloaded due to the non scarce nature of information, this has got westerners and excessively pro corporate, pro business peoples panties in a twist from which they have never recovered.
Capitalist philosophy only makes sense when an item a person wants to consume is scarce, otherwise the "evil" socialist economics can work (and piracy is a lesson in that it works FYI).
Therefore copyright has become a highly charged issue because nature of information and political economic ideology of western capitalism are at odds.According to neoclassical economics because of the non scarce nature of digital works, their worth should be driven down towards zero and many businesses should be going bankrupt, note that this has not happened and the Movie industry has recently broken box office records.
Please refer to Dark Knight released in 2008 in the following list below of top grossing box office movies of all time.
http://www.movieweb.com/movies/boxoffice/alltime.php [movieweb.com] The nature of copyright and software licensing has always been questionable from the outset, because the public was not informed enough to mount resistance to the idea of software licensing and EULA's.
So many industries got their way by way of public ignorance.
Industries later gathered together lobbying more as the internet rose to power and their response to non scarcity of information was in the form of the DMCA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital\_Millennium\_Copyright\_Act [wikipedia.org] Which added to the already dubious practice of licensing software (individuals never own their software) which most nerds have always thought dubious at best (See: Linux)The advent of the DMCA and licensing prevents legitimate owners of software from outright owning and modifying what they bought due to crazy EULA's and liscensing that weaseled it's way into "normalcy" due to public technological ignorance, which attempted to limit software owners rights to ownership and rights to develop their own software to work with the software they already own.
This has pissed off the informed who understand these issues.
See: Bnetd http://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd [eff.org] Corporations and the bad kinds of capitalists alike have been trying to wrest individual ownership from the people by infringing on their individual rights to own the products they buy.
Software companies have always been one of the worst industries due to the idea of licensing software to individuals, rather then individuals being able to own software outright and do whatever they wish with it.Enterprising individuals like John carmack who released open source doom, etc, and Volition Inc of Freespace 2 fame (see: http://scp.indiegames.us/ [indiegames.us] ) have been breaths of fresh air for the informed among us as they understand the deeper issues of software patents, copyright and software ownership by and large.John carmack does not believe in software patents, and is tired of the stupid shit that such patents and overzealous and excessive copyright abuses, to see his frustrations and problems with such see here: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2004/07/4048.ars [arstechnica.com] The slashdot community has been getting pissed at the lack of reasoning power in hypercapitalist america, it seems in general that america has an excessive amount of brain dead people and anti-intellectualism, and the rise of super corporate indoctrinated nerd drones, this anti intellectualism and lack of intellectual depth increasingly found in certain americans or others so indoctrinated against intellectual understanding is epitomized in the following link</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700801</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247688720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I agree with you, why would NYCL read any post from Kdawson?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I agree with you , why would NYCL read any post from Kdawson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I agree with you, why would NYCL read any post from Kdawson?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700323</id>
	<title>Common Law  fucked up beyond belief?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247595060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stuff like this just makes me shake my head...<br>Common law seems to be very much alike to the imperial measurement system. Almost no one use it any more, except some former british colonies [*]. It seems extremely counterintuitive, against a clean separation of powers (because precedents are essentially law), full of historical bullshit like the issue at hand and extremely impractical (because you have to dig up all those precedents).<br>Oh, and it requires almost exactly twice as many lawyers to function[**]. Which is probably why it will take even longer than the imperial system to be abolished...</p><p>[*]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png<br>[**] Germany:   150,375 Lawyers,  82,217,800 citizens, 546.75 citizens/lawyer<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; USA    : 1,118,386    Lawyers, 305,548,183 citizens, 273.20 citizens/lawyer<br>Sources:<br><a href="http://www.brak.de/seiten/pdf/Statistiken/2009/Mitglieder\_klein.pdf" title="www.brak.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.brak.de/seiten/pdf/Statistiken/2009/Mitglieder\_klein.pdf</a> [www.brak.de]<br><a href="http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/Lawyer\_Demographics.pdf" title="abanet.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/Lawyer\_Demographics.pdf</a> [abanet.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stuff like this just makes me shake my head...Common law seems to be very much alike to the imperial measurement system .
Almost no one use it any more , except some former british colonies [ * ] .
It seems extremely counterintuitive , against a clean separation of powers ( because precedents are essentially law ) , full of historical bullshit like the issue at hand and extremely impractical ( because you have to dig up all those precedents ) .Oh , and it requires almost exactly twice as many lawyers to function [ * * ] .
Which is probably why it will take even longer than the imperial system to be abolished... [ * ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png [ * * ] Germany : 150,375 Lawyers , 82,217,800 citizens , 546.75 citizens/lawyer           USA : 1,118,386 Lawyers , 305,548,183 citizens , 273.20 citizens/lawyerSources : http : //www.brak.de/seiten/pdf/Statistiken/2009/Mitglieder \ _klein.pdf [ www.brak.de ] http : //www.abanet.org/marketresearch/Lawyer \ _Demographics.pdf [ abanet.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stuff like this just makes me shake my head...Common law seems to be very much alike to the imperial measurement system.
Almost no one use it any more, except some former british colonies [*].
It seems extremely counterintuitive, against a clean separation of powers (because precedents are essentially law), full of historical bullshit like the issue at hand and extremely impractical (because you have to dig up all those precedents).Oh, and it requires almost exactly twice as many lawyers to function[**].
Which is probably why it will take even longer than the imperial system to be abolished...[*]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png[**] Germany:   150,375 Lawyers,  82,217,800 citizens, 546.75 citizens/lawyer
          USA    : 1,118,386    Lawyers, 305,548,183 citizens, 273.20 citizens/lawyerSources:http://www.brak.de/seiten/pdf/Statistiken/2009/Mitglieder\_klein.pdf [www.brak.de]http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/Lawyer\_Demographics.pdf [abanet.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28725667</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>HUKI365</author>
	<datestamp>1247759940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have mod points...but this is the best description of the dual equitable and legal systems in English common law that I have ever read/heard - this includes my legal text books!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have mod points...but this is the best description of the dual equitable and legal systems in English common law that I have ever read/heard - this includes my legal text books !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have mod points...but this is the best description of the dual equitable and legal systems in English common law that I have ever read/heard - this includes my legal text books!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28725621</id>
	<title>Re:You sure it's not Judge Judy?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247759220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You might want to pick up a newspaper more than once a year. A female US judge is the #1 news story in just about all of them for the last week.</i></p><p>Not every non-US citizen wants to read US newspapers. Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to pick up a newspaper more than once a year .
A female US judge is the # 1 news story in just about all of them for the last week.Not every non-US citizen wants to read US newspapers .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to pick up a newspaper more than once a year.
A female US judge is the #1 news story in just about all of them for the last week.Not every non-US citizen wants to read US newspapers.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699037</id>
	<title>Automatic Appeal?</title>
	<author>electricprof</author>
	<datestamp>1247583240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It almost seems like the judge is begging for an appeal to kick it upstairs and make it somebody else's problem.  IANAL but isn't this like asking for an appeal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It almost seems like the judge is begging for an appeal to kick it upstairs and make it somebody else 's problem .
IANAL but is n't this like asking for an appeal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It almost seems like the judge is begging for an appeal to kick it upstairs and make it somebody else's problem.
IANAL but isn't this like asking for an appeal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701681</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>wes33</author>
	<datestamp>1247660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's not the judges but rather weaknesses in<br>NYCL's legal theories - his predictions so far have<br>not been particularly accurate (just see the speculations<br>pre-Thomas trial and then what actually happened).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's not the judges but rather weaknesses inNYCL 's legal theories - his predictions so far havenot been particularly accurate ( just see the speculationspre-Thomas trial and then what actually happened ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's not the judges but rather weaknesses inNYCL's legal theories - his predictions so far havenot been particularly accurate (just see the speculationspre-Thomas trial and then what actually happened).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704085</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1247676240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Other than the rants against Capitalism, this was a great post.  However you to are "misinformed" at least in your view of Capitalism and Capitalists.<br>
<br>
<b>Capitalism is the best method for distributing limited resources.</b> <br>
<br>
Never before in the history of the world has there been an infinite resource.  In order for socialism or communism to work you need an infinite resource, which outside the digital world will never exist, however it does exist when it comes to digital goods.<br>
<br>
There is still the cost to power the infrastructure housing the infinite resource and the resources used to house it.  Who gets the equipment to view it is still best distributed via Capitalism, however onces the minimum threshold to view such data is reached all should have equal access.<br>
<br>
The current model is broken and is in serious need of reform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than the rants against Capitalism , this was a great post .
However you to are " misinformed " at least in your view of Capitalism and Capitalists .
Capitalism is the best method for distributing limited resources .
Never before in the history of the world has there been an infinite resource .
In order for socialism or communism to work you need an infinite resource , which outside the digital world will never exist , however it does exist when it comes to digital goods .
There is still the cost to power the infrastructure housing the infinite resource and the resources used to house it .
Who gets the equipment to view it is still best distributed via Capitalism , however onces the minimum threshold to view such data is reached all should have equal access .
The current model is broken and is in serious need of reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than the rants against Capitalism, this was a great post.
However you to are "misinformed" at least in your view of Capitalism and Capitalists.
Capitalism is the best method for distributing limited resources.
Never before in the history of the world has there been an infinite resource.
In order for socialism or communism to work you need an infinite resource, which outside the digital world will never exist, however it does exist when it comes to digital goods.
There is still the cost to power the infrastructure housing the infinite resource and the resources used to house it.
Who gets the equipment to view it is still best distributed via Capitalism, however onces the minimum threshold to view such data is reached all should have equal access.
The current model is broken and is in serious need of reform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702731</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1247668740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think most people here would agree that copyright does have a valid place in society.  The problem is that copyright terms have been overextended and copyright powers overemphasized.  It used to be that your copyright on a work only lasted 14 years.  Then you could apply for a one-time extension of 14 years.  After that, your work landed in the Public Domain.  Now the terms are 70 years after the author's death or, if owned by a company, 95 years after publication.  Under the 14+14 rule, works created in 1981 should be hitting the Public Domain now.  Instead, they'll hit in 2076 (assuming corporate ownership and no more copyright extensions - big assumptions, I know).  This means that I likely won't live to see works hit the Public Domain which were created when I was 6 years old.  Heck, a work created in 1974 (a year before I was born) and owned by a company is currently due to hit Public Domain in 2069 - when I'm 95 years old!  It's even worse if the ownership isn't corporate.  Take Michael Jackson, for example.  Since he just died (and assuming he owns the copyrights to his songs), his copyright will end in the year 2079.  His youngest child is currently 7 years old.  When the Jackson copyrights end, his youngest child will be 77 years old!</p><p>In addition to this, copyright owners are making more and more ridiculous assertions about their copyright ownership.  The RIAA, for example, has tried to claim that ripping a CD to MP3 (purely for personal use) is a copyright violation.  Of course, they aren't going around suing people for ripping their CDs, but they would love to get CD ripping banned.</p><p>Copyright was supposed to give a balance between the author's right to seek a profit from his work and the public advancement of the arts.  Authors would have an incentive to create works thanks to the temporary monopoly that copyright granted.  In exchange, the public would get to do what they wanted with the work when that monopoly ended.  In addition, since the copyright would end soon, the author had an incentive to make more works.  What we have now, however, is the author being granted a monopoly that persists for generations after they pass away and little to no incentive (from copyright expiration) to create additional works.  The public, meanwhile, is robbed of songs entering the Public Domain and fueling new works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law , and if I want to get rid of copyright , my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL.I think most people here would agree that copyright does have a valid place in society .
The problem is that copyright terms have been overextended and copyright powers overemphasized .
It used to be that your copyright on a work only lasted 14 years .
Then you could apply for a one-time extension of 14 years .
After that , your work landed in the Public Domain .
Now the terms are 70 years after the author 's death or , if owned by a company , 95 years after publication .
Under the 14 + 14 rule , works created in 1981 should be hitting the Public Domain now .
Instead , they 'll hit in 2076 ( assuming corporate ownership and no more copyright extensions - big assumptions , I know ) .
This means that I likely wo n't live to see works hit the Public Domain which were created when I was 6 years old .
Heck , a work created in 1974 ( a year before I was born ) and owned by a company is currently due to hit Public Domain in 2069 - when I 'm 95 years old !
It 's even worse if the ownership is n't corporate .
Take Michael Jackson , for example .
Since he just died ( and assuming he owns the copyrights to his songs ) , his copyright will end in the year 2079 .
His youngest child is currently 7 years old .
When the Jackson copyrights end , his youngest child will be 77 years old ! In addition to this , copyright owners are making more and more ridiculous assertions about their copyright ownership .
The RIAA , for example , has tried to claim that ripping a CD to MP3 ( purely for personal use ) is a copyright violation .
Of course , they are n't going around suing people for ripping their CDs , but they would love to get CD ripping banned.Copyright was supposed to give a balance between the author 's right to seek a profit from his work and the public advancement of the arts .
Authors would have an incentive to create works thanks to the temporary monopoly that copyright granted .
In exchange , the public would get to do what they wanted with the work when that monopoly ended .
In addition , since the copyright would end soon , the author had an incentive to make more works .
What we have now , however , is the author being granted a monopoly that persists for generations after they pass away and little to no incentive ( from copyright expiration ) to create additional works .
The public , meanwhile , is robbed of songs entering the Public Domain and fueling new works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL.I think most people here would agree that copyright does have a valid place in society.
The problem is that copyright terms have been overextended and copyright powers overemphasized.
It used to be that your copyright on a work only lasted 14 years.
Then you could apply for a one-time extension of 14 years.
After that, your work landed in the Public Domain.
Now the terms are 70 years after the author's death or, if owned by a company, 95 years after publication.
Under the 14+14 rule, works created in 1981 should be hitting the Public Domain now.
Instead, they'll hit in 2076 (assuming corporate ownership and no more copyright extensions - big assumptions, I know).
This means that I likely won't live to see works hit the Public Domain which were created when I was 6 years old.
Heck, a work created in 1974 (a year before I was born) and owned by a company is currently due to hit Public Domain in 2069 - when I'm 95 years old!
It's even worse if the ownership isn't corporate.
Take Michael Jackson, for example.
Since he just died (and assuming he owns the copyrights to his songs), his copyright will end in the year 2079.
His youngest child is currently 7 years old.
When the Jackson copyrights end, his youngest child will be 77 years old!In addition to this, copyright owners are making more and more ridiculous assertions about their copyright ownership.
The RIAA, for example, has tried to claim that ripping a CD to MP3 (purely for personal use) is a copyright violation.
Of course, they aren't going around suing people for ripping their CDs, but they would love to get CD ripping banned.Copyright was supposed to give a balance between the author's right to seek a profit from his work and the public advancement of the arts.
Authors would have an incentive to create works thanks to the temporary monopoly that copyright granted.
In exchange, the public would get to do what they wanted with the work when that monopoly ended.
In addition, since the copyright would end soon, the author had an incentive to make more works.
What we have now, however, is the author being granted a monopoly that persists for generations after they pass away and little to no incentive (from copyright expiration) to create additional works.
The public, meanwhile, is robbed of songs entering the Public Domain and fueling new works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699425</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>ArchieBunker</author>
	<datestamp>1247586600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the term is called "legislating from the bench".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the term is called " legislating from the bench " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the term is called "legislating from the bench".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699785</id>
	<title>Re:You sure it's not Judge Judy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...because that's the only female US Judge I'm familiar with.</p></div><p>You might want to pick up a newspaper more than once a year.  A female US judge is the #1 news story in just about all of them for the last week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because that 's the only female US Judge I 'm familiar with.You might want to pick up a newspaper more than once a year .
A female US judge is the # 1 news story in just about all of them for the last week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...because that's the only female US Judge I'm familiar with.You might want to pick up a newspaper more than once a year.
A female US judge is the #1 news story in just about all of them for the last week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699621</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1247588220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.</p></div><p>And since according to this they're already denying the use of the jury box, well, you have three guesses what's next.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballot , Soap , Jury , Ammo ; they should be used in that order.And since according to this they 're already denying the use of the jury box , well , you have three guesses what 's next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.And since according to this they're already denying the use of the jury box, well, you have three guesses what's next.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700299</id>
	<title>Fair to Whom?</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247594880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        The tax payers are the ones who take it in the neck while these endless court cases go on and on. How many billions in tax dollars does it take to support courts hearing copyright cases every year? It's like pornography or abortion in the courts and in congress. It just keeps running up expenses. Maybe these types of cases should not be allowed in the justice system at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tax payers are the ones who take it in the neck while these endless court cases go on and on .
How many billions in tax dollars does it take to support courts hearing copyright cases every year ?
It 's like pornography or abortion in the courts and in congress .
It just keeps running up expenses .
Maybe these types of cases should not be allowed in the justice system at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        The tax payers are the ones who take it in the neck while these endless court cases go on and on.
How many billions in tax dollars does it take to support courts hearing copyright cases every year?
It's like pornography or abortion in the courts and in congress.
It just keeps running up expenses.
Maybe these types of cases should not be allowed in the justice system at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701747</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>Graywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247661300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awesome. The Argrue part alone is +5 Funny<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Thanks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome .
The Argrue part alone is + 5 Funny : ) Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome.
The Argrue part alone is +5 Funny :)
Thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702631</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247668140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>free digital music distribution can be considered low cost advertising for the performers</i></p><p>Independant performers realise this. The RIAA labels probably do too, but they know who their competetion is - the indies. The majors have radio (oddly, it's freww, and you can sample it easier than downloading it, and usually at better quality).</p><p><i>The same transition happened with performance art: live performances/plays turned into movies.</i></p><p>Yet stage plays are still performed, and never stopped.</p><p><i>Books are an interesting case.</i></p><p>See the forward to Doctorow's <i>Little Brother</i>. If the RIAA labels were correct, it would be odd that a book available for free on the author's web site could make the New York Times' best seller list. He points out the very obvious truth that if I've never heard your music, it's damned unlikely that I'll ever buy any of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>free digital music distribution can be considered low cost advertising for the performersIndependant performers realise this .
The RIAA labels probably do too , but they know who their competetion is - the indies .
The majors have radio ( oddly , it 's freww , and you can sample it easier than downloading it , and usually at better quality ) .The same transition happened with performance art : live performances/plays turned into movies.Yet stage plays are still performed , and never stopped.Books are an interesting case.See the forward to Doctorow 's Little Brother .
If the RIAA labels were correct , it would be odd that a book available for free on the author 's web site could make the New York Times ' best seller list .
He points out the very obvious truth that if I 've never heard your music , it 's damned unlikely that I 'll ever buy any of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>free digital music distribution can be considered low cost advertising for the performersIndependant performers realise this.
The RIAA labels probably do too, but they know who their competetion is - the indies.
The majors have radio (oddly, it's freww, and you can sample it easier than downloading it, and usually at better quality).The same transition happened with performance art: live performances/plays turned into movies.Yet stage plays are still performed, and never stopped.Books are an interesting case.See the forward to Doctorow's Little Brother.
If the RIAA labels were correct, it would be odd that a book available for free on the author's web site could make the New York Times' best seller list.
He points out the very obvious truth that if I've never heard your music, it's damned unlikely that I'll ever buy any of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700261</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1247594580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent summary. Additional (but partially irrelevant save for maybe one sentence in your post): Louisiana inherited the Civil Law system from France, and as such, it doesn't really have a history of equity courts and equitable defenses, right? Any Louisianan or LAwyer care to chime in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent summary .
Additional ( but partially irrelevant save for maybe one sentence in your post ) : Louisiana inherited the Civil Law system from France , and as such , it does n't really have a history of equity courts and equitable defenses , right ?
Any Louisianan or LAwyer care to chime in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent summary.
Additional (but partially irrelevant save for maybe one sentence in your post): Louisiana inherited the Civil Law system from France, and as such, it doesn't really have a history of equity courts and equitable defenses, right?
Any Louisianan or LAwyer care to chime in?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701307</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>SolitaryMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247654280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What will movies turn into? Will there be a resurgence of live performances?</p></div><p>Well, since the most expensive movies are not worth watching outside of a *good* movie theater, I'd say the trend is clearly there.</p><p>Another problem with music, though, is that in terms of quality of the music itself, live performances are much worse than recorded music.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will movies turn into ?
Will there be a resurgence of live performances ? Well , since the most expensive movies are not worth watching outside of a * good * movie theater , I 'd say the trend is clearly there.Another problem with music , though , is that in terms of quality of the music itself , live performances are much worse than recorded music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will movies turn into?
Will there be a resurgence of live performances?Well, since the most expensive movies are not worth watching outside of a *good* movie theater, I'd say the trend is clearly there.Another problem with music, though, is that in terms of quality of the music itself, live performances are much worse than recorded music.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003</id>
	<title>Hey... that's not FAIR!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey... that's not FAIR, to take away FAIR USE.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey... that 's not FAIR , to take away FAIR USE .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey... that's not FAIR, to take away FAIR USE.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699851</id>
	<title>Re:Just Remember</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1247590380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.</p></div><p>So, just to be clear, you're saying that if this decision goes awry at the jury level, you're ready to shoot people?</p><p>
Just checking...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballot , Soap , Jury , Ammo ; they should be used in that order.So , just to be clear , you 're saying that if this decision goes awry at the jury level , you 're ready to shoot people ?
Just checking.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.So, just to be clear, you're saying that if this decision goes awry at the jury level, you're ready to shoot people?
Just checking...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700229</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247594160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn dude, very nice.</p><p>It sounds like you're saying "Fair Use" boils down to not so much a defined legal exception to Copyright, but more like breaking the law in a way that has been designated as fair, and therefore unpunishable?  Is that a confusing but more or less accurate way of looking at it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn dude , very nice.It sounds like you 're saying " Fair Use " boils down to not so much a defined legal exception to Copyright , but more like breaking the law in a way that has been designated as fair , and therefore unpunishable ?
Is that a confusing but more or less accurate way of looking at it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn dude, very nice.It sounds like you're saying "Fair Use" boils down to not so much a defined legal exception to Copyright, but more like breaking the law in a way that has been designated as fair, and therefore unpunishable?
Is that a confusing but more or less accurate way of looking at it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699143</id>
	<title>Just continuing the trend of emasculating juries</title>
	<author>jordandeamattson</author>
	<datestamp>1247584140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just another example of Judges emasculating juries, dis-empowering them.</p><p>I long for the days when juries (before the 2nd half of the 20th century) actually decided cases and where not treated like mushrooms by all.</p><p>Jordan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another example of Judges emasculating juries , dis-empowering them.I long for the days when juries ( before the 2nd half of the 20th century ) actually decided cases and where not treated like mushrooms by all.Jordan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another example of Judges emasculating juries, dis-empowering them.I long for the days when juries (before the 2nd half of the 20th century) actually decided cases and where not treated like mushrooms by all.Jordan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111</id>
	<title>Just Remember</title>
	<author>bky1701</author>
	<datestamp>1247583900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballot , Soap , Jury , Ammo ; they should be used in that order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballot, Soap, Jury, Ammo; they should be used in that order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700541</id>
	<title>Summarized in plain English</title>
	<author>Phocas</author>
	<datestamp>1247597760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the decision is saying is this:</p><p>1) historically, a type of legal question known as an "equitable" claim (or equitable defense) has been decided by the judge, not a jury [for ancient historical reasons I won't get into here on Slashdot]</p><p>2) there are some cases which refer to copyright fair use as an equitable defense but it's not clear if those cases are using the term "equitable" as that term is used in (1)</p><p>3) some cases have put the fair use defense to the jury to decide, but without considering the issue I have described in (1) and (2)</p><p>4) I'd like the parties to tell me, in writing, what they think the correct answer to this issue is, and why</p><p>5) once I get the written submissions in (4), I'll decide whether the judge or the jury should rule on the copyright fair use defense</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the decision is saying is this : 1 ) historically , a type of legal question known as an " equitable " claim ( or equitable defense ) has been decided by the judge , not a jury [ for ancient historical reasons I wo n't get into here on Slashdot ] 2 ) there are some cases which refer to copyright fair use as an equitable defense but it 's not clear if those cases are using the term " equitable " as that term is used in ( 1 ) 3 ) some cases have put the fair use defense to the jury to decide , but without considering the issue I have described in ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) 4 ) I 'd like the parties to tell me , in writing , what they think the correct answer to this issue is , and why5 ) once I get the written submissions in ( 4 ) , I 'll decide whether the judge or the jury should rule on the copyright fair use defense</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the decision is saying is this:1) historically, a type of legal question known as an "equitable" claim (or equitable defense) has been decided by the judge, not a jury [for ancient historical reasons I won't get into here on Slashdot]2) there are some cases which refer to copyright fair use as an equitable defense but it's not clear if those cases are using the term "equitable" as that term is used in (1)3) some cases have put the fair use defense to the jury to decide, but without considering the issue I have described in (1) and (2)4) I'd like the parties to tell me, in writing, what they think the correct answer to this issue is, and why5) once I get the written submissions in (4), I'll decide whether the judge or the jury should rule on the copyright fair use defense</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701877</id>
	<title>Re:Justifying piracy on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247662800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so you basicly saying "its the law now therefore its ok"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so you basicly saying " its the law now therefore its ok " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so you basicly saying "its the law now therefore its ok"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702023</id>
	<title>Re:What is it with judges going beyond the law?</title>
	<author>Puls4r</author>
	<datestamp>1247664360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you read up on this particular judge?
<br> <br>
She's very outspoken on many issues - so much so that she writes an opinion blog.  Read it some and you'll get a flavor of who she is - she's very pro-women, pro-affirmative action, and pro-social engineering.  She's also pro-legislate from the bench, and she seems to enjoy trying to do so.
<br>br.
It's no wonder she's taking literary license with how the trial is running.  She thinks she should be the judge, jury, and defending/prosecuting attourney!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you read up on this particular judge ?
She 's very outspoken on many issues - so much so that she writes an opinion blog .
Read it some and you 'll get a flavor of who she is - she 's very pro-women , pro-affirmative action , and pro-social engineering .
She 's also pro-legislate from the bench , and she seems to enjoy trying to do so .
br . It 's no wonder she 's taking literary license with how the trial is running .
She thinks she should be the judge , jury , and defending/prosecuting attourney !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you read up on this particular judge?
She's very outspoken on many issues - so much so that she writes an opinion blog.
Read it some and you'll get a flavor of who she is - she's very pro-women, pro-affirmative action, and pro-social engineering.
She's also pro-legislate from the bench, and she seems to enjoy trying to do so.
br.
It's no wonder she's taking literary license with how the trial is running.
She thinks she should be the judge, jury, and defending/prosecuting attourney!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699449</id>
	<title>Re:Achem. Mistrial.</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1247586720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading legal advice from people on Slashdot is a bit like reading music reviews from people on a Britney Spears Fan Club website.<br> <br>
In any event, I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal out of this.  The judge hasn't made any binding decisions, she just raised an issue.  This happens all the time.<br> <br>Furthermore, even if she did decide fair use herself I am not convinced this would produce a worse result in this case.  Juries are unpredictable (see the $1.9 million verdict against Jammie Thomas).  Having a learned judge decide an (arguably) legal position isn't the end of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading legal advice from people on Slashdot is a bit like reading music reviews from people on a Britney Spears Fan Club website .
In any event , I do n't know why everyone is making such a big deal out of this .
The judge has n't made any binding decisions , she just raised an issue .
This happens all the time .
Furthermore , even if she did decide fair use herself I am not convinced this would produce a worse result in this case .
Juries are unpredictable ( see the $ 1.9 million verdict against Jammie Thomas ) .
Having a learned judge decide an ( arguably ) legal position is n't the end of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading legal advice from people on Slashdot is a bit like reading music reviews from people on a Britney Spears Fan Club website.
In any event, I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal out of this.
The judge hasn't made any binding decisions, she just raised an issue.
This happens all the time.
Furthermore, even if she did decide fair use herself I am not convinced this would produce a worse result in this case.
Juries are unpredictable (see the $1.9 million verdict against Jammie Thomas).
Having a learned judge decide an (arguably) legal position isn't the end of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699485</id>
	<title>Re:You are standing in a dimly lit room</title>
	<author>Zelucifer</author>
	<datestamp>1247586960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to give you one moment of internet fame. That was definitely one of the <br> five best<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments I've read in the past decade". Thanks for the laugh man.<p>

For the other poster: AGI = Agility</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to give you one moment of internet fame .
That was definitely one of the five best / .
comments I 've read in the past decade " .
Thanks for the laugh man .
For the other poster : AGI = Agility</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to give you one moment of internet fame.
That was definitely one of the  five best /.
comments I've read in the past decade".
Thanks for the laugh man.
For the other poster: AGI = Agility</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28720171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28705813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28707369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28710889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28705493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28708405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28717231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28711849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28706215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28716281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28725621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28708431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28703641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28715745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28708999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28703377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_2144232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28725667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699723
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28717231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28711849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700231
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28715745
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704909
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28720171
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702347
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702631
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701307
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28705813
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702443
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700347
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28707369
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701323
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704085
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28708431
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28716281
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701205
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28703641
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702299
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701877
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28706215
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28703377
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702621
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28704839
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701629
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701979
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28705493
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28708405
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702943
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701075
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702709
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28725667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28710889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28725621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28700299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_2144232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28708999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28702645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28701747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_2144232.28699473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
