<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_1913227</id>
	<title>Three Arrested For Conspiring To Violate the DMCA</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247772660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jtcm writes <i>"Three men have been charged with conspiring to violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after federal investigators found that they allegedly <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/satellite/">offered a cracker more than $250,000</a> to assist with breaking Dish Network's satellite TV encryption scheme: '[Jung] Kwak had two co-conspirators secure the services of a cracker and allegedly reimbursed the unidentified person about $8,500 to buy a specialized and expensive microscope used for reverse engineering smart cards.
 He also allegedly offered the cracker more than $250,000 if he successfully secured a Nagra card's EPROM (eraseable programmable read-only memory), the guts of the chip that is needed to reverse-engineer Dish Network's encryption.' Kwak owns a company known as Viewtech, which imports and sells Viewsat satellite receiver boxes. Dish Network's latest encryption scheme, dubbed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagravision">Nagra 3</a>, has not yet been cracked by satellite TV pirates."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jtcm writes " Three men have been charged with conspiring to violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after federal investigators found that they allegedly offered a cracker more than $ 250,000 to assist with breaking Dish Network 's satellite TV encryption scheme : ' [ Jung ] Kwak had two co-conspirators secure the services of a cracker and allegedly reimbursed the unidentified person about $ 8,500 to buy a specialized and expensive microscope used for reverse engineering smart cards .
He also allegedly offered the cracker more than $ 250,000 if he successfully secured a Nagra card 's EPROM ( eraseable programmable read-only memory ) , the guts of the chip that is needed to reverse-engineer Dish Network 's encryption .
' Kwak owns a company known as Viewtech , which imports and sells Viewsat satellite receiver boxes .
Dish Network 's latest encryption scheme , dubbed Nagra 3 , has not yet been cracked by satellite TV pirates .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jtcm writes "Three men have been charged with conspiring to violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after federal investigators found that they allegedly offered a cracker more than $250,000 to assist with breaking Dish Network's satellite TV encryption scheme: '[Jung] Kwak had two co-conspirators secure the services of a cracker and allegedly reimbursed the unidentified person about $8,500 to buy a specialized and expensive microscope used for reverse engineering smart cards.
He also allegedly offered the cracker more than $250,000 if he successfully secured a Nagra card's EPROM (eraseable programmable read-only memory), the guts of the chip that is needed to reverse-engineer Dish Network's encryption.
' Kwak owns a company known as Viewtech, which imports and sells Viewsat satellite receiver boxes.
Dish Network's latest encryption scheme, dubbed Nagra 3, has not yet been cracked by satellite TV pirates.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727043</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1247823660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges, I had 2 counts of conspiracy, which were also felonies, added for "thinking" about doing it before I actually did it.</p></div><p>You must've done more than just "thinking" about it. For one thing, "conspiracy" requires that there's more than one person involved. If you're just planning things out in your head and not telling anyone about it, then you're not conspiring and you're not committing a crime and that's how it should be. After all, there are other legitimate reasons for planning a crime in your head (e.g., writing a crime novel, working out how to take preventative action, etc).</p><p>As I said, you must've done substantively more than "just thinking about it", and the prosecutor must've either persuaded you to plead guilty or a judge/jury to think you are guilty (don't know how juvenile courts work in your jurisdiction). No idea what though; I'm not a lawyer (and I'm especially not a criminal lawyer).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges , I had 2 counts of conspiracy , which were also felonies , added for " thinking " about doing it before I actually did it.You must 've done more than just " thinking " about it .
For one thing , " conspiracy " requires that there 's more than one person involved .
If you 're just planning things out in your head and not telling anyone about it , then you 're not conspiring and you 're not committing a crime and that 's how it should be .
After all , there are other legitimate reasons for planning a crime in your head ( e.g. , writing a crime novel , working out how to take preventative action , etc ) .As I said , you must 've done substantively more than " just thinking about it " , and the prosecutor must 've either persuaded you to plead guilty or a judge/jury to think you are guilty ( do n't know how juvenile courts work in your jurisdiction ) .
No idea what though ; I 'm not a lawyer ( and I 'm especially not a criminal lawyer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges, I had 2 counts of conspiracy, which were also felonies, added for "thinking" about doing it before I actually did it.You must've done more than just "thinking" about it.
For one thing, "conspiracy" requires that there's more than one person involved.
If you're just planning things out in your head and not telling anyone about it, then you're not conspiring and you're not committing a crime and that's how it should be.
After all, there are other legitimate reasons for planning a crime in your head (e.g., writing a crime novel, working out how to take preventative action, etc).As I said, you must've done substantively more than "just thinking about it", and the prosecutor must've either persuaded you to plead guilty or a judge/jury to think you are guilty (don't know how juvenile courts work in your jurisdiction).
No idea what though; I'm not a lawyer (and I'm especially not a criminal lawyer).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28728191</id>
	<title>This is fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247837940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These guys are trying to commit fraud.</p><p>They are attempting to profit off of a system created and developed by Dish.  It cost dish billions of dollars to create their network.  Notice that NO WHERE did Dish ever say they could not make their own satellite network and leave it open or use whatever encryption they wanted. If I paid somebody to crack the wireless in your home so I could copy your files is that illegal?  You didn't actually lose any files and I never entered your place.  Its still illegal though.  This is conspiracy to commit fraud, they aren't doing this for the public benefit, they would take it and then use it for their own profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys are trying to commit fraud.They are attempting to profit off of a system created and developed by Dish .
It cost dish billions of dollars to create their network .
Notice that NO WHERE did Dish ever say they could not make their own satellite network and leave it open or use whatever encryption they wanted .
If I paid somebody to crack the wireless in your home so I could copy your files is that illegal ?
You did n't actually lose any files and I never entered your place .
Its still illegal though .
This is conspiracy to commit fraud , they are n't doing this for the public benefit , they would take it and then use it for their own profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys are trying to commit fraud.They are attempting to profit off of a system created and developed by Dish.
It cost dish billions of dollars to create their network.
Notice that NO WHERE did Dish ever say they could not make their own satellite network and leave it open or use whatever encryption they wanted.
If I paid somebody to crack the wireless in your home so I could copy your files is that illegal?
You didn't actually lose any files and I never entered your place.
Its still illegal though.
This is conspiracy to commit fraud, they aren't doing this for the public benefit, they would take it and then use it for their own profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725889</id>
	<title>Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable</title>
	<author>elmarkitse</author>
	<datestamp>1247762460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A poor, white, rural American FINALLY gets a job in this terrible economy, and we lock him up.   A word of warning to all your crackers out there, give up hope now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A poor , white , rural American FINALLY gets a job in this terrible economy , and we lock him up .
A word of warning to all your crackers out there , give up hope now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A poor, white, rural American FINALLY gets a job in this terrible economy, and we lock him up.
A word of warning to all your crackers out there, give up hope now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723593</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1247742600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a wrong analogy.</p><p>Satellite signals are beamed all over the country, they are not the same as cars, more like data.</p><p>Imagine if you had your Wireless network set up, and your next door neighbor uses a Wireless cracking program to crack your WPA key, and then uses it to surf for porn and other stuff, that your Internet account gets accused of doing. Would you get upset at your neighbor for hacking your Wireless network, or just let him/her get all of the free Internet and you foot the bill and the responsibility?</p><p>In the same way you pay for a DirecTV or Dishnetwork decryption key via your smart card to unlock your satellite signals in order to view your programming. Do you want a neighbor to break into your house, copy your decryption key and then use it for all of the free Pay Per Views that get charged to your account and not his/her account because they stole your key?</p><p>Companies and People like those mentioned in this article are the reason why I keep getting new smartcards for my satellite programming every once in a while. It means someone or some company broke their encryption and now they have to offer new cards with a different encryption/decryption codes on them. I pay for my programming, I do not get it for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a wrong analogy.Satellite signals are beamed all over the country , they are not the same as cars , more like data.Imagine if you had your Wireless network set up , and your next door neighbor uses a Wireless cracking program to crack your WPA key , and then uses it to surf for porn and other stuff , that your Internet account gets accused of doing .
Would you get upset at your neighbor for hacking your Wireless network , or just let him/her get all of the free Internet and you foot the bill and the responsibility ? In the same way you pay for a DirecTV or Dishnetwork decryption key via your smart card to unlock your satellite signals in order to view your programming .
Do you want a neighbor to break into your house , copy your decryption key and then use it for all of the free Pay Per Views that get charged to your account and not his/her account because they stole your key ? Companies and People like those mentioned in this article are the reason why I keep getting new smartcards for my satellite programming every once in a while .
It means someone or some company broke their encryption and now they have to offer new cards with a different encryption/decryption codes on them .
I pay for my programming , I do not get it for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a wrong analogy.Satellite signals are beamed all over the country, they are not the same as cars, more like data.Imagine if you had your Wireless network set up, and your next door neighbor uses a Wireless cracking program to crack your WPA key, and then uses it to surf for porn and other stuff, that your Internet account gets accused of doing.
Would you get upset at your neighbor for hacking your Wireless network, or just let him/her get all of the free Internet and you foot the bill and the responsibility?In the same way you pay for a DirecTV or Dishnetwork decryption key via your smart card to unlock your satellite signals in order to view your programming.
Do you want a neighbor to break into your house, copy your decryption key and then use it for all of the free Pay Per Views that get charged to your account and not his/her account because they stole your key?Companies and People like those mentioned in this article are the reason why I keep getting new smartcards for my satellite programming every once in a while.
It means someone or some company broke their encryption and now they have to offer new cards with a different encryption/decryption codes on them.
I pay for my programming, I do not get it for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721507</id>
	<title>Sounds like my friend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a friend who claimed that he had found a way to pirate DirecTV's service. He only stopped doing so when he realized there was still nothing worth watching. Eventually he opened his own business. He named the company after a component that was essential to the process. I remember when I helped out we'd get about one call a week from people trying to ask not in so-many words if we could help them with their "DirecTV stuff". (It was my first call on it that caused me to mention it to my friend, who then told me what the company name actually meant.)
<br> <br>
He pirated the service for about two years. Funny thing was, about a year after he stopped he got hit with a lawsuit. He transferred as much stuff as he could out of his own name and braced for the inevitable. He only got away because he had a friend who knew some influential people. Incidentally, my friend his now <i>his</i> friend's personal no-cost 24/7 concierge tech support.
<br> <br>
Anyway, he'd get these calls from people and he'd try to deny that he knew what to do. If someone pressed the issue (usually it was his friends or old co-workers telling others who could help) he tried to do the "scared straight" thing. Funny thing is, some of them would get mad at him for not helping. So many people are willing to throw away financial security just so they don't have to pay for the NFL Channel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a friend who claimed that he had found a way to pirate DirecTV 's service .
He only stopped doing so when he realized there was still nothing worth watching .
Eventually he opened his own business .
He named the company after a component that was essential to the process .
I remember when I helped out we 'd get about one call a week from people trying to ask not in so-many words if we could help them with their " DirecTV stuff " .
( It was my first call on it that caused me to mention it to my friend , who then told me what the company name actually meant .
) He pirated the service for about two years .
Funny thing was , about a year after he stopped he got hit with a lawsuit .
He transferred as much stuff as he could out of his own name and braced for the inevitable .
He only got away because he had a friend who knew some influential people .
Incidentally , my friend his now his friend 's personal no-cost 24/7 concierge tech support .
Anyway , he 'd get these calls from people and he 'd try to deny that he knew what to do .
If someone pressed the issue ( usually it was his friends or old co-workers telling others who could help ) he tried to do the " scared straight " thing .
Funny thing is , some of them would get mad at him for not helping .
So many people are willing to throw away financial security just so they do n't have to pay for the NFL Channel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a friend who claimed that he had found a way to pirate DirecTV's service.
He only stopped doing so when he realized there was still nothing worth watching.
Eventually he opened his own business.
He named the company after a component that was essential to the process.
I remember when I helped out we'd get about one call a week from people trying to ask not in so-many words if we could help them with their "DirecTV stuff".
(It was my first call on it that caused me to mention it to my friend, who then told me what the company name actually meant.
)
 
He pirated the service for about two years.
Funny thing was, about a year after he stopped he got hit with a lawsuit.
He transferred as much stuff as he could out of his own name and braced for the inevitable.
He only got away because he had a friend who knew some influential people.
Incidentally, my friend his now his friend's personal no-cost 24/7 concierge tech support.
Anyway, he'd get these calls from people and he'd try to deny that he knew what to do.
If someone pressed the issue (usually it was his friends or old co-workers telling others who could help) he tried to do the "scared straight" thing.
Funny thing is, some of them would get mad at him for not helping.
So many people are willing to throw away financial security just so they don't have to pay for the NFL Channel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726677</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you.</p><p>This goes two ways. Are equally willing to let anyone listen to your broadcasts. By this same logic the police don't need a warrant to listen in on your cell phone, wireless home phone,  internet traffic, etc. Be careful what you preach, it can easily be used against you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If you broadcast something into my home uninvited , and I find a way to make use of that broadcast , that 's tough tits for you.This goes two ways .
Are equally willing to let anyone listen to your broadcasts .
By this same logic the police do n't need a warrant to listen in on your cell phone , wireless home phone , internet traffic , etc .
Be careful what you preach , it can easily be used against you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you.This goes two ways.
Are equally willing to let anyone listen to your broadcasts.
By this same logic the police don't need a warrant to listen in on your cell phone, wireless home phone,  internet traffic, etc.
Be careful what you preach, it can easily be used against you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724831</id>
	<title>Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that the DMCA doesn't distinguish between the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the DMCA does n't distinguish between the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the DMCA doesn't distinguish between the two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723547</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1247742420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be true, if they were an idiot.  Fortunately I don't think the grandparent poster is an idiot.

</p><p>Hacking into a wifi signal goes beyond decrypting a data stream.  You are at that point sending data with the intention of having a remote computer (for the access point is indeed a little computer) and having it do work for you.  You are now making use of someone else's property without their permission.  Worse, if they're using even a lame 64-bit WEP, they have clearly indicated that you are not welcome to us it, a sort of digital "No Trespassing" sign, so you can't claim it was accidental.

</p><p>Cell phones are similar, although with an interesting twist: you're not going to be able to make a phone call without some phone's identity.  And whoever paid for that phone's identity is going to get hit with the charges for your calls.  In essence, you're engaging in fraud against someone else, making charges in their name.  We don't need special phone crime laws to deal with this, basic fraud (specifically identity "theft") covers it fine.

</p><p>Now, this <em>does</em> suggest that you're free to quietly snoop on other people's wifi and cell phones.  One can take an ethical stand that puts the onus of securing one's wireless communications on the transmitter and receiver, not the government and third parties.  Or put another way, one might say, "Feel free to snoop on my wifi. I use a secure VPN."

</p><p>Splicing into the cable companies lines is a different case.  If the cable doesn't enter your property, you've engaged in trespass and tampering with someone else's property.  But we'll be generous and assume the cable crosses your property; it's common enough.  While the land is yours, the physical cable itself is not.  In much the same way that if I park in my local grocery store's lot, they have no right to siphon some gas out of my tank, you have no right to cut or otherwise modify their cable.

</p><p>Now, if you were to engage in some cleverness to read the signal off the cable without harming the cable, I think you'd see some support from those arguing the "tough tits" case.

</p><p>(In all of these cases I'm ignoring what is actually legal, since I believe the point is to argue what is ethical, and thus what the law <em>should</em> be, not what it is today.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be true , if they were an idiot .
Fortunately I do n't think the grandparent poster is an idiot .
Hacking into a wifi signal goes beyond decrypting a data stream .
You are at that point sending data with the intention of having a remote computer ( for the access point is indeed a little computer ) and having it do work for you .
You are now making use of someone else 's property without their permission .
Worse , if they 're using even a lame 64-bit WEP , they have clearly indicated that you are not welcome to us it , a sort of digital " No Trespassing " sign , so you ca n't claim it was accidental .
Cell phones are similar , although with an interesting twist : you 're not going to be able to make a phone call without some phone 's identity .
And whoever paid for that phone 's identity is going to get hit with the charges for your calls .
In essence , you 're engaging in fraud against someone else , making charges in their name .
We do n't need special phone crime laws to deal with this , basic fraud ( specifically identity " theft " ) covers it fine .
Now , this does suggest that you 're free to quietly snoop on other people 's wifi and cell phones .
One can take an ethical stand that puts the onus of securing one 's wireless communications on the transmitter and receiver , not the government and third parties .
Or put another way , one might say , " Feel free to snoop on my wifi .
I use a secure VPN .
" Splicing into the cable companies lines is a different case .
If the cable does n't enter your property , you 've engaged in trespass and tampering with someone else 's property .
But we 'll be generous and assume the cable crosses your property ; it 's common enough .
While the land is yours , the physical cable itself is not .
In much the same way that if I park in my local grocery store 's lot , they have no right to siphon some gas out of my tank , you have no right to cut or otherwise modify their cable .
Now , if you were to engage in some cleverness to read the signal off the cable without harming the cable , I think you 'd see some support from those arguing the " tough tits " case .
( In all of these cases I 'm ignoring what is actually legal , since I believe the point is to argue what is ethical , and thus what the law should be , not what it is today .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be true, if they were an idiot.
Fortunately I don't think the grandparent poster is an idiot.
Hacking into a wifi signal goes beyond decrypting a data stream.
You are at that point sending data with the intention of having a remote computer (for the access point is indeed a little computer) and having it do work for you.
You are now making use of someone else's property without their permission.
Worse, if they're using even a lame 64-bit WEP, they have clearly indicated that you are not welcome to us it, a sort of digital "No Trespassing" sign, so you can't claim it was accidental.
Cell phones are similar, although with an interesting twist: you're not going to be able to make a phone call without some phone's identity.
And whoever paid for that phone's identity is going to get hit with the charges for your calls.
In essence, you're engaging in fraud against someone else, making charges in their name.
We don't need special phone crime laws to deal with this, basic fraud (specifically identity "theft") covers it fine.
Now, this does suggest that you're free to quietly snoop on other people's wifi and cell phones.
One can take an ethical stand that puts the onus of securing one's wireless communications on the transmitter and receiver, not the government and third parties.
Or put another way, one might say, "Feel free to snoop on my wifi.
I use a secure VPN.
"

Splicing into the cable companies lines is a different case.
If the cable doesn't enter your property, you've engaged in trespass and tampering with someone else's property.
But we'll be generous and assume the cable crosses your property; it's common enough.
While the land is yours, the physical cable itself is not.
In much the same way that if I park in my local grocery store's lot, they have no right to siphon some gas out of my tank, you have no right to cut or otherwise modify their cable.
Now, if you were to engage in some cleverness to read the signal off the cable without harming the cable, I think you'd see some support from those arguing the "tough tits" case.
(In all of these cases I'm ignoring what is actually legal, since I believe the point is to argue what is ethical, and thus what the law should be, not what it is today.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721957</id>
	<title>Crime depends on who you are...</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1247735520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm thinking that if a security researcher had done the same thing, he would not be in jail.  Nor would a large corporation.
</p><p>
But a set top box importer does it, and suddenly it's a federal crime.
</p><p>
The most troublesome part about this is that engineers routinely reverse engineer the work of others for the sake of creating compatible products - an exemption the DMCA explicitly allows.  Perhaps the company wanted to offer a cheaper STB to Dish, and undercut the competition.  Or perhaps they planned to sell directly to the black market, engaging in fraud.  The act of reverse engineering a component tells us nothing about the company's intentions.
</p><p>
I mention this because this very thing was done to Lexmark printers a few years ago.  Instead of getting arrested, the manufacturer of competing cartridges was sued under the DMCA; the case went all the way to the SCOTUS, and Lexmark lost.  It would appear this would set precedent regarding the legality of reverse engineering for the sake of creating interoperable products, but strangely, the FBI seems not to follow precedent.  I find it odd that an activity which was legal and sanctioned by the DMCA - and even supported by the Supreme Court, is now interpreted as being illegal <b>according to the very same law</b>.
</p><p>
If anything, this shows the illegality of an action depends more upon who you are than what you do.  Best not to offend our corporate overlords, lest they have the FBI arrest you.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking that if a security researcher had done the same thing , he would not be in jail .
Nor would a large corporation .
But a set top box importer does it , and suddenly it 's a federal crime .
The most troublesome part about this is that engineers routinely reverse engineer the work of others for the sake of creating compatible products - an exemption the DMCA explicitly allows .
Perhaps the company wanted to offer a cheaper STB to Dish , and undercut the competition .
Or perhaps they planned to sell directly to the black market , engaging in fraud .
The act of reverse engineering a component tells us nothing about the company 's intentions .
I mention this because this very thing was done to Lexmark printers a few years ago .
Instead of getting arrested , the manufacturer of competing cartridges was sued under the DMCA ; the case went all the way to the SCOTUS , and Lexmark lost .
It would appear this would set precedent regarding the legality of reverse engineering for the sake of creating interoperable products , but strangely , the FBI seems not to follow precedent .
I find it odd that an activity which was legal and sanctioned by the DMCA - and even supported by the Supreme Court , is now interpreted as being illegal according to the very same law .
If anything , this shows the illegality of an action depends more upon who you are than what you do .
Best not to offend our corporate overlords , lest they have the FBI arrest you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm thinking that if a security researcher had done the same thing, he would not be in jail.
Nor would a large corporation.
But a set top box importer does it, and suddenly it's a federal crime.
The most troublesome part about this is that engineers routinely reverse engineer the work of others for the sake of creating compatible products - an exemption the DMCA explicitly allows.
Perhaps the company wanted to offer a cheaper STB to Dish, and undercut the competition.
Or perhaps they planned to sell directly to the black market, engaging in fraud.
The act of reverse engineering a component tells us nothing about the company's intentions.
I mention this because this very thing was done to Lexmark printers a few years ago.
Instead of getting arrested, the manufacturer of competing cartridges was sued under the DMCA; the case went all the way to the SCOTUS, and Lexmark lost.
It would appear this would set precedent regarding the legality of reverse engineering for the sake of creating interoperable products, but strangely, the FBI seems not to follow precedent.
I find it odd that an activity which was legal and sanctioned by the DMCA - and even supported by the Supreme Court, is now interpreted as being illegal according to the very same law.
If anything, this shows the illegality of an action depends more upon who you are than what you do.
Best not to offend our corporate overlords, lest they have the FBI arrest you.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555</id>
	<title>Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247777220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although it was eliminated by dubious judicial means shortly after becoming law, the DMCA allows for reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability. The entire market for these devices is based on non-interoperability. Because if the CAM became truly portable and emulated fully in software, it's a tiny step to a digital video recorder that is completely under user control receiving HDTV. Which is actually the main selling point here. They took our VCRs away, and now we're attacking people who want to get them back the only way possible; At this point it doesn't matter whether his intent was to sell descrambler boxes or not, or anyone's, because that's the only way you're getting that functionality. An irony, really, that you could be paying the same fees as someone with an "approved" box, accessing the same content, and yet wind up in jail because your equipment wasn't up to the provider's specifications... Namely, that you wanted to "time shift" the content.</p><p>Damn criminals, flaunting their freedoms in front of us... They get what they deserve, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although it was eliminated by dubious judicial means shortly after becoming law , the DMCA allows for reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability .
The entire market for these devices is based on non-interoperability .
Because if the CAM became truly portable and emulated fully in software , it 's a tiny step to a digital video recorder that is completely under user control receiving HDTV .
Which is actually the main selling point here .
They took our VCRs away , and now we 're attacking people who want to get them back the only way possible ; At this point it does n't matter whether his intent was to sell descrambler boxes or not , or anyone 's , because that 's the only way you 're getting that functionality .
An irony , really , that you could be paying the same fees as someone with an " approved " box , accessing the same content , and yet wind up in jail because your equipment was n't up to the provider 's specifications... Namely , that you wanted to " time shift " the content.Damn criminals , flaunting their freedoms in front of us... They get what they deserve , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although it was eliminated by dubious judicial means shortly after becoming law, the DMCA allows for reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability.
The entire market for these devices is based on non-interoperability.
Because if the CAM became truly portable and emulated fully in software, it's a tiny step to a digital video recorder that is completely under user control receiving HDTV.
Which is actually the main selling point here.
They took our VCRs away, and now we're attacking people who want to get them back the only way possible; At this point it doesn't matter whether his intent was to sell descrambler boxes or not, or anyone's, because that's the only way you're getting that functionality.
An irony, really, that you could be paying the same fees as someone with an "approved" box, accessing the same content, and yet wind up in jail because your equipment wasn't up to the provider's specifications... Namely, that you wanted to "time shift" the content.Damn criminals, flaunting their freedoms in front of us... They get what they deserve, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433</id>
	<title>CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247776740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, really... That's like awarding a Nobel Prize for *Attempted* Chemistry!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , really... That 's like awarding a Nobel Prize for * Attempted * Chemistry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, really... That's like awarding a Nobel Prize for *Attempted* Chemistry!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722679</id>
	<title>FTA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are rumors out there that Nagra3 has already been hacked, though not confirmed to my knowledge. Back in the Nagra2 days, N2 had been hacked for years and it was a boon for pirates. Dish recently switched all it's channels to Nagra3 and pretty much overnight, all the pirates TV's went blank. Currently, the only 'solution' that exists for the pirates is via card sharing schemes where an actual subscriber(s) shares their card keys via an Internet Key Sharing (IKS) service. Though not technically a hack, IKS allows for the same capability. And so the cat and mouse continues.... Don't ask me how I know all this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are rumors out there that Nagra3 has already been hacked , though not confirmed to my knowledge .
Back in the Nagra2 days , N2 had been hacked for years and it was a boon for pirates .
Dish recently switched all it 's channels to Nagra3 and pretty much overnight , all the pirates TV 's went blank .
Currently , the only 'solution ' that exists for the pirates is via card sharing schemes where an actual subscriber ( s ) shares their card keys via an Internet Key Sharing ( IKS ) service .
Though not technically a hack , IKS allows for the same capability .
And so the cat and mouse continues.... Do n't ask me how I know all this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are rumors out there that Nagra3 has already been hacked, though not confirmed to my knowledge.
Back in the Nagra2 days, N2 had been hacked for years and it was a boon for pirates.
Dish recently switched all it's channels to Nagra3 and pretty much overnight, all the pirates TV's went blank.
Currently, the only 'solution' that exists for the pirates is via card sharing schemes where an actual subscriber(s) shares their card keys via an Internet Key Sharing (IKS) service.
Though not technically a hack, IKS allows for the same capability.
And so the cat and mouse continues.... Don't ask me how I know all this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723173</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah let me steal from your house too! Tough tits lol</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah let me steal from your house too !
Tough tits lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah let me steal from your house too!
Tough tits lol</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737537</id>
	<title>Re:Except</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1247842800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you don't you can get out of the country, or they'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail.</i></p><p>That paradigm fell apart about 60 years ago.  All land is claimed by governments, there's no more opt-out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you do n't you can get out of the country , or they 'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail.That paradigm fell apart about 60 years ago .
All land is claimed by governments , there 's no more opt-out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you don't you can get out of the country, or they'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail.That paradigm fell apart about 60 years ago.
All land is claimed by governments, there's no more opt-out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724081</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm....you mean; overspeculation, overproduction, tariff wars, unequal distribution of income, economic disorder.</p><p>The DMCA doesn't stop any of these from reoccurring.</p><p>He doesn't mean a free market as in an unregulated/pure laissez-faire market, he means a free market as in a competitive(i.e. Free for all to produce/sell), regulated market.</p><p>Protectionist policies are bad in terms of "protecting" large corporation/trust profits, not in terms of the protection of regulation needed for a healthy, stable economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm....you mean ; overspeculation , overproduction , tariff wars , unequal distribution of income , economic disorder.The DMCA does n't stop any of these from reoccurring.He does n't mean a free market as in an unregulated/pure laissez-faire market , he means a free market as in a competitive ( i.e .
Free for all to produce/sell ) , regulated market.Protectionist policies are bad in terms of " protecting " large corporation/trust profits , not in terms of the protection of regulation needed for a healthy , stable economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm....you mean; overspeculation, overproduction, tariff wars, unequal distribution of income, economic disorder.The DMCA doesn't stop any of these from reoccurring.He doesn't mean a free market as in an unregulated/pure laissez-faire market, he means a free market as in a competitive(i.e.
Free for all to produce/sell), regulated market.Protectionist policies are bad in terms of "protecting" large corporation/trust profits, not in terms of the protection of regulation needed for a healthy, stable economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28730809</id>
	<title>Re:Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do thi</title>
	<author>Cigarra</author>
	<datestamp>1247849580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be because maybe, just maybe, and in spite of everything MSM tells you, Iran and North Korea have better things to do than annoy USA?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be because maybe , just maybe , and in spite of everything MSM tells you , Iran and North Korea have better things to do than annoy USA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be because maybe, just maybe, and in spite of everything MSM tells you, Iran and North Korea have better things to do than annoy USA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28728289</id>
	<title>cable can't beat direct tv $5 /m rent for any box</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1247838480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cable can't beat direct tv $5<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/m rent for any box with box 1 free and where I live it is much better deal then comcast Chicago land that is bad rip off next to other comcast areas that have speed and sci-fi is lower levels.</p><p>with comcast you pay just about the same for as the direct tv HD DVR pack to get sell with comcast then you have add the sports pack (that has a few non sports channels in it) to get the same that you get on direct tv then you need to add boxes AT $6 per sd box, $7 - $8 per HD box and $15-$20 per HD DVR. Comcast only gives 1 sd box for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cable ca n't beat direct tv $ 5 /m rent for any box with box 1 free and where I live it is much better deal then comcast Chicago land that is bad rip off next to other comcast areas that have speed and sci-fi is lower levels.with comcast you pay just about the same for as the direct tv HD DVR pack to get sell with comcast then you have add the sports pack ( that has a few non sports channels in it ) to get the same that you get on direct tv then you need to add boxes AT $ 6 per sd box , $ 7 - $ 8 per HD box and $ 15- $ 20 per HD DVR .
Comcast only gives 1 sd box for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cable can't beat direct tv $5 /m rent for any box with box 1 free and where I live it is much better deal then comcast Chicago land that is bad rip off next to other comcast areas that have speed and sci-fi is lower levels.with comcast you pay just about the same for as the direct tv HD DVR pack to get sell with comcast then you have add the sports pack (that has a few non sports channels in it) to get the same that you get on direct tv then you need to add boxes AT $6 per sd box, $7 - $8 per HD box and $15-$20 per HD DVR.
Comcast only gives 1 sd box for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247735940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Breaking encryption should never be a crime.</p><p>The satellite companies ahve a very weak business model. It involves sending information into everyoens house. If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Breaking encryption should never be a crime.The satellite companies ahve a very weak business model .
It involves sending information into everyoens house .
If consumers find another way to view the data in their house , then tough tits for the satellite company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breaking encryption should never be a crime.The satellite companies ahve a very weak business model.
It involves sending information into everyoens house.
If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723393</id>
	<title>Re:Crime depends on who you are...</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1247741760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Perhaps the company wanted to offer a cheaper STB to Dish, and undercut the competition."</i></p><p>I'm curious what all of these posters saying "we don't know what his intent was" think the legitimate business model might have been.</p><p>So I've made and am going to sell a new STB.  Someone's going to buy it.  If I'm not helping that person break the law, then he or she is apparently a subscriber to Dish service.</p><p>Of course, if they're a subscriber to Dish service, they have exactly as many STB's already in their posession as their subscription allows them to use.  Dish supplies the hardware as part of the contracted arrangement.  From the end-user perspective, a 3rd party can't compete on price (because the price of the Dish-supplied STB is already built in to the subscription).</p><p>It soudns like you think they would sell through Dish.  Well, if they're cooperating with Dish then they don't really need to break the encryption.</p><p>The only thing that seems to leave is, maybe they want to compete with the standard STB on features.  Well, I'll just say that if I were on the jury it would take some substantial evidence to move that off the "fantasy scenrio that doesn't rise to the level of reasonable doubt" list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Perhaps the company wanted to offer a cheaper STB to Dish , and undercut the competition .
" I 'm curious what all of these posters saying " we do n't know what his intent was " think the legitimate business model might have been.So I 've made and am going to sell a new STB .
Someone 's going to buy it .
If I 'm not helping that person break the law , then he or she is apparently a subscriber to Dish service.Of course , if they 're a subscriber to Dish service , they have exactly as many STB 's already in their posession as their subscription allows them to use .
Dish supplies the hardware as part of the contracted arrangement .
From the end-user perspective , a 3rd party ca n't compete on price ( because the price of the Dish-supplied STB is already built in to the subscription ) .It soudns like you think they would sell through Dish .
Well , if they 're cooperating with Dish then they do n't really need to break the encryption.The only thing that seems to leave is , maybe they want to compete with the standard STB on features .
Well , I 'll just say that if I were on the jury it would take some substantial evidence to move that off the " fantasy scenrio that does n't rise to the level of reasonable doubt " list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Perhaps the company wanted to offer a cheaper STB to Dish, and undercut the competition.
"I'm curious what all of these posters saying "we don't know what his intent was" think the legitimate business model might have been.So I've made and am going to sell a new STB.
Someone's going to buy it.
If I'm not helping that person break the law, then he or she is apparently a subscriber to Dish service.Of course, if they're a subscriber to Dish service, they have exactly as many STB's already in their posession as their subscription allows them to use.
Dish supplies the hardware as part of the contracted arrangement.
From the end-user perspective, a 3rd party can't compete on price (because the price of the Dish-supplied STB is already built in to the subscription).It soudns like you think they would sell through Dish.
Well, if they're cooperating with Dish then they don't really need to break the encryption.The only thing that seems to leave is, maybe they want to compete with the standard STB on features.
Well, I'll just say that if I were on the jury it would take some substantial evidence to move that off the "fantasy scenrio that doesn't rise to the level of reasonable doubt" list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725915</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"attempted murder" means that you tried to shoot someone but missed due to bad luck or bad skills.</p><p>"conspiracy to violate the DMCA" means that you're charging people when it's still possible they would have changed their mind before actually violating the DMCA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" attempted murder " means that you tried to shoot someone but missed due to bad luck or bad skills .
" conspiracy to violate the DMCA " means that you 're charging people when it 's still possible they would have changed their mind before actually violating the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"attempted murder" means that you tried to shoot someone but missed due to bad luck or bad skills.
"conspiracy to violate the DMCA" means that you're charging people when it's still possible they would have changed their mind before actually violating the DMCA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Gravedigger3</author>
	<datestamp>1247777700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges, I had 2 counts of conspiracy, which were also felonies, added for "thinking" about doing it before I actually did it.</p><p>Apparently in our justice system unless you just spontaneously do a crime with no premeditation whatsoever you are gonna get slapped with a charge for thinking about it on top of the charge itself. To this day I don't understand it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges , I had 2 counts of conspiracy , which were also felonies , added for " thinking " about doing it before I actually did it.Apparently in our justice system unless you just spontaneously do a crime with no premeditation whatsoever you are gon na get slapped with a charge for thinking about it on top of the charge itself .
To this day I do n't understand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges, I had 2 counts of conspiracy, which were also felonies, added for "thinking" about doing it before I actually did it.Apparently in our justice system unless you just spontaneously do a crime with no premeditation whatsoever you are gonna get slapped with a charge for thinking about it on top of the charge itself.
To this day I don't understand it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725887</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1247762400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.</p></div><p>Lets put this another way.  Your neighbor has a wireless network, and is broadcasting all sorts of information to the neighborhood.  Would it be alright for you to break the encryption key, and then use any data you may receive for your own personal use?  You're not disrupting anything on their network, you're just capturing data freely transmitted.  What about someone using a wireless ISP or satellite internet?<br> <br>
Even if you never intend to use anything acquired against the person, you are still accessing information intended for someone other than you, indicated by the use of encryption.<br> <br>
How about another one, perhaps a bit more appropriate to the topic.  Your neighbor has Netflix.  Every day before your neighbor comes home, you go to his house, rifle through his mail for new DVDs, rip them, and place them back in the mail box.  It's not hurting your neighbor one bit.  Netflix gets their copies back, so it's not stealing from them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If consumers find another way to view the data in their house , then tough tits for the satellite company.Lets put this another way .
Your neighbor has a wireless network , and is broadcasting all sorts of information to the neighborhood .
Would it be alright for you to break the encryption key , and then use any data you may receive for your own personal use ?
You 're not disrupting anything on their network , you 're just capturing data freely transmitted .
What about someone using a wireless ISP or satellite internet ?
Even if you never intend to use anything acquired against the person , you are still accessing information intended for someone other than you , indicated by the use of encryption .
How about another one , perhaps a bit more appropriate to the topic .
Your neighbor has Netflix .
Every day before your neighbor comes home , you go to his house , rifle through his mail for new DVDs , rip them , and place them back in the mail box .
It 's not hurting your neighbor one bit .
Netflix gets their copies back , so it 's not stealing from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.Lets put this another way.
Your neighbor has a wireless network, and is broadcasting all sorts of information to the neighborhood.
Would it be alright for you to break the encryption key, and then use any data you may receive for your own personal use?
You're not disrupting anything on their network, you're just capturing data freely transmitted.
What about someone using a wireless ISP or satellite internet?
Even if you never intend to use anything acquired against the person, you are still accessing information intended for someone other than you, indicated by the use of encryption.
How about another one, perhaps a bit more appropriate to the topic.
Your neighbor has Netflix.
Every day before your neighbor comes home, you go to his house, rifle through his mail for new DVDs, rip them, and place them back in the mail box.
It's not hurting your neighbor one bit.
Netflix gets their copies back, so it's not stealing from them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722225</id>
	<title>N3 partially cracked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dish Network's latest encryption scheme, dubbed Nagra 3, has not yet been cracked by satellite TV pirates."

Not true, N3 is partially cracked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dish Network 's latest encryption scheme , dubbed Nagra 3 , has not yet been cracked by satellite TV pirates .
" Not true , N3 is partially cracked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dish Network's latest encryption scheme, dubbed Nagra 3, has not yet been cracked by satellite TV pirates.
"

Not true, N3 is partially cracked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722571</id>
	<title>Re:Crime depends on who you are...</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1247737920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a security researcher owned a satellite receiver box company then probably you're right.  There's a good chance he was trying to support his business illegally based on the evidence in the article.  In this case, he's not just making an interoperable product.  He's trying to piggyback for free on Dish Network's hard work.  DN put a satellite into space, and maintain it, and gather programming, and beam up to the satellite.  It would not be considered simple interoperability if this guy sold a box that could decode the signal.</p><p>I'm sure you could argue that point if you wanted - that if they didn't want people to access it they should find a medium that can't be intercepted, but that's what the encryption is for - to block interception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a security researcher owned a satellite receiver box company then probably you 're right .
There 's a good chance he was trying to support his business illegally based on the evidence in the article .
In this case , he 's not just making an interoperable product .
He 's trying to piggyback for free on Dish Network 's hard work .
DN put a satellite into space , and maintain it , and gather programming , and beam up to the satellite .
It would not be considered simple interoperability if this guy sold a box that could decode the signal.I 'm sure you could argue that point if you wanted - that if they did n't want people to access it they should find a medium that ca n't be intercepted , but that 's what the encryption is for - to block interception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a security researcher owned a satellite receiver box company then probably you're right.
There's a good chance he was trying to support his business illegally based on the evidence in the article.
In this case, he's not just making an interoperable product.
He's trying to piggyback for free on Dish Network's hard work.
DN put a satellite into space, and maintain it, and gather programming, and beam up to the satellite.
It would not be considered simple interoperability if this guy sold a box that could decode the signal.I'm sure you could argue that point if you wanted - that if they didn't want people to access it they should find a medium that can't be intercepted, but that's what the encryption is for - to block interception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721605</id>
	<title>oh thank God...</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1247777400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first I read Viagra card instead of Nagra card.</p><p>I don't even want to consider a future where our DVRs come with ED pills...but hey, maybe you fo, and who am I to judge?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I read Viagra card instead of Nagra card.I do n't even want to consider a future where our DVRs come with ED pills...but hey , maybe you fo , and who am I to judge ?
; -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I read Viagra card instead of Nagra card.I don't even want to consider a future where our DVRs come with ED pills...but hey, maybe you fo, and who am I to judge?
;-P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721451</id>
	<title>I'm thinking...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247776800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that (a) this is a good thing (commercial operation) but that (b) the DMCA wasn't necessary at all.  Aren't there theft of service laws already on the books for receiving private/pay TV services without paying for them? And, since this isn't actually a DMCA violation case, but rather a <b>conspiracy</b> to violate the DMCA, wouldn't it be just as much a conspiracy to illegally receive service?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that ( a ) this is a good thing ( commercial operation ) but that ( b ) the DMCA was n't necessary at all .
Are n't there theft of service laws already on the books for receiving private/pay TV services without paying for them ?
And , since this is n't actually a DMCA violation case , but rather a conspiracy to violate the DMCA , would n't it be just as much a conspiracy to illegally receive service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that (a) this is a good thing (commercial operation) but that (b) the DMCA wasn't necessary at all.
Aren't there theft of service laws already on the books for receiving private/pay TV services without paying for them?
And, since this isn't actually a DMCA violation case, but rather a conspiracy to violate the DMCA, wouldn't it be just as much a conspiracy to illegally receive service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28728897</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am pretty sure that the conspiracy counts only apply if you are colluding with others about the crime to be committed. Conspiring by oneself isn't a crime.</p><p>eg.<br>I can think about robbing the local bank all I want, but once I ask someone to help me do it, I have conspired to commit the crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure that the conspiracy counts only apply if you are colluding with others about the crime to be committed .
Conspiring by oneself is n't a crime.eg.I can think about robbing the local bank all I want , but once I ask someone to help me do it , I have conspired to commit the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure that the conspiracy counts only apply if you are colluding with others about the crime to be committed.
Conspiring by oneself isn't a crime.eg.I can think about robbing the local bank all I want, but once I ask someone to help me do it, I have conspired to commit the crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721979</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Austerity Empowers</author>
	<datestamp>1247735640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely support his efforts to reverse engineer the satellite system, and publish his findings. If he goes to jail it better be for piracy. I don't agree that he necessarily deserves what he'll get, he probably deserves a fraction of what he could get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely support his efforts to reverse engineer the satellite system , and publish his findings .
If he goes to jail it better be for piracy .
I do n't agree that he necessarily deserves what he 'll get , he probably deserves a fraction of what he could get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely support his efforts to reverse engineer the satellite system, and publish his findings.
If he goes to jail it better be for piracy.
I don't agree that he necessarily deserves what he'll get, he probably deserves a fraction of what he could get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721441</id>
	<title>Sad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247776800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure this sort of behavior makes the DMCA seem a lot more legitimate in the eyes of the public (not to mention lawmakers.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure this sort of behavior makes the DMCA seem a lot more legitimate in the eyes of the public ( not to mention lawmakers .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure this sort of behavior makes the DMCA seem a lot more legitimate in the eyes of the public (not to mention lawmakers.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725425</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1247755860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So when does a thought experiment/research into something that would be illegal to do become a crime?</p></div><p>When you ask someone to break the law for you, especially if you offer them money to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when does a thought experiment/research into something that would be illegal to do become a crime ? When you ask someone to break the law for you , especially if you offer them money to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when does a thought experiment/research into something that would be illegal to do become a crime?When you ask someone to break the law for you, especially if you offer them money to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722779</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Tikkun</author>
	<datestamp>1247739060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is decrypting information broadcast to everyone similar to taking a car away from someone else?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is decrypting information broadcast to everyone similar to taking a car away from someone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is decrypting information broadcast to everyone similar to taking a car away from someone else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723335</id>
	<title>Re:Crime depends on who you are...</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1247741520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm thinking that if a security researcher had done the same thing, he would not be in jail. Nor would a large corporation.</p><p>But a set top box importer does it, and suddenly it's a federal crime.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Welcome to the police state. This definition, right here, is perfect example of MOST of the laws currently on the books.</p><p>We have so many laws on the books, that it is probably virtually impossible to go through a day without violating some law, some where. I call it the IBMing of the Legal System.</p><p>This refers to the old story about how IBM was once sued by a competitor for patent violation, and IBM responded with a whole bunch of counter lawsuits for their own patent violations.</p><p>Remember Scooter Libby? Got thown in jail for Vallery Plame? Except he didn't. He got thrown in jail for "lying". Remember William Clinton? He lied too and didn't.</p><p>It all depends on who your friends are, and whether or not they throw you under the bus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking that if a security researcher had done the same thing , he would not be in jail .
Nor would a large corporation.But a set top box importer does it , and suddenly it 's a federal crime .
Welcome to the police state .
This definition , right here , is perfect example of MOST of the laws currently on the books.We have so many laws on the books , that it is probably virtually impossible to go through a day without violating some law , some where .
I call it the IBMing of the Legal System.This refers to the old story about how IBM was once sued by a competitor for patent violation , and IBM responded with a whole bunch of counter lawsuits for their own patent violations.Remember Scooter Libby ?
Got thown in jail for Vallery Plame ?
Except he did n't .
He got thrown in jail for " lying " .
Remember William Clinton ?
He lied too and did n't.It all depends on who your friends are , and whether or not they throw you under the bus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking that if a security researcher had done the same thing, he would not be in jail.
Nor would a large corporation.But a set top box importer does it, and suddenly it's a federal crime.
Welcome to the police state.
This definition, right here, is perfect example of MOST of the laws currently on the books.We have so many laws on the books, that it is probably virtually impossible to go through a day without violating some law, some where.
I call it the IBMing of the Legal System.This refers to the old story about how IBM was once sued by a competitor for patent violation, and IBM responded with a whole bunch of counter lawsuits for their own patent violations.Remember Scooter Libby?
Got thown in jail for Vallery Plame?
Except he didn't.
He got thrown in jail for "lying".
Remember William Clinton?
He lied too and didn't.It all depends on who your friends are, and whether or not they throw you under the bus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722931</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely, dickhead. Tough tits for the company, but from a moral point of view you can of course do whatever you want with electromagnetic waves and whatever else happens to float into your home. (for example, you are allowed to breath the oxygen that comes from outside)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely , dickhead .
Tough tits for the company , but from a moral point of view you can of course do whatever you want with electromagnetic waves and whatever else happens to float into your home .
( for example , you are allowed to breath the oxygen that comes from outside )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely, dickhead.
Tough tits for the company, but from a moral point of view you can of course do whatever you want with electromagnetic waves and whatever else happens to float into your home.
(for example, you are allowed to breath the oxygen that comes from outside)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724431</id>
	<title>No free lunch</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247747160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Breaking encryption should never be a crime.</i> </p><p>This argument is bogus.</p><p>Actions which advance a criminal conspiracy don't have to be criminal in themselves.</p><p> Never have been.</p><p>You aren't being prosecuted for cracking an algorithm.</p><p> You are being  prosecuted because you broke into protected systems and files - for your own amusement and profit.</p><p><i>The satellite companies have a very weak business model</i> </p><p>I have come to two firm conclusions:</p><p>That the geek believes that his technical skills are a universal "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.</p><p>That the geek's definition of a failed business model is any model which expects him to cough up some cash every thirty days or so.</p><p><i>If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.</i> </p><p>Its also tough tits for the subscriber whose service goes belly up because the geek thinks he is entitled to everything that isn't nailed down. Tough tits for the geek whose viewing options have shrunk to the Snuggies commercials on channel 47 and the tractor pull on 35.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Breaking encryption should never be a crime .
This argument is bogus.Actions which advance a criminal conspiracy do n't have to be criminal in themselves .
Never have been.You are n't being prosecuted for cracking an algorithm .
You are being prosecuted because you broke into protected systems and files - for your own amusement and profit.The satellite companies have a very weak business model I have come to two firm conclusions : That the geek believes that his technical skills are a universal " Get Out Of Jail Free " card.That the geek 's definition of a failed business model is any model which expects him to cough up some cash every thirty days or so.If consumers find another way to view the data in their house , then tough tits for the satellite company .
Its also tough tits for the subscriber whose service goes belly up because the geek thinks he is entitled to everything that is n't nailed down .
Tough tits for the geek whose viewing options have shrunk to the Snuggies commercials on channel 47 and the tractor pull on 35 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breaking encryption should never be a crime.
This argument is bogus.Actions which advance a criminal conspiracy don't have to be criminal in themselves.
Never have been.You aren't being prosecuted for cracking an algorithm.
You are being  prosecuted because you broke into protected systems and files - for your own amusement and profit.The satellite companies have a very weak business model I have come to two firm conclusions:That the geek believes that his technical skills are a universal "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.That the geek's definition of a failed business model is any model which expects him to cough up some cash every thirty days or so.If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.
Its also tough tits for the subscriber whose service goes belly up because the geek thinks he is entitled to everything that isn't nailed down.
Tough tits for the geek whose viewing options have shrunk to the Snuggies commercials on channel 47 and the tractor pull on 35.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721553</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1247777220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It just proves that the government is the ultimate conspiracy theorist.</p><p>Just for fun: Find how many instances of 'cocaine' and 'conspiracy' show up in Bill Clinton's <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon\_grants.htm" title="usdoj.gov">pardon list.</a> [usdoj.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just proves that the government is the ultimate conspiracy theorist.Just for fun : Find how many instances of 'cocaine ' and 'conspiracy ' show up in Bill Clinton 's pardon list .
[ usdoj.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just proves that the government is the ultimate conspiracy theorist.Just for fun: Find how many instances of 'cocaine' and 'conspiracy' show up in Bill Clinton's pardon list.
[usdoj.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353</id>
	<title>I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>seekret</author>
	<datestamp>1247776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Serves them right, while I'm against the DMCA trying to profit off of someone else's work is not right. They deserve what they get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Serves them right , while I 'm against the DMCA trying to profit off of someone else 's work is not right .
They deserve what they get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Serves them right, while I'm against the DMCA trying to profit off of someone else's work is not right.
They deserve what they get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722309</id>
	<title>Re:I have mixed feelings about this.</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1247736840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insightful? Sorry, copyright infringement was made criminal more than 30 years ago. In the 70s, at least. Which if you check your history, was when China was undergoing the Cultural Revolution, persecuting the intellectuals and idolizing the peasant lifestyle.</p><p>So yeah, I don't think it was China that inspired criminalizing copyright infringement.</p><p>I don't know why it posted the previous comment anonymously. Here it is again, under my name...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful ?
Sorry , copyright infringement was made criminal more than 30 years ago .
In the 70s , at least .
Which if you check your history , was when China was undergoing the Cultural Revolution , persecuting the intellectuals and idolizing the peasant lifestyle.So yeah , I do n't think it was China that inspired criminalizing copyright infringement.I do n't know why it posted the previous comment anonymously .
Here it is again , under my name.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful?
Sorry, copyright infringement was made criminal more than 30 years ago.
In the 70s, at least.
Which if you check your history, was when China was undergoing the Cultural Revolution, persecuting the intellectuals and idolizing the peasant lifestyle.So yeah, I don't think it was China that inspired criminalizing copyright infringement.I don't know why it posted the previous comment anonymously.
Here it is again, under my name...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723653</id>
	<title>Re:Group keying and revocation...</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1247742840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Direct <b>broadcast</b> satellite television services are not two-way.  In the USA, receivers with legitimate subscriptions only communicate with the provider via telephone or the Internet.  You don't even need to have the receiver connected to a phone line to use the service, at least for DirecTV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Direct broadcast satellite television services are not two-way .
In the USA , receivers with legitimate subscriptions only communicate with the provider via telephone or the Internet .
You do n't even need to have the receiver connected to a phone line to use the service , at least for DirecTV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Direct broadcast satellite television services are not two-way.
In the USA, receivers with legitimate subscriptions only communicate with the provider via telephone or the Internet.
You don't even need to have the receiver connected to a phone line to use the service, at least for DirecTV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723325</id>
	<title>Re:Group keying and revocation...</title>
	<author>corychristison</author>
	<datestamp>1247741460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These days, the model is very much based on some really funky group keying and key revocation, which allows the sattelite provider to revoke individual keys because each receiver has a unique key rather than a group sharing a common key.</p><p>Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.</p></div><p>I'm no expert in this subject. But:</p><p>If every box has a unique key and the process of pirating a box is essentially cloning the box and it's specific unique key... The satellite company should be smart enough to log what each key is doing.<br>If one key is booting up 1,000/day... you think they'd be able to detect that in some kind of log file (or a hash table/high performance monster of a database) of what every box in North America is doing.<br>If they do this, they can flag and restrict that key.</p><p>No reverse engineering and a lot of time saved.</p><p>Again, I'm no expert in this area.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , the model is very much based on some really funky group keying and key revocation , which allows the sattelite provider to revoke individual keys because each receiver has a unique key rather than a group sharing a common key.Among other things , this makes piracy MUCH harder , because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers , take them to the lab , find out the key used , and revoke it , disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.I 'm no expert in this subject .
But : If every box has a unique key and the process of pirating a box is essentially cloning the box and it 's specific unique key... The satellite company should be smart enough to log what each key is doing.If one key is booting up 1,000/day... you think they 'd be able to detect that in some kind of log file ( or a hash table/high performance monster of a database ) of what every box in North America is doing.If they do this , they can flag and restrict that key.No reverse engineering and a lot of time saved.Again , I 'm no expert in this area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, the model is very much based on some really funky group keying and key revocation, which allows the sattelite provider to revoke individual keys because each receiver has a unique key rather than a group sharing a common key.Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.I'm no expert in this subject.
But:If every box has a unique key and the process of pirating a box is essentially cloning the box and it's specific unique key... The satellite company should be smart enough to log what each key is doing.If one key is booting up 1,000/day... you think they'd be able to detect that in some kind of log file (or a hash table/high performance monster of a database) of what every box in North America is doing.If they do this, they can flag and restrict that key.No reverse engineering and a lot of time saved.Again, I'm no expert in this area.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724225</id>
	<title>Possible (lack of) impact on XBMC</title>
	<author>tdelaney</author>
	<datestamp>1247745600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BrokenCodes, who claims he's been working on Windows GPU acceleration for XBMC, has claimed that he's one of the three people.</p><p><a href="http://www.xbmc.org/forum/showpost.php?p=369624&amp;postcount=210" title="xbmc.org">http://www.xbmc.org/forum/showpost.php?p=369624&amp;postcount=210</a> [xbmc.org]</p><p>There have been a lot of doubt as to whether BrokenCodes actually does have GPU acceleration on Windows working for XBMC (no code has been shown yet), although he's been talking the right talk in my limited DirectX/DxVA experience.</p><p>I think we can assume he's either telling the truth on both counts, or lying on both counts. If he's lying, status quo. If he's telling the truth, there's a small (IMO) chance of him releasing what he's done so far, but probably status quo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BrokenCodes , who claims he 's been working on Windows GPU acceleration for XBMC , has claimed that he 's one of the three people.http : //www.xbmc.org/forum/showpost.php ? p = 369624&amp;postcount = 210 [ xbmc.org ] There have been a lot of doubt as to whether BrokenCodes actually does have GPU acceleration on Windows working for XBMC ( no code has been shown yet ) , although he 's been talking the right talk in my limited DirectX/DxVA experience.I think we can assume he 's either telling the truth on both counts , or lying on both counts .
If he 's lying , status quo .
If he 's telling the truth , there 's a small ( IMO ) chance of him releasing what he 's done so far , but probably status quo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BrokenCodes, who claims he's been working on Windows GPU acceleration for XBMC, has claimed that he's one of the three people.http://www.xbmc.org/forum/showpost.php?p=369624&amp;postcount=210 [xbmc.org]There have been a lot of doubt as to whether BrokenCodes actually does have GPU acceleration on Windows working for XBMC (no code has been shown yet), although he's been talking the right talk in my limited DirectX/DxVA experience.I think we can assume he's either telling the truth on both counts, or lying on both counts.
If he's lying, status quo.
If he's telling the truth, there's a small (IMO) chance of him releasing what he's done so far, but probably status quo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722085</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like my friend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be pissed if I had to pay for it too, but that's for entirely different reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be pissed if I had to pay for it too , but that 's for entirely different reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be pissed if I had to pay for it too, but that's for entirely different reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722645</id>
	<title>If you didn't vote libertarian YOU ASKED FOR THIS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines.<br>You have demonstraded you want an intrusive, activist government owned by the government backed corporations. As a result you have no room to complain now. You ASKED FOR THIS.</p><p>-Bob Robertson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan , shut up and go sit on the sidelines.You have demonstraded you want an intrusive , activist government owned by the government backed corporations .
As a result you have no room to complain now .
You ASKED FOR THIS.-Bob Robertson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines.You have demonstraded you want an intrusive, activist government owned by the government backed corporations.
As a result you have no room to complain now.
You ASKED FOR THIS.-Bob Robertson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722621</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad analogy.  If I take his car that he parked on a public street, he is out a car.  If I decode the signal broadcast into my house and view it, the satellite provider still has just as much signal as before, and their paying customers are not out anything.  (I could argue that because I could then join in on water-cooler discussions on our favourite TV shows that it increases the value of the product they're marketing, but that's an extremely weak argument which I won't actually make.)</p><p>If you send out floppies with your software to everyone in a neighbourhood, and I reformat my floppy and use it for other purposes, that's tough tits for you.  If you send out fliers that I subsequently rip up and make paper mache from, that's tough tits for you.  If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you.</p><p>There has to be a working business model here somewhere.  I just don't think the current one is the right one.  After all, it's far more trivial for the user to buy the official equipment than to build it themselves.  And that's been true for many things: radios, TVs, computers, CB radios, HAM radios (I think - never looked into these).  Still is true.  Those who want to do it themselves?  Cost of doing business, my friend.  Compete with them like a grown capitalist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad analogy .
If I take his car that he parked on a public street , he is out a car .
If I decode the signal broadcast into my house and view it , the satellite provider still has just as much signal as before , and their paying customers are not out anything .
( I could argue that because I could then join in on water-cooler discussions on our favourite TV shows that it increases the value of the product they 're marketing , but that 's an extremely weak argument which I wo n't actually make .
) If you send out floppies with your software to everyone in a neighbourhood , and I reformat my floppy and use it for other purposes , that 's tough tits for you .
If you send out fliers that I subsequently rip up and make paper mache from , that 's tough tits for you .
If you broadcast something into my home uninvited , and I find a way to make use of that broadcast , that 's tough tits for you.There has to be a working business model here somewhere .
I just do n't think the current one is the right one .
After all , it 's far more trivial for the user to buy the official equipment than to build it themselves .
And that 's been true for many things : radios , TVs , computers , CB radios , HAM radios ( I think - never looked into these ) .
Still is true .
Those who want to do it themselves ?
Cost of doing business , my friend .
Compete with them like a grown capitalist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad analogy.
If I take his car that he parked on a public street, he is out a car.
If I decode the signal broadcast into my house and view it, the satellite provider still has just as much signal as before, and their paying customers are not out anything.
(I could argue that because I could then join in on water-cooler discussions on our favourite TV shows that it increases the value of the product they're marketing, but that's an extremely weak argument which I won't actually make.
)If you send out floppies with your software to everyone in a neighbourhood, and I reformat my floppy and use it for other purposes, that's tough tits for you.
If you send out fliers that I subsequently rip up and make paper mache from, that's tough tits for you.
If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you.There has to be a working business model here somewhere.
I just don't think the current one is the right one.
After all, it's far more trivial for the user to buy the official equipment than to build it themselves.
And that's been true for many things: radios, TVs, computers, CB radios, HAM radios (I think - never looked into these).
Still is true.
Those who want to do it themselves?
Cost of doing business, my friend.
Compete with them like a grown capitalist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724159</id>
	<title>Why DMCA?</title>
	<author>arkenian</author>
	<datestamp>1247745300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am confused.  This looks like basic Corporate Espionage, not DMCA.  This isn't about somebody trying to unscramble the signal, in my opinion.  Reverse engineering somebody else's hardware/software based on knowledge of the original source (this isn't Pheonix BIOS here), for which reasonable protections have been provided, is and should remain a gross violation of various laws.  Isn't there anything better than DMCA (which is a bad law) to charge the guy with?

Setting aside how I feel about the whole unscrambling issue, I don't think this is about that, per se.  This is purely about corporate bottom lines and corporate espionage.  Anyone who engages in that deserves whatever they get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am confused .
This looks like basic Corporate Espionage , not DMCA .
This is n't about somebody trying to unscramble the signal , in my opinion .
Reverse engineering somebody else 's hardware/software based on knowledge of the original source ( this is n't Pheonix BIOS here ) , for which reasonable protections have been provided , is and should remain a gross violation of various laws .
Is n't there anything better than DMCA ( which is a bad law ) to charge the guy with ?
Setting aside how I feel about the whole unscrambling issue , I do n't think this is about that , per se .
This is purely about corporate bottom lines and corporate espionage .
Anyone who engages in that deserves whatever they get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am confused.
This looks like basic Corporate Espionage, not DMCA.
This isn't about somebody trying to unscramble the signal, in my opinion.
Reverse engineering somebody else's hardware/software based on knowledge of the original source (this isn't Pheonix BIOS here), for which reasonable protections have been provided, is and should remain a gross violation of various laws.
Isn't there anything better than DMCA (which is a bad law) to charge the guy with?
Setting aside how I feel about the whole unscrambling issue, I don't think this is about that, per se.
This is purely about corporate bottom lines and corporate espionage.
Anyone who engages in that deserves whatever they get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28735459</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247827860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no bad analogy, here's a worse one.</p><p>You park your smokin' hot woman on my front porch wearing a chastity belt and a smile.....</p><p>Ummmm wait what was I saying???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no bad analogy , here 's a worse one.You park your smokin ' hot woman on my front porch wearing a chastity belt and a smile.....Ummmm wait what was I saying ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no bad analogy, here's a worse one.You park your smokin' hot woman on my front porch wearing a chastity belt and a smile.....Ummmm wait what was I saying??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727283</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247827320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F02.html" title="snpp.com" rel="nofollow">Whoosh</a> [snpp.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoosh [ snpp.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoosh [snpp.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722647</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100\%</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1247738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Protectionist policies, like this one, are seldom a good idea. The free market always did better.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ummm... 1929?  Market failure in farmland ownership/food growth, massive bank failures due to poor loans?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Protectionist policies , like this one , are seldom a good idea .
The free market always did better.Ummm... 1929 ? Market failure in farmland ownership/food growth , massive bank failures due to poor loans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protectionist policies, like this one, are seldom a good idea.
The free market always did better.Ummm... 1929?  Market failure in farmland ownership/food growth, massive bank failures due to poor loans?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724487</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247747520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So by your thinking, it's "tough tits" for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor?  If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling?  If I hack into a company that uses wifi?</p></div><p>Every single example you've mentioned means taking something from somebody else.</p><p>You all know better, cut it out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So by your thinking , it 's " tough tits " for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor ?
If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling ?
If I hack into a company that uses wifi ? Every single example you 've mentioned means taking something from somebody else.You all know better , cut it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So by your thinking, it's "tough tits" for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor?
If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling?
If I hack into a company that uses wifi?Every single example you've mentioned means taking something from somebody else.You all know better, cut it out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So by your thinking, it's "tough tits" for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor?  If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling?  If I hack into a company that uses wifi?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So by your thinking , it 's " tough tits " for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor ?
If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling ?
If I hack into a company that uses wifi ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So by your thinking, it's "tough tits" for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor?
If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling?
If I hack into a company that uses wifi?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727337</id>
	<title>Re:Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do thi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247827980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you try to get access to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ir websites lately?<br>If you have difficulties it's because we are all downloading.</p><p>You can join too: http://copy.ir</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you try to get access to .ir websites lately ? If you have difficulties it 's because we are all downloading.You can join too : http : //copy.ir</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you try to get access to .ir websites lately?If you have difficulties it's because we are all downloading.You can join too: http://copy.ir</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722337</id>
	<title>informative FuckerFu3ker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Lagged behind, and that the floor OpenBSD wanker TheO I burnt out. I OXN BABY...DON'T where it belongs, and the Bazaar things in our chances when IDC recently THINKING ABOUT IT. us the courtesy everyday...Redefine members all over Kill myself like Fanatic known</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lagged behind , and that the floor OpenBSD wanker TheO I burnt out .
I OXN BABY...DO N'T where it belongs , and the Bazaar things in our chances when IDC recently THINKING ABOUT IT .
us the courtesy everyday...Redefine members all over Kill myself like Fanatic known [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lagged behind, and that the floor OpenBSD wanker TheO I burnt out.
I OXN BABY...DON'T where it belongs, and the Bazaar things in our chances when IDC recently THINKING ABOUT IT.
us the courtesy everyday...Redefine members all over Kill myself like Fanatic known [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977</id>
	<title>Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do this?</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1247735640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know they are generally poor countries and the military advantage of nukes must seem appealing, but they could create WAY, WAY more nuisance for Americans if they would devote those resources to basically Pirate Bay-ing everything copy protected.  It'd be hilarious if within hours of a new you-can't-copy-it scheme came out if pirated versions were available along with free tools and FAQs for making your own copies or subversion devices.</p><p>IIRC, this idea was also (better?) expressed in some science fiction novel I can't remember -- although it was China that basically ruined IP protections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know they are generally poor countries and the military advantage of nukes must seem appealing , but they could create WAY , WAY more nuisance for Americans if they would devote those resources to basically Pirate Bay-ing everything copy protected .
It 'd be hilarious if within hours of a new you-ca n't-copy-it scheme came out if pirated versions were available along with free tools and FAQs for making your own copies or subversion devices.IIRC , this idea was also ( better ?
) expressed in some science fiction novel I ca n't remember -- although it was China that basically ruined IP protections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know they are generally poor countries and the military advantage of nukes must seem appealing, but they could create WAY, WAY more nuisance for Americans if they would devote those resources to basically Pirate Bay-ing everything copy protected.
It'd be hilarious if within hours of a new you-can't-copy-it scheme came out if pirated versions were available along with free tools and FAQs for making your own copies or subversion devices.IIRC, this idea was also (better?
) expressed in some science fiction novel I can't remember -- although it was China that basically ruined IP protections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737753</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100\%</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1247844840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ummm... 1929? Market failure in farmland ownership/food growth, massive bank failures due to poor loans?</i></p><p>Please compare the Federal Reserve's actions with regard to the money supply before, during, and at the end of the Great Depression.  Contrast with the 1921 Depression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... 1929 ? Market failure in farmland ownership/food growth , massive bank failures due to poor loans ? Please compare the Federal Reserve 's actions with regard to the money supply before , during , and at the end of the Great Depression .
Contrast with the 1921 Depression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... 1929? Market failure in farmland ownership/food growth, massive bank failures due to poor loans?Please compare the Federal Reserve's actions with regard to the money supply before, during, and at the end of the Great Depression.
Contrast with the 1921 Depression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724289</id>
	<title>Attempted Crime</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1247746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like an attempted crime. How can you conspire to break the DMCA if you don't actually succeed. That's like planning a bank robbery that never happens. Is this for real?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like an attempted crime .
How can you conspire to break the DMCA if you do n't actually succeed .
That 's like planning a bank robbery that never happens .
Is this for real ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like an attempted crime.
How can you conspire to break the DMCA if you don't actually succeed.
That's like planning a bank robbery that never happens.
Is this for real?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724139</id>
	<title>safe harbor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The DMCA is detrimental to the economy. The DMCA works to stifle innovation, in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.</p></div><p>The DMCA had the notion of 'safe harbor':</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe\_harbor#Legal\_definition</p><p>Without it every web provider, mailing list, Usenet provider, and web forum would be liable for the statements that their users made.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The DMCA is detrimental to the economy .
The DMCA works to stifle innovation , in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.The DMCA had the notion of 'safe harbor ' : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe \ _harbor # Legal \ _definitionWithout it every web provider , mailing list , Usenet provider , and web forum would be liable for the statements that their users made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DMCA is detrimental to the economy.
The DMCA works to stifle innovation, in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.The DMCA had the notion of 'safe harbor':http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe\_harbor#Legal\_definitionWithout it every web provider, mailing list, Usenet provider, and web forum would be liable for the statements that their users made.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724905</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>katamerry\_damatree</author>
	<datestamp>1247750760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also depends on the scope of the benefit and harm, respectively.  If I decrypt the Pornographic Bodybuilding Channel that's already streaming into my living room, it's tough tits for both me and the satellite company.  But if I publish the key on the internet, then tough tits for everyone!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also depends on the scope of the benefit and harm , respectively .
If I decrypt the Pornographic Bodybuilding Channel that 's already streaming into my living room , it 's tough tits for both me and the satellite company .
But if I publish the key on the internet , then tough tits for everyone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also depends on the scope of the benefit and harm, respectively.
If I decrypt the Pornographic Bodybuilding Channel that's already streaming into my living room, it's tough tits for both me and the satellite company.
But if I publish the key on the internet, then tough tits for everyone!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1247736840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if I find a way to get into your car that you parked on a public street and drive it away, tough tits for you.<br> <br>
Or would that be a crime?<br> <br>
Yeah. I thought so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if I find a way to get into your car that you parked on a public street and drive it away , tough tits for you .
Or would that be a crime ?
Yeah. I thought so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if I find a way to get into your car that you parked on a public street and drive it away, tough tits for you.
Or would that be a crime?
Yeah. I thought so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725559</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1247757120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that it's ethically wrong to decrypt a satellite data stream for the purpose of watching TV content that you didn't pay for. However, a person's right to research technology should always trump that. Everyone should have the right to receive, analyze, decrypt, and otherwise make use of any signal that makes use of public spectrum and makes its way onto the property that they own or the space that they legally inhabit. If the satellite (and other wireless content) providers don't want people to break their encryption, then they need to use encryption that can't be broken by amateurs. As the law currently stands, they could run their data stream through rot13 (or something almost as trivial) and still bring the DMCA down on everyone from satellite "pirates," to hobbyists, to people who forgot to renew their subscription.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that it 's ethically wrong to decrypt a satellite data stream for the purpose of watching TV content that you did n't pay for .
However , a person 's right to research technology should always trump that .
Everyone should have the right to receive , analyze , decrypt , and otherwise make use of any signal that makes use of public spectrum and makes its way onto the property that they own or the space that they legally inhabit .
If the satellite ( and other wireless content ) providers do n't want people to break their encryption , then they need to use encryption that ca n't be broken by amateurs .
As the law currently stands , they could run their data stream through rot13 ( or something almost as trivial ) and still bring the DMCA down on everyone from satellite " pirates , " to hobbyists , to people who forgot to renew their subscription .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that it's ethically wrong to decrypt a satellite data stream for the purpose of watching TV content that you didn't pay for.
However, a person's right to research technology should always trump that.
Everyone should have the right to receive, analyze, decrypt, and otherwise make use of any signal that makes use of public spectrum and makes its way onto the property that they own or the space that they legally inhabit.
If the satellite (and other wireless content) providers don't want people to break their encryption, then they need to use encryption that can't be broken by amateurs.
As the law currently stands, they could run their data stream through rot13 (or something almost as trivial) and still bring the DMCA down on everyone from satellite "pirates," to hobbyists, to people who forgot to renew their subscription.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737575</id>
	<title>Re:FTA</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1247843040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't ask me how I know all this.</i></p><p>Knock, Knock, Neo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't ask me how I know all this.Knock , Knock , Neo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't ask me how I know all this.Knock, Knock, Neo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28747405</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1248014700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. They got you so far, that to this day, you try to understand it, just to accept their (totally fucked up, sick, perverse, and just plain wrong) reality?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>Seems that juvenile was really "working". But no to make you a "good citizen" (whatever that means), but to make you play along with their rules.</p><p>Maybe if you start thinking more often, that you are right. Period. And that your reality is stronger, because you got a better system of values. Then you can protect yourself from the psychological effects of things like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
They got you so far , that to this day , you try to understand it , just to accept their ( totally fucked up , sick , perverse , and just plain wrong ) reality ?
: ( Seems that juvenile was really " working " .
But no to make you a " good citizen " ( whatever that means ) , but to make you play along with their rules.Maybe if you start thinking more often , that you are right .
Period. And that your reality is stronger , because you got a better system of values .
Then you can protect yourself from the psychological effects of things like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
They got you so far, that to this day, you try to understand it, just to accept their (totally fucked up, sick, perverse, and just plain wrong) reality?
:(Seems that juvenile was really "working".
But no to make you a "good citizen" (whatever that means), but to make you play along with their rules.Maybe if you start thinking more often, that you are right.
Period. And that your reality is stronger, because you got a better system of values.
Then you can protect yourself from the psychological effects of things like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721551</id>
	<title>I have mixed feelings about this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider the DMCA to be one of the most unjust and cruel laws the USA has. I sympathize with the people doing this to the following limited extent: If you are a subscriber to a service, you should be able to use any compatible QAM enabled equipment you wish.</p><p>This is a little different because people who violate the DMCA like this usually are doing so to secure their fair use rights. These people just wanted to outright steal the service. So thats bad. However, two things.</p><p>Why are police involved in this sort of thing? Well, really, although in theory, violating the DMCA is a civil action, but around 2003, the government decided that all copyright infringement was criminal. Because the Intellectual property 'scam' is all that the US has against the Chinese, the US has decided to criminalize copyright infringement to create laws to fight the Chinese with.</p><p>The DMCA needs to be repealed, but I don't see that happening unless there are large demonstrations. People are generally too stupid to care. (I really would like to see anti-DMCA slogans with people marching by the millions.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider the DMCA to be one of the most unjust and cruel laws the USA has .
I sympathize with the people doing this to the following limited extent : If you are a subscriber to a service , you should be able to use any compatible QAM enabled equipment you wish.This is a little different because people who violate the DMCA like this usually are doing so to secure their fair use rights .
These people just wanted to outright steal the service .
So thats bad .
However , two things.Why are police involved in this sort of thing ?
Well , really , although in theory , violating the DMCA is a civil action , but around 2003 , the government decided that all copyright infringement was criminal .
Because the Intellectual property 'scam ' is all that the US has against the Chinese , the US has decided to criminalize copyright infringement to create laws to fight the Chinese with.The DMCA needs to be repealed , but I do n't see that happening unless there are large demonstrations .
People are generally too stupid to care .
( I really would like to see anti-DMCA slogans with people marching by the millions .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider the DMCA to be one of the most unjust and cruel laws the USA has.
I sympathize with the people doing this to the following limited extent: If you are a subscriber to a service, you should be able to use any compatible QAM enabled equipment you wish.This is a little different because people who violate the DMCA like this usually are doing so to secure their fair use rights.
These people just wanted to outright steal the service.
So thats bad.
However, two things.Why are police involved in this sort of thing?
Well, really, although in theory, violating the DMCA is a civil action, but around 2003, the government decided that all copyright infringement was criminal.
Because the Intellectual property 'scam' is all that the US has against the Chinese, the US has decided to criminalize copyright infringement to create laws to fight the Chinese with.The DMCA needs to be repealed, but I don't see that happening unless there are large demonstrations.
People are generally too stupid to care.
(I really would like to see anti-DMCA slogans with people marching by the millions.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721351</id>
	<title>Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More apt headline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More apt headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More apt headline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726687</id>
	<title>Re:Group keying and revocation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is satellite, not ethernet. It is one way only. They have no way of knowing if only a single box is doing the decrypting, or many many boxes.</p><p>The easiest way to "steal" dish or directtv, which will always work, is this:</p><p>1. Get dish network<br>2. Call them up and order 10 boxes and cards. Tell them you have a huge house or tons of tvs, or whatever.<br>3. Give these 10 boxes out to friends and family, and charge each of them some small monthly fee, that when totalled pays for the service. They all get dish for $20 a month, you get it for free.</p><p>Easy. You just gotta trust the folks you give the boxes out to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is satellite , not ethernet .
It is one way only .
They have no way of knowing if only a single box is doing the decrypting , or many many boxes.The easiest way to " steal " dish or directtv , which will always work , is this : 1 .
Get dish network2 .
Call them up and order 10 boxes and cards .
Tell them you have a huge house or tons of tvs , or whatever.3 .
Give these 10 boxes out to friends and family , and charge each of them some small monthly fee , that when totalled pays for the service .
They all get dish for $ 20 a month , you get it for free.Easy .
You just got ta trust the folks you give the boxes out to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is satellite, not ethernet.
It is one way only.
They have no way of knowing if only a single box is doing the decrypting, or many many boxes.The easiest way to "steal" dish or directtv, which will always work, is this:1.
Get dish network2.
Call them up and order 10 boxes and cards.
Tell them you have a huge house or tons of tvs, or whatever.3.
Give these 10 boxes out to friends and family, and charge each of them some small monthly fee, that when totalled pays for the service.
They all get dish for $20 a month, you get it for free.Easy.
You just gotta trust the folks you give the boxes out to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724055</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1247744820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apparently in our justice system unless you just spontaneously do a crime with no premeditation whatsoever you are gonna get slapped with a charge for thinking about it on top of the charge itself. To this day I don't understand it.</p></div><p>Then I was told wrong all the time growing up to "think before you speak/act." </p><p>I was a ruse all along to make us bigger criminals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently in our justice system unless you just spontaneously do a crime with no premeditation whatsoever you are gon na get slapped with a charge for thinking about it on top of the charge itself .
To this day I do n't understand it.Then I was told wrong all the time growing up to " think before you speak/act .
" I was a ruse all along to make us bigger criminals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently in our justice system unless you just spontaneously do a crime with no premeditation whatsoever you are gonna get slapped with a charge for thinking about it on top of the charge itself.
To this day I don't understand it.Then I was told wrong all the time growing up to "think before you speak/act.
" I was a ruse all along to make us bigger criminals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724069</id>
	<title>Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...</title>
	<author>Xenographic</author>
	<datestamp>1247744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.</p><p>Sad thing is, "theft of service" is required to make a device that interoperates with their network.</p><p>Mind you, I'm not trying to say that the law allows this, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't.  Just that breaking technical protection measures is usually necessary to actually interoperate with DRM-encumbered services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The goal was to facilitate theft of service , not interoperability.Sad thing is , " theft of service " is required to make a device that interoperates with their network.Mind you , I 'm not trying to say that the law allows this , because I 'm pretty sure it does n't .
Just that breaking technical protection measures is usually necessary to actually interoperate with DRM-encumbered services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.Sad thing is, "theft of service" is required to make a device that interoperates with their network.Mind you, I'm not trying to say that the law allows this, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Just that breaking technical protection measures is usually necessary to actually interoperate with DRM-encumbered services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115</id>
	<title>Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not for interoperability. The goal of this operation was to create smart cards that allowed people to view channels they did not pay for and to allow people who do not have an account to view the channels. The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not for interoperability .
The goal of this operation was to create smart cards that allowed people to view channels they did not pay for and to allow people who do not have an account to view the channels .
The goal was to facilitate theft of service , not interoperability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not for interoperability.
The goal of this operation was to create smart cards that allowed people to view channels they did not pay for and to allow people who do not have an account to view the channels.
The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724637</id>
	<title>Conspiracy isn't a thought crime</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247748540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges, I had 2 counts of conspiracy, which were also felonies, added for "thinking" about doing it before I actually did it.</i> </p><p>You did more than just think about it.</p><p> There was evidence introduced to show that you planned - you organized - you acted in ways that helped push the thing forward.</p><p>There is no such thing as a "moderately" serious felony charge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges , I had 2 counts of conspiracy , which were also felonies , added for " thinking " about doing it before I actually did it .
You did more than just think about it .
There was evidence introduced to show that you planned - you organized - you acted in ways that helped push the thing forward.There is no such thing as a " moderately " serious felony charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges, I had 2 counts of conspiracy, which were also felonies, added for "thinking" about doing it before I actually did it.
You did more than just think about it.
There was evidence introduced to show that you planned - you organized - you acted in ways that helped push the thing forward.There is no such thing as a "moderately" serious felony charge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723697</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>I'm not really here</author>
	<datestamp>1247743080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bad analogy.<br> <br>Here's a better one:<br>
If you own a drive in theater, and I live nearby with a direct line of site of the theater, and someone sells me a radio that I use to receive the audio from the movie, and I sit on my porch every night and enjoy a different movie, all for free....  Is this a crime?<br> <br>Effectively, they are blanketing the country with their signal, and someone else is providing me a tool that allows me to watch and hear this signal.  It's not my fault that the drive-in, in this example, doesn't shield their picture or opt to hard wire their speakers so that I cannot watch the movie, and even if they did do these measures, it would not be illegal for me to strategically place mirrors in my yard and use a directional mic to pick up sound from someone's car in order to continue to watch the movie.<br> <br>So, really, the only issue at stake is the DMCA itself (the breaking of the encryption), and I, for one, do not agree with the premise behind this law.<br> <br>If you want your content to be unwatchable by others, secure it properly.  If others figure out a way to watch it anyways, that's your problem, not the laws (or at least I wish it were this way!).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad analogy .
Here 's a better one : If you own a drive in theater , and I live nearby with a direct line of site of the theater , and someone sells me a radio that I use to receive the audio from the movie , and I sit on my porch every night and enjoy a different movie , all for free.... Is this a crime ?
Effectively , they are blanketing the country with their signal , and someone else is providing me a tool that allows me to watch and hear this signal .
It 's not my fault that the drive-in , in this example , does n't shield their picture or opt to hard wire their speakers so that I can not watch the movie , and even if they did do these measures , it would not be illegal for me to strategically place mirrors in my yard and use a directional mic to pick up sound from someone 's car in order to continue to watch the movie .
So , really , the only issue at stake is the DMCA itself ( the breaking of the encryption ) , and I , for one , do not agree with the premise behind this law .
If you want your content to be unwatchable by others , secure it properly .
If others figure out a way to watch it anyways , that 's your problem , not the laws ( or at least I wish it were this way !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad analogy.
Here's a better one:
If you own a drive in theater, and I live nearby with a direct line of site of the theater, and someone sells me a radio that I use to receive the audio from the movie, and I sit on my porch every night and enjoy a different movie, all for free....  Is this a crime?
Effectively, they are blanketing the country with their signal, and someone else is providing me a tool that allows me to watch and hear this signal.
It's not my fault that the drive-in, in this example, doesn't shield their picture or opt to hard wire their speakers so that I cannot watch the movie, and even if they did do these measures, it would not be illegal for me to strategically place mirrors in my yard and use a directional mic to pick up sound from someone's car in order to continue to watch the movie.
So, really, the only issue at stake is the DMCA itself (the breaking of the encryption), and I, for one, do not agree with the premise behind this law.
If you want your content to be unwatchable by others, secure it properly.
If others figure out a way to watch it anyways, that's your problem, not the laws (or at least I wish it were this way!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726169</id>
	<title>Re:N3 partially cracked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you figure? IKS? That's not really a hack of the card...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you figure ?
IKS ? That 's not really a hack of the card.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you figure?
IKS? That's not really a hack of the card...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722109</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247736180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the prize for attempted Chemistry is called the Darwin Award~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the prize for attempted Chemistry is called the Darwin Award ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the prize for attempted Chemistry is called the Darwin Award~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725035</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100\%</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1247752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the fact is that there are perfeclty legal uses for a device that unscrambles encrypted signals... like time-shifting, for example. Why should you be forced to buy or lease a "DirecTV-approved" DVR, for example, when they would be cheaper on a competitive market?</p> </div><p>Why does one have to have a DirecTV DVR when one can just divert the basic DirecTV decoder's TV output signal into a generic DVR? Use the legit decoder to decrypt and decompress the signal; use the generic DVR to record it. Courts haven't ruled that fair use includes freedom from generation loss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the fact is that there are perfeclty legal uses for a device that unscrambles encrypted signals... like time-shifting , for example .
Why should you be forced to buy or lease a " DirecTV-approved " DVR , for example , when they would be cheaper on a competitive market ?
Why does one have to have a DirecTV DVR when one can just divert the basic DirecTV decoder 's TV output signal into a generic DVR ?
Use the legit decoder to decrypt and decompress the signal ; use the generic DVR to record it .
Courts have n't ruled that fair use includes freedom from generation loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fact is that there are perfeclty legal uses for a device that unscrambles encrypted signals... like time-shifting, for example.
Why should you be forced to buy or lease a "DirecTV-approved" DVR, for example, when they would be cheaper on a competitive market?
Why does one have to have a DirecTV DVR when one can just divert the basic DirecTV decoder's TV output signal into a generic DVR?
Use the legit decoder to decrypt and decompress the signal; use the generic DVR to record it.
Courts haven't ruled that fair use includes freedom from generation loss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723407</id>
	<title>Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1247741820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I don't see anything in the article summary saying that at all.  They were simply attempting to reverse-engineer a way to receive and decrypt DishTV's signals, and presumably to sell equipment to do this to other people.</p><p>So first, no one is "stealing" anything, as stealing means to deprive someone of something by theft.  People watching DishTV aren't stealing anything, though they are violating the DMCA law.</p><p>And second, there's no proof these men were going to watch unpaid-for programming themselves; they were going to sell the means of doing so to other people.</p><p>So your BS headline is much like saying radar detector companies are conspiring to exceed speed limits.  It really doesn't make much sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I do n't see anything in the article summary saying that at all .
They were simply attempting to reverse-engineer a way to receive and decrypt DishTV 's signals , and presumably to sell equipment to do this to other people.So first , no one is " stealing " anything , as stealing means to deprive someone of something by theft .
People watching DishTV are n't stealing anything , though they are violating the DMCA law.And second , there 's no proof these men were going to watch unpaid-for programming themselves ; they were going to sell the means of doing so to other people.So your BS headline is much like saying radar detector companies are conspiring to exceed speed limits .
It really does n't make much sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I don't see anything in the article summary saying that at all.
They were simply attempting to reverse-engineer a way to receive and decrypt DishTV's signals, and presumably to sell equipment to do this to other people.So first, no one is "stealing" anything, as stealing means to deprive someone of something by theft.
People watching DishTV aren't stealing anything, though they are violating the DMCA law.And second, there's no proof these men were going to watch unpaid-for programming themselves; they were going to sell the means of doing so to other people.So your BS headline is much like saying radar detector companies are conspiring to exceed speed limits.
It really doesn't make much sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724321</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100\%</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1247746380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, free market has no flaws whatsoever.  Let's do away with all regulation in the banking industry and...oh wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , free market has no flaws whatsoever .
Let 's do away with all regulation in the banking industry and...oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, free market has no flaws whatsoever.
Let's do away with all regulation in the banking industry and...oh wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721601</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conspiracy IS a violation of the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conspiracy IS a violation of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conspiracy IS a violation of the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724489</id>
	<title>Implications for the numerical system</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1247747520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The implications of this arrest on the numerical system as it applies to mathematics, physics, and other scientific and engineering disciplines cannot be overstated - especially in light of the recent arrest of seven, for the murder and subsequent cannibalization of nine...</p><p>For instance, even prior to this arrest, the speed of light (as measured in meters per second) couldn't be represented comfortably in decimal, but it could be rounded up with relatively little precision loss...  That is now not possible...  The gravitational constant was already problematic due to the arrest of seven - now with the arrest of three, the use of cubic meters is no longer viable, so the gravitational constant is at best represented as 6.66 (rounding down, here) * 10^-8 L / (kg * s^2).</p><p>Prior to the arrest of three, pi could still be represented to six digits (in decimal) - but now decimal representations of pi, pi/2, and pi/4 are all compromised...  The natural exponent (e), of course, has suffered greatly from the loss of seven - and other numbers such as the Elementary Electric Charge (in Coulombs) and Avogadro's Constant have had to be changed to unconventional representations in scientific notation...</p><p>All of this has really made mathematics of any sort a real problem.  The scientific community is trying to address this by advocating the use of different numerical bases and a new system of units: but adoption has been slow and difficult.  So far, a clear solution has not yet emerged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The implications of this arrest on the numerical system as it applies to mathematics , physics , and other scientific and engineering disciplines can not be overstated - especially in light of the recent arrest of seven , for the murder and subsequent cannibalization of nine...For instance , even prior to this arrest , the speed of light ( as measured in meters per second ) could n't be represented comfortably in decimal , but it could be rounded up with relatively little precision loss... That is now not possible... The gravitational constant was already problematic due to the arrest of seven - now with the arrest of three , the use of cubic meters is no longer viable , so the gravitational constant is at best represented as 6.66 ( rounding down , here ) * 10 ^ -8 L / ( kg * s ^ 2 ) .Prior to the arrest of three , pi could still be represented to six digits ( in decimal ) - but now decimal representations of pi , pi/2 , and pi/4 are all compromised... The natural exponent ( e ) , of course , has suffered greatly from the loss of seven - and other numbers such as the Elementary Electric Charge ( in Coulombs ) and Avogadro 's Constant have had to be changed to unconventional representations in scientific notation...All of this has really made mathematics of any sort a real problem .
The scientific community is trying to address this by advocating the use of different numerical bases and a new system of units : but adoption has been slow and difficult .
So far , a clear solution has not yet emerged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The implications of this arrest on the numerical system as it applies to mathematics, physics, and other scientific and engineering disciplines cannot be overstated - especially in light of the recent arrest of seven, for the murder and subsequent cannibalization of nine...For instance, even prior to this arrest, the speed of light (as measured in meters per second) couldn't be represented comfortably in decimal, but it could be rounded up with relatively little precision loss...  That is now not possible...  The gravitational constant was already problematic due to the arrest of seven - now with the arrest of three, the use of cubic meters is no longer viable, so the gravitational constant is at best represented as 6.66 (rounding down, here) * 10^-8 L / (kg * s^2).Prior to the arrest of three, pi could still be represented to six digits (in decimal) - but now decimal representations of pi, pi/2, and pi/4 are all compromised...  The natural exponent (e), of course, has suffered greatly from the loss of seven - and other numbers such as the Elementary Electric Charge (in Coulombs) and Avogadro's Constant have had to be changed to unconventional representations in scientific notation...All of this has really made mathematics of any sort a real problem.
The scientific community is trying to address this by advocating the use of different numerical bases and a new system of units: but adoption has been slow and difficult.
So far, a clear solution has not yet emerged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28747427</id>
	<title>Re:Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do thi</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1248015000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now the question would be: How does this put food on their tables? And bombs off of them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the question would be : How does this put food on their tables ?
And bombs off of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the question would be: How does this put food on their tables?
And bombs off of them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722511</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>blhack</author>
	<datestamp>1247737620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhhmm...Your analogy isn't really "analogous" to the situation.</p><p>If you came and parked your car in my front yard, am I at fault if I figure out how to drive it, and do so?  Dish network is pumping signal into everybody's house, it isn't as if these people are breaking into their building or something.</p><p>I agree that they should be punished, what they were attempting to do was wrong, I just don't think that your analogy holds together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhmm...Your analogy is n't really " analogous " to the situation.If you came and parked your car in my front yard , am I at fault if I figure out how to drive it , and do so ?
Dish network is pumping signal into everybody 's house , it is n't as if these people are breaking into their building or something.I agree that they should be punished , what they were attempting to do was wrong , I just do n't think that your analogy holds together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhmm...Your analogy isn't really "analogous" to the situation.If you came and parked your car in my front yard, am I at fault if I figure out how to drive it, and do so?
Dish network is pumping signal into everybody's house, it isn't as if these people are breaking into their building or something.I agree that they should be punished, what they were attempting to do was wrong, I just don't think that your analogy holds together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724749</id>
	<title>Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allegedly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allegedly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allegedly</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726975</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Fatal67</author>
	<datestamp>1247822100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you wouldn't mind that your neighbor broke your encryption and is recording all of your cell phone calls? Or if the police did it. It should never be a crime. Never ever. Ever.</p><p>And I'm sure you weren't one of the ones complaining about ISP's using DPI to identify the contents of the encrypted packets you are sending in to their network and then turning that information over to the RIAA / FBI etc.</p><p>I'm surprised to see such an open minded person on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.   Usually they are all about taking a specfic situation and twisting it to their own needs, then taking the completely opposite stance when it doesn;t help them.</p><p>I tip my hat to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you would n't mind that your neighbor broke your encryption and is recording all of your cell phone calls ?
Or if the police did it .
It should never be a crime .
Never ever .
Ever.And I 'm sure you were n't one of the ones complaining about ISP 's using DPI to identify the contents of the encrypted packets you are sending in to their network and then turning that information over to the RIAA / FBI etc.I 'm surprised to see such an open minded person on / .
Usually they are all about taking a specfic situation and twisting it to their own needs , then taking the completely opposite stance when it doesn ; t help them.I tip my hat to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you wouldn't mind that your neighbor broke your encryption and is recording all of your cell phone calls?
Or if the police did it.
It should never be a crime.
Never ever.
Ever.And I'm sure you weren't one of the ones complaining about ISP's using DPI to identify the contents of the encrypted packets you are sending in to their network and then turning that information over to the RIAA / FBI etc.I'm surprised to see such an open minded person on /.
Usually they are all about taking a specfic situation and twisting it to their own needs, then taking the completely opposite stance when it doesn;t help them.I tip my hat to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723481</id>
	<title>Whole case -smells- like a frame-up</title>
	<author>Simonetta</author>
	<datestamp>1247742180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've only read the Slashdot header.  I don't read American legalizees.<br>But I get the feeling that things are all 'just not right' here.<br>Why would anyone pay a 'cracker' $250,000 to read an EPROM?  If someone had this kind of money, then they would be part of a serious criminal organization.  If so, then they wouldn't be fooling around with a 'cracker'.  They would have their own people to do this or they would bring the EPROM to someone in China or Malaysia to reverse-engineer it.  $250K buys a lot more than a 'cracker' outside of the OCED countries.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; This case sounds like a 'agent provacateur' type of deal.  It 'smells' like that case in Miami where three drunken crackheads were arrested as the cadre of a major terrorist cell when in reality it was just a government undercover schmuck buying everyone endless 40 oz bottles and talking non-stop about 'offing da pig'.  Typical late 1960s horseshit.  Great for headlines and 40oz sales, but totally meaningless for anyone's realistic concept of national security.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The poster above is right.  Who gives a hoot about the mediocre entertainment that's on network or cable television?  Anything that is actually good in this medium is going to be in the torrents within days.  And not a lot of good programming actually comes out of this medium.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I'll stick with the traditional legal concept of assuming innocent before proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in 'smelly' DMCA cases like this.  ennee, meenee, mainee, moe DCMA justice in this crock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've only read the Slashdot header .
I do n't read American legalizees.But I get the feeling that things are all 'just not right ' here.Why would anyone pay a 'cracker ' $ 250,000 to read an EPROM ?
If someone had this kind of money , then they would be part of a serious criminal organization .
If so , then they would n't be fooling around with a 'cracker' .
They would have their own people to do this or they would bring the EPROM to someone in China or Malaysia to reverse-engineer it .
$ 250K buys a lot more than a 'cracker ' outside of the OCED countries .
    This case sounds like a 'agent provacateur ' type of deal .
It 'smells ' like that case in Miami where three drunken crackheads were arrested as the cadre of a major terrorist cell when in reality it was just a government undercover schmuck buying everyone endless 40 oz bottles and talking non-stop about 'offing da pig' .
Typical late 1960s horseshit .
Great for headlines and 40oz sales , but totally meaningless for anyone 's realistic concept of national security .
    The poster above is right .
Who gives a hoot about the mediocre entertainment that 's on network or cable television ?
Anything that is actually good in this medium is going to be in the torrents within days .
And not a lot of good programming actually comes out of this medium .
    I 'll stick with the traditional legal concept of assuming innocent before proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in 'smelly ' DMCA cases like this .
ennee , meenee , mainee , moe DCMA justice in this crock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've only read the Slashdot header.
I don't read American legalizees.But I get the feeling that things are all 'just not right' here.Why would anyone pay a 'cracker' $250,000 to read an EPROM?
If someone had this kind of money, then they would be part of a serious criminal organization.
If so, then they wouldn't be fooling around with a 'cracker'.
They would have their own people to do this or they would bring the EPROM to someone in China or Malaysia to reverse-engineer it.
$250K buys a lot more than a 'cracker' outside of the OCED countries.
    This case sounds like a 'agent provacateur' type of deal.
It 'smells' like that case in Miami where three drunken crackheads were arrested as the cadre of a major terrorist cell when in reality it was just a government undercover schmuck buying everyone endless 40 oz bottles and talking non-stop about 'offing da pig'.
Typical late 1960s horseshit.
Great for headlines and 40oz sales, but totally meaningless for anyone's realistic concept of national security.
    The poster above is right.
Who gives a hoot about the mediocre entertainment that's on network or cable television?
Anything that is actually good in this medium is going to be in the torrents within days.
And not a lot of good programming actually comes out of this medium.
    I'll stick with the traditional legal concept of assuming innocent before proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in 'smelly' DMCA cases like this.
ennee, meenee, mainee, moe DCMA justice in this crock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726485</id>
	<title>Radio Broadcasting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>KGO 810AM is broadcasting for the target audience of SFO CA, yet on a clear evening after sunset, (and before sunrise), I, (located in Pullman WA), can very easily pick up with nothing more then a walkman.  Is this illegal?  No.  Should it be?  According to some of the logic presented here, yes.  After all, I'm recieving a audible signal for free, and I'm not in the target audience.  A non-targeted person of a non-targeted audience is an "unauthorised" user.  Therefore, if you ever listen to a radio station out of a 100 mile radius, you are a DMCA violator because you had to use "special equipment" to decode the AM signal when you did not have prior authorization to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>KGO 810AM is broadcasting for the target audience of SFO CA , yet on a clear evening after sunset , ( and before sunrise ) , I , ( located in Pullman WA ) , can very easily pick up with nothing more then a walkman .
Is this illegal ?
No. Should it be ?
According to some of the logic presented here , yes .
After all , I 'm recieving a audible signal for free , and I 'm not in the target audience .
A non-targeted person of a non-targeted audience is an " unauthorised " user .
Therefore , if you ever listen to a radio station out of a 100 mile radius , you are a DMCA violator because you had to use " special equipment " to decode the AM signal when you did not have prior authorization to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KGO 810AM is broadcasting for the target audience of SFO CA, yet on a clear evening after sunset, (and before sunrise), I, (located in Pullman WA), can very easily pick up with nothing more then a walkman.
Is this illegal?
No.  Should it be?
According to some of the logic presented here, yes.
After all, I'm recieving a audible signal for free, and I'm not in the target audience.
A non-targeted person of a non-targeted audience is an "unauthorised" user.
Therefore, if you ever listen to a radio station out of a 100 mile radius, you are a DMCA violator because you had to use "special equipment" to decode the AM signal when you did not have prior authorization to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723159</id>
	<title>Compaq wouldn't exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To make the first PC clones, Compaq publicly hired 30 systems engineers to reverse engineer the IBM BIOS chip... so what was that, high treason compared to this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To make the first PC clones , Compaq publicly hired 30 systems engineers to reverse engineer the IBM BIOS chip... so what was that , high treason compared to this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To make the first PC clones, Compaq publicly hired 30 systems engineers to reverse engineer the IBM BIOS chip... so what was that, high treason compared to this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722641</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just surprised he couldn't kwak it himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just surprised he could n't kwak it himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just surprised he couldn't kwak it himself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723135</id>
	<title>Re:Group keying and revocation...</title>
	<author>FencingLion</author>
	<datestamp>1247740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the hackers will need to out-DRM the DRMers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the hackers will need to out-DRM the DRMers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the hackers will need to out-DRM the DRMers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725033</id>
	<title>Theft of service? Really?</title>
	<author>bky1701</author>
	<datestamp>1247752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would hardly call using the signals they are beaming into my house theft of service because I had to break their encryption. What's next, getting sued because you understood some people talking in pig-latin on the radio?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would hardly call using the signals they are beaming into my house theft of service because I had to break their encryption .
What 's next , getting sued because you understood some people talking in pig-latin on the radio ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would hardly call using the signals they are beaming into my house theft of service because I had to break their encryption.
What's next, getting sued because you understood some people talking in pig-latin on the radio?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722911</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100\%</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1247739600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why should you be forced to buy or lease a "DirecTV-approved" DVR, for example, when they would be cheaper on a competitive market?</p></div></blockquote><p>You aren't forced to.  You can record the output of the existing DirecTV box (you are now probably going to make the same argument for that -- and I would agree -- the FCC CableCard mandate SHOULD cover satellites, they had an exemption that has never been removed) with a Tivo or other external DVR.  Yes, it's more of a pain than a DVR that includes the decryption (so it has multiple tuners for example)..  But people have been using Tivos with cable boxes(*) and satellite boxes for a decade.</p><p>(*) Series 3 &amp; TivoHD can take CableCards, so they act as the cable box in that case for encrypted channels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should you be forced to buy or lease a " DirecTV-approved " DVR , for example , when they would be cheaper on a competitive market ? You are n't forced to .
You can record the output of the existing DirecTV box ( you are now probably going to make the same argument for that -- and I would agree -- the FCC CableCard mandate SHOULD cover satellites , they had an exemption that has never been removed ) with a Tivo or other external DVR .
Yes , it 's more of a pain than a DVR that includes the decryption ( so it has multiple tuners for example ) .. But people have been using Tivos with cable boxes ( * ) and satellite boxes for a decade .
( * ) Series 3 &amp; TivoHD can take CableCards , so they act as the cable box in that case for encrypted channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should you be forced to buy or lease a "DirecTV-approved" DVR, for example, when they would be cheaper on a competitive market?You aren't forced to.
You can record the output of the existing DirecTV box (you are now probably going to make the same argument for that -- and I would agree -- the FCC CableCard mandate SHOULD cover satellites, they had an exemption that has never been removed) with a Tivo or other external DVR.
Yes, it's more of a pain than a DVR that includes the decryption (so it has multiple tuners for example)..  But people have been using Tivos with cable boxes(*) and satellite boxes for a decade.
(*) Series 3 &amp; TivoHD can take CableCards, so they act as the cable box in that case for encrypted channels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721457</id>
	<title>Oblig,</title>
	<author>cvd6262</author>
	<datestamp>1247776860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;Sideshow\_Bob&gt;<i>Conspiring</i> to violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act... Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for conspiracy chemistry?&lt;/Sideshow\_Bob&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conspiring to violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act... Now honestly , what is that ?
Do they give a Nobel Prize for conspiracy chemistry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conspiring to violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act... Now honestly, what is that?
Do they give a Nobel Prize for conspiracy chemistry?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721623</id>
	<title>Group keying and revocation...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1247777460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days, the model is very much based on some really funky group keying and key revocation, which allows the sattelite provider to revoke individual keys because each receiver has a unique key rather than a group sharing a common key.</p><p>Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days , the model is very much based on some really funky group keying and key revocation , which allows the sattelite provider to revoke individual keys because each receiver has a unique key rather than a group sharing a common key.Among other things , this makes piracy MUCH harder , because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers , take them to the lab , find out the key used , and revoke it , disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days, the model is very much based on some really funky group keying and key revocation, which allows the sattelite provider to revoke individual keys because each receiver has a unique key rather than a group sharing a common key.Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28739071</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247908500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not Al gore got one for attempting to pass off global warming as real science</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not Al gore got one for attempting to pass off global warming as real science</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not Al gore got one for attempting to pass off global warming as real science</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724429</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1247747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$250,000 goes a long way to actually paying for sat TV service. There must be a better and less expensive way to conspire to violate the DMCA? Is the N3 hack market so lucrative? Can't you do better elsewhere with that kind of money, like launching your own legitimate sat. TV service?</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 250,000 goes a long way to actually paying for sat TV service .
There must be a better and less expensive way to conspire to violate the DMCA ?
Is the N3 hack market so lucrative ?
Ca n't you do better elsewhere with that kind of money , like launching your own legitimate sat .
TV service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$250,000 goes a long way to actually paying for sat TV service.
There must be a better and less expensive way to conspire to violate the DMCA?
Is the N3 hack market so lucrative?
Can't you do better elsewhere with that kind of money, like launching your own legitimate sat.
TV service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721547</id>
	<title>It was the Villiage People</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fun to violate the DMCA<br>It's fun to violate the DMCA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fun to violate the DMCAIt 's fun to violate the DMCA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fun to violate the DMCAIt's fun to violate the DMCA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724551</id>
	<title>Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1247747940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but that's not what they were <em>charged</em> with, Mr. Ends Justify Means. According to TFA, they were arrested for conspiracy to violate DMCA, not conspiracy to steal service.  DMCA prohibits circumventing technological measures the limit access <strong>regardless of the purpose.</strong>  That is why 2600 lost in MPAA-vs-2600.  Kaplan was very clear and explicit that he didn't give a flying fuck <em>why</em> someone would descramble a DVD.  And he blew off the interoperability defense; he didn't say it didn't <em>apply</em> to the situation; it just wasn't a defense.</p><p>Stealing service is irrelevant.  Descrambling is what counts, whether you're stealing service or just trying to be compatible.</p><p>It's an outrageous law. So it caught some bad guys.  Big Fucking Deal.  There are a lot more good guys than bad guys, and I commit "conspiracy to violate DMCA" every time I say to my girlfriend, "Let's watch a DVD."</p><p>The MPAA needs to buy a repeal of this law pretty damn quick.  If I break one law by buying a DVD and playing it (violate DMCA but not copyright), but break a different law (infringe copyright, but not DMCA) by playing a pirated unencrypted download, then it just comes down to which punishment is a worse risk.  Right now, MPAA is getting their money.  But if FBI is <em>arresting people</em> and charging them with something (DMCA violation, rather than theft of service) that I also routinely do, then I might as well spend less money (pirate instead of buy) <em>and</em> risk less FBI confrontation (violate copyright instead of violating DMCA).</p><p>Not that <em>this</em> really changes things.  We're going HD soon, and I can't play a purchased Bluray even <em>if</em> I'm willing to violate DMCA. So once we buy that HD TV, I don't have to worry about conspiracy to violate DMCA anymore.  My conspiracy will be to do that other thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal was to facilitate theft of service , not interoperability.Yes , but that 's not what they were charged with , Mr. Ends Justify Means .
According to TFA , they were arrested for conspiracy to violate DMCA , not conspiracy to steal service .
DMCA prohibits circumventing technological measures the limit access regardless of the purpose .
That is why 2600 lost in MPAA-vs-2600 .
Kaplan was very clear and explicit that he did n't give a flying fuck why someone would descramble a DVD .
And he blew off the interoperability defense ; he did n't say it did n't apply to the situation ; it just was n't a defense.Stealing service is irrelevant .
Descrambling is what counts , whether you 're stealing service or just trying to be compatible.It 's an outrageous law .
So it caught some bad guys .
Big Fucking Deal .
There are a lot more good guys than bad guys , and I commit " conspiracy to violate DMCA " every time I say to my girlfriend , " Let 's watch a DVD .
" The MPAA needs to buy a repeal of this law pretty damn quick .
If I break one law by buying a DVD and playing it ( violate DMCA but not copyright ) , but break a different law ( infringe copyright , but not DMCA ) by playing a pirated unencrypted download , then it just comes down to which punishment is a worse risk .
Right now , MPAA is getting their money .
But if FBI is arresting people and charging them with something ( DMCA violation , rather than theft of service ) that I also routinely do , then I might as well spend less money ( pirate instead of buy ) and risk less FBI confrontation ( violate copyright instead of violating DMCA ) .Not that this really changes things .
We 're going HD soon , and I ca n't play a purchased Bluray even if I 'm willing to violate DMCA .
So once we buy that HD TV , I do n't have to worry about conspiracy to violate DMCA anymore .
My conspiracy will be to do that other thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.Yes, but that's not what they were charged with, Mr. Ends Justify Means.
According to TFA, they were arrested for conspiracy to violate DMCA, not conspiracy to steal service.
DMCA prohibits circumventing technological measures the limit access regardless of the purpose.
That is why 2600 lost in MPAA-vs-2600.
Kaplan was very clear and explicit that he didn't give a flying fuck why someone would descramble a DVD.
And he blew off the interoperability defense; he didn't say it didn't apply to the situation; it just wasn't a defense.Stealing service is irrelevant.
Descrambling is what counts, whether you're stealing service or just trying to be compatible.It's an outrageous law.
So it caught some bad guys.
Big Fucking Deal.
There are a lot more good guys than bad guys, and I commit "conspiracy to violate DMCA" every time I say to my girlfriend, "Let's watch a DVD.
"The MPAA needs to buy a repeal of this law pretty damn quick.
If I break one law by buying a DVD and playing it (violate DMCA but not copyright), but break a different law (infringe copyright, but not DMCA) by playing a pirated unencrypted download, then it just comes down to which punishment is a worse risk.
Right now, MPAA is getting their money.
But if FBI is arresting people and charging them with something (DMCA violation, rather than theft of service) that I also routinely do, then I might as well spend less money (pirate instead of buy) and risk less FBI confrontation (violate copyright instead of violating DMCA).Not that this really changes things.
We're going HD soon, and I can't play a purchased Bluray even if I'm willing to violate DMCA.
So once we buy that HD TV, I don't have to worry about conspiracy to violate DMCA anymore.
My conspiracy will be to do that other thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721591</id>
	<title>I object</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am offended by the term 'cracker' could they at least say 'Caucasian American'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am offended by the term 'cracker ' could they at least say 'Caucasian American'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am offended by the term 'cracker' could they at least say 'Caucasian American'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725499</id>
	<title>Re:Group keying and revocation...</title>
	<author>Filgy</author>
	<datestamp>1247756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.</p></div><p>Actually, it's still pretty easy from what I've seen.  As mentioned in another comment, when you buy the 3rd party receiver it cannot decrypt any providers signal that is scrambled out of the box.  The receiver does, however, have a SD card slot on it where you can load new software onto it.  The updates have the key required to decrypt the signal. </p><p>Then DISH network would revoke the key every month or so (when using the cracked encryption) that the receiver now used.  A new update would then be available soon after to again decrypt the signal. </p><p>And no, I have never pirated satellite.  A friend of mines relative decided to do it but did not have the cable ran from their old DISH satellite to their living room anymore.  Of course when they said they'd pay me to run them a new one I didn't ask too many questions.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Among other things , this makes piracy MUCH harder , because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers , take them to the lab , find out the key used , and revoke it , disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.Actually , it 's still pretty easy from what I 've seen .
As mentioned in another comment , when you buy the 3rd party receiver it can not decrypt any providers signal that is scrambled out of the box .
The receiver does , however , have a SD card slot on it where you can load new software onto it .
The updates have the key required to decrypt the signal .
Then DISH network would revoke the key every month or so ( when using the cracked encryption ) that the receiver now used .
A new update would then be available soon after to again decrypt the signal .
And no , I have never pirated satellite .
A friend of mines relative decided to do it but did not have the cable ran from their old DISH satellite to their living room anymore .
Of course when they said they 'd pay me to run them a new one I did n't ask too many questions .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.Actually, it's still pretty easy from what I've seen.
As mentioned in another comment, when you buy the 3rd party receiver it cannot decrypt any providers signal that is scrambled out of the box.
The receiver does, however, have a SD card slot on it where you can load new software onto it.
The updates have the key required to decrypt the signal.
Then DISH network would revoke the key every month or so (when using the cracked encryption) that the receiver now used.
A new update would then be available soon after to again decrypt the signal.
And no, I have never pirated satellite.
A friend of mines relative decided to do it but did not have the cable ran from their old DISH satellite to their living room anymore.
Of course when they said they'd pay me to run them a new one I didn't ask too many questions.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726983</id>
	<title>Cracker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247822280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't they just say Anglo-American?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't they just say Anglo-American ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't they just say Anglo-American?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28731245</id>
	<title>Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1247851380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are still criminalizing research. I agree with you, but I don't agree with the law. Stealing is the crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are still criminalizing research .
I agree with you , but I do n't agree with the law .
Stealing is the crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are still criminalizing research.
I agree with you, but I don't agree with the law.
Stealing is the crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725149</id>
	<title>Except</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you."</p><p>No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you don't you can get out of the country, or they'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you broadcast something into my home uninvited , and I find a way to make use of that broadcast , that 's tough tits for you .
" No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you do n't you can get out of the country , or they 'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you.
"No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you don't you can get out of the country, or they'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722995</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like my friend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the old days it was easy to get free DirectTV with a simple little card reader/writer. A few years of completely free service, PPV, etc, wasn't so bad. Of course they changed encryption techniques, new smart cards and the game got harder.  Now what few shows I care to watch are either streamed or on usenet so not that big of a loss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the old days it was easy to get free DirectTV with a simple little card reader/writer .
A few years of completely free service , PPV , etc , was n't so bad .
Of course they changed encryption techniques , new smart cards and the game got harder .
Now what few shows I care to watch are either streamed or on usenet so not that big of a loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the old days it was easy to get free DirectTV with a simple little card reader/writer.
A few years of completely free service, PPV, etc, wasn't so bad.
Of course they changed encryption techniques, new smart cards and the game got harder.
Now what few shows I care to watch are either streamed or on usenet so not that big of a loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725125</id>
	<title>Not Cracked? hmmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>it is very simuliar to previous roms, parts of codespace are checksummed, uses 768 bit encryptions vs 512, has a glitch detector better than previous roms, but not impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is very simuliar to previous roms , parts of codespace are checksummed , uses 768 bit encryptions vs 512 , has a glitch detector better than previous roms , but not impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is very simuliar to previous roms, parts of codespace are checksummed, uses 768 bit encryptions vs 512, has a glitch detector better than previous roms, but not impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722659</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So by your thinking, it's "tough tits" for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor?  If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling?  If I hack into a company that uses wifi?</p></div><p>I basically agree with you, however... I think the GP is trying to make the argument that the satellite company is spamming his private property with their signals (without his permission).</p><p>Here is my question to you: if satellite signal is not encrypted, should the broadcasting company be allowed to come after you if you pull down the signals from the air? You don't have a subscription, and you don't have a license to view the content. I think it would fall under the same morally-ambiguous area as unsecured wireless access points. I think that the circumvention is the only notable issue in this case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So by your thinking , it 's " tough tits " for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor ?
If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling ?
If I hack into a company that uses wifi ? I basically agree with you , however... I think the GP is trying to make the argument that the satellite company is spamming his private property with their signals ( without his permission ) .Here is my question to you : if satellite signal is not encrypted , should the broadcasting company be allowed to come after you if you pull down the signals from the air ?
You do n't have a subscription , and you do n't have a license to view the content .
I think it would fall under the same morally-ambiguous area as unsecured wireless access points .
I think that the circumvention is the only notable issue in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So by your thinking, it's "tough tits" for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor?
If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling?
If I hack into a company that uses wifi?I basically agree with you, however... I think the GP is trying to make the argument that the satellite company is spamming his private property with their signals (without his permission).Here is my question to you: if satellite signal is not encrypted, should the broadcasting company be allowed to come after you if you pull down the signals from the air?
You don't have a subscription, and you don't have a license to view the content.
I think it would fall under the same morally-ambiguous area as unsecured wireless access points.
I think that the circumvention is the only notable issue in this case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722271</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>KylePflug</author>
	<datestamp>1247736720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a matter of prosecutorial efficiency. They want to get you with the charge, but they know that if they can't, they might at least get you with conspiracy because you tried (or took some concrete step towards trying).</p><p>Rather than losing the first charge and then trying to get you on conspiracy, they just throw the whole book at you and see what the jury is willing to give them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a matter of prosecutorial efficiency .
They want to get you with the charge , but they know that if they ca n't , they might at least get you with conspiracy because you tried ( or took some concrete step towards trying ) .Rather than losing the first charge and then trying to get you on conspiracy , they just throw the whole book at you and see what the jury is willing to give them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a matter of prosecutorial efficiency.
They want to get you with the charge, but they know that if they can't, they might at least get you with conspiracy because you tried (or took some concrete step towards trying).Rather than losing the first charge and then trying to get you on conspiracy, they just throw the whole book at you and see what the jury is willing to give them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724207</id>
	<title>I wonder if the cracker</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1247745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if the cracker got his door kicked in and was staring down the barrel of an M16, because I was unlucky enough to be in a place that got raided for hot sat boxes and that seemed to be their SOP. At the time the little shop I worked at would often buy, sell, and swap with the little shop the next town over, as it was certainly easier to pop over there if we needed a funky speed RAM stick or ran out of spare CD burners (DVD burners were still high at the time).</p><p>So anyway my boss had talked to the boss over there a few days before and set it up for me to pick up some gear, you know, hard drives, CD burners, basic crap. So i'm sitting there bullshitting with the young kid that was working the counter that day while he packed up the stuff when BOOM! the front door explodes, shattering glass everywhere(I guess the FBI decided to John Wayne the door instead...well pulling the handle) and the next thing we know there is a dozen guys dressed like SWAT with M16s pointed at us. I said "Dudes, I don't know who you are looking for, but my boss just sent me here to buy some RAM sticks and this poor kid here just started like yesterday. If you promise not to shoot me I'll show you my bosses card. Fell free to call and verify as he is waiting on me to deliver these drives and RAM sticks he paid for."</p><p>Well after bullshitting with the FBI for awhile (once the SWAT looking feds were out of there the regular feds were actually quite friendly) it turned out the owner of the place had him a nice little multi-state business selling hot decoder boxes and bogus MSFT software. He showed me one of the boxes in the back and I swear you couldn't tell the difference between it and a real copy of Office XP, it was that damned good. of course I didn't tell them but they totally fucked up by trying to coordinate with local law enforcement, which was more crooked than a snake. Somebody had tipped him off that weekend and when they got to his place it was like nobody ever lived there. The funniest part was the moron local PD had taken a bunch of their fancy new computers to have them "upgraded" with the latest Office and XP on the cheap, and he fricking sold the boxes before he left! They never did get their computers back from what I heard and last I heard they still ain't caught the guy. He just disappears whenever they get too close.</p><p>

But I can tell you from that day that the feds don't fuck around when it comes to pro pirate rings. They had enough fricking fully decked out armor plated feds you would have thought they were planning Waco II, instead of just grabbing a fat redneck selling hot boxes and fake software. If they pulled that with the cracker guy I can tell you it is NOT a fun experience! I am just glad I was there or that poor 16 year old probably would have panicked and got himself shot, as it was he was so spooked all he could do was stand there and shake. I used to play biker bars behind chicken wire so it wasn't like it was the first time I had stared at the wrong end of a gun, and I could tell by the outfits that it was FBI or ATF, which meant they weren't after me. But those feds really go hardcore when it comes to pro pirate rings, if my experience is anything to go by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the cracker got his door kicked in and was staring down the barrel of an M16 , because I was unlucky enough to be in a place that got raided for hot sat boxes and that seemed to be their SOP .
At the time the little shop I worked at would often buy , sell , and swap with the little shop the next town over , as it was certainly easier to pop over there if we needed a funky speed RAM stick or ran out of spare CD burners ( DVD burners were still high at the time ) .So anyway my boss had talked to the boss over there a few days before and set it up for me to pick up some gear , you know , hard drives , CD burners , basic crap .
So i 'm sitting there bullshitting with the young kid that was working the counter that day while he packed up the stuff when BOOM !
the front door explodes , shattering glass everywhere ( I guess the FBI decided to John Wayne the door instead...well pulling the handle ) and the next thing we know there is a dozen guys dressed like SWAT with M16s pointed at us .
I said " Dudes , I do n't know who you are looking for , but my boss just sent me here to buy some RAM sticks and this poor kid here just started like yesterday .
If you promise not to shoot me I 'll show you my bosses card .
Fell free to call and verify as he is waiting on me to deliver these drives and RAM sticks he paid for .
" Well after bullshitting with the FBI for awhile ( once the SWAT looking feds were out of there the regular feds were actually quite friendly ) it turned out the owner of the place had him a nice little multi-state business selling hot decoder boxes and bogus MSFT software .
He showed me one of the boxes in the back and I swear you could n't tell the difference between it and a real copy of Office XP , it was that damned good .
of course I did n't tell them but they totally fucked up by trying to coordinate with local law enforcement , which was more crooked than a snake .
Somebody had tipped him off that weekend and when they got to his place it was like nobody ever lived there .
The funniest part was the moron local PD had taken a bunch of their fancy new computers to have them " upgraded " with the latest Office and XP on the cheap , and he fricking sold the boxes before he left !
They never did get their computers back from what I heard and last I heard they still ai n't caught the guy .
He just disappears whenever they get too close .
But I can tell you from that day that the feds do n't fuck around when it comes to pro pirate rings .
They had enough fricking fully decked out armor plated feds you would have thought they were planning Waco II , instead of just grabbing a fat redneck selling hot boxes and fake software .
If they pulled that with the cracker guy I can tell you it is NOT a fun experience !
I am just glad I was there or that poor 16 year old probably would have panicked and got himself shot , as it was he was so spooked all he could do was stand there and shake .
I used to play biker bars behind chicken wire so it was n't like it was the first time I had stared at the wrong end of a gun , and I could tell by the outfits that it was FBI or ATF , which meant they were n't after me .
But those feds really go hardcore when it comes to pro pirate rings , if my experience is anything to go by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the cracker got his door kicked in and was staring down the barrel of an M16, because I was unlucky enough to be in a place that got raided for hot sat boxes and that seemed to be their SOP.
At the time the little shop I worked at would often buy, sell, and swap with the little shop the next town over, as it was certainly easier to pop over there if we needed a funky speed RAM stick or ran out of spare CD burners (DVD burners were still high at the time).So anyway my boss had talked to the boss over there a few days before and set it up for me to pick up some gear, you know, hard drives, CD burners, basic crap.
So i'm sitting there bullshitting with the young kid that was working the counter that day while he packed up the stuff when BOOM!
the front door explodes, shattering glass everywhere(I guess the FBI decided to John Wayne the door instead...well pulling the handle) and the next thing we know there is a dozen guys dressed like SWAT with M16s pointed at us.
I said "Dudes, I don't know who you are looking for, but my boss just sent me here to buy some RAM sticks and this poor kid here just started like yesterday.
If you promise not to shoot me I'll show you my bosses card.
Fell free to call and verify as he is waiting on me to deliver these drives and RAM sticks he paid for.
"Well after bullshitting with the FBI for awhile (once the SWAT looking feds were out of there the regular feds were actually quite friendly) it turned out the owner of the place had him a nice little multi-state business selling hot decoder boxes and bogus MSFT software.
He showed me one of the boxes in the back and I swear you couldn't tell the difference between it and a real copy of Office XP, it was that damned good.
of course I didn't tell them but they totally fucked up by trying to coordinate with local law enforcement, which was more crooked than a snake.
Somebody had tipped him off that weekend and when they got to his place it was like nobody ever lived there.
The funniest part was the moron local PD had taken a bunch of their fancy new computers to have them "upgraded" with the latest Office and XP on the cheap, and he fricking sold the boxes before he left!
They never did get their computers back from what I heard and last I heard they still ain't caught the guy.
He just disappears whenever they get too close.
But I can tell you from that day that the feds don't fuck around when it comes to pro pirate rings.
They had enough fricking fully decked out armor plated feds you would have thought they were planning Waco II, instead of just grabbing a fat redneck selling hot boxes and fake software.
If they pulled that with the cracker guy I can tell you it is NOT a fun experience!
I am just glad I was there or that poor 16 year old probably would have panicked and got himself shot, as it was he was so spooked all he could do was stand there and shake.
I used to play biker bars behind chicken wire so it wasn't like it was the first time I had stared at the wrong end of a gun, and I could tell by the outfits that it was FBI or ATF, which meant they weren't after me.
But those feds really go hardcore when it comes to pro pirate rings, if my experience is anything to go by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726273</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between conspiracy and attempt is that attempt involves action, while not requiring that "we always wait until irreversable damage is done before we prosecute criminals" as you put it, without creating pure thought crimes.</p><p>I believe the freedom of thought would be worth the safety cost of eliminating "conspiracy" as a separate crime, and it's a hypothesis that could be tested incrementally simply by adopting higher and higher standards of the definition of "conspiracy" as a crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between conspiracy and attempt is that attempt involves action , while not requiring that " we always wait until irreversable damage is done before we prosecute criminals " as you put it , without creating pure thought crimes.I believe the freedom of thought would be worth the safety cost of eliminating " conspiracy " as a separate crime , and it 's a hypothesis that could be tested incrementally simply by adopting higher and higher standards of the definition of " conspiracy " as a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between conspiracy and attempt is that attempt involves action, while not requiring that "we always wait until irreversable damage is done before we prosecute criminals" as you put it, without creating pure thought crimes.I believe the freedom of thought would be worth the safety cost of eliminating "conspiracy" as a separate crime, and it's a hypothesis that could be tested incrementally simply by adopting higher and higher standards of the definition of "conspiracy" as a crime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724813</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I find a way to put a y-split on the gas tank at the local Chevron so I can get fuel into my car for free, then I should be allowed? I mean, they are sending fuel into anyone's car that uses the pumps. It's a weak business model that depends on the fact that people don't circumvent the security of concrete and metal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I find a way to put a y-split on the gas tank at the local Chevron so I can get fuel into my car for free , then I should be allowed ?
I mean , they are sending fuel into anyone 's car that uses the pumps .
It 's a weak business model that depends on the fact that people do n't circumvent the security of concrete and metal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I find a way to put a y-split on the gas tank at the local Chevron so I can get fuel into my car for free, then I should be allowed?
I mean, they are sending fuel into anyone's car that uses the pumps.
It's a weak business model that depends on the fact that people don't circumvent the security of concrete and metal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727097</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>totally bogus dude</author>
	<datestamp>1247824800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you came and parked your car in my front yard, am I at fault if I figure out how to drive it, and do so?</p></div><p>Of course you are. You're still stealing their car! They were probably violating your property rights by parking it there (i.e. trespass) and you could and, depending on the circumstances, should have them charged with it and towed; but one person's breaking of one law doesn't give you carte blanche to do what you like with them or their property.</p><p>To put it even in more stupid terms so it's clear why it'd be illegal: "If you came and parked your car in my front yard, am I at fault if I rig a bomb to it so it explodes when you come to pick it up?"</p><p>Like it or not, broadcasters have the right to broadcast their cancer-causing radiation into your home and protect it from being viewed by you unless you pay them money for the privilege. Don't like it? Then try to get the law changed... but good luck with that. Even if it was illegal, their breaking the law wouldn't give you the right to do so.</p><p>Declaring you have a legal right to listen in to any cell phone conversation that happens to be transmitted across your property is just as absurd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you came and parked your car in my front yard , am I at fault if I figure out how to drive it , and do so ? Of course you are .
You 're still stealing their car !
They were probably violating your property rights by parking it there ( i.e .
trespass ) and you could and , depending on the circumstances , should have them charged with it and towed ; but one person 's breaking of one law does n't give you carte blanche to do what you like with them or their property.To put it even in more stupid terms so it 's clear why it 'd be illegal : " If you came and parked your car in my front yard , am I at fault if I rig a bomb to it so it explodes when you come to pick it up ?
" Like it or not , broadcasters have the right to broadcast their cancer-causing radiation into your home and protect it from being viewed by you unless you pay them money for the privilege .
Do n't like it ?
Then try to get the law changed... but good luck with that .
Even if it was illegal , their breaking the law would n't give you the right to do so.Declaring you have a legal right to listen in to any cell phone conversation that happens to be transmitted across your property is just as absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you came and parked your car in my front yard, am I at fault if I figure out how to drive it, and do so?Of course you are.
You're still stealing their car!
They were probably violating your property rights by parking it there (i.e.
trespass) and you could and, depending on the circumstances, should have them charged with it and towed; but one person's breaking of one law doesn't give you carte blanche to do what you like with them or their property.To put it even in more stupid terms so it's clear why it'd be illegal: "If you came and parked your car in my front yard, am I at fault if I rig a bomb to it so it explodes when you come to pick it up?
"Like it or not, broadcasters have the right to broadcast their cancer-causing radiation into your home and protect it from being viewed by you unless you pay them money for the privilege.
Don't like it?
Then try to get the law changed... but good luck with that.
Even if it was illegal, their breaking the law wouldn't give you the right to do so.Declaring you have a legal right to listen in to any cell phone conversation that happens to be transmitted across your property is just as absurd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</id>
	<title>I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100\%</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1247736540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sole purpose of the DMCA Act and its friends was to protect certain particular corporate interests. While you may say that copyright infringers "deserve what they get", the fact is that there are perfeclty <b>legal</b> uses for a device that unscrambles encrypted signals... like time-shifting, for example. Why should you be forced to buy or lease a "DirecTV-approved" DVR, for example, when they would be cheaper on a competitive market?
<br> <br>
When you have competitive markets, you see lower costs, and improved technology. Sure, it leads to companies having their encryption broken, and being forced to re-invent the wheel... which they should be doing anyway. In the long run, it drives improvements in the market and technology.
<br> <br>
The DMCA is detrimental to the economy. The DMCA works to stifle innovation, in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.
<br> <br>
Protectionist policies, like this one, are seldom a good idea. The free market <b>always</b> did better.
<br> <br>
I am not blaming enforcement for enforcing the law, but it's a bad law. A very bad law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sole purpose of the DMCA Act and its friends was to protect certain particular corporate interests .
While you may say that copyright infringers " deserve what they get " , the fact is that there are perfeclty legal uses for a device that unscrambles encrypted signals... like time-shifting , for example .
Why should you be forced to buy or lease a " DirecTV-approved " DVR , for example , when they would be cheaper on a competitive market ?
When you have competitive markets , you see lower costs , and improved technology .
Sure , it leads to companies having their encryption broken , and being forced to re-invent the wheel... which they should be doing anyway .
In the long run , it drives improvements in the market and technology .
The DMCA is detrimental to the economy .
The DMCA works to stifle innovation , in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products .
Protectionist policies , like this one , are seldom a good idea .
The free market always did better .
I am not blaming enforcement for enforcing the law , but it 's a bad law .
A very bad law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sole purpose of the DMCA Act and its friends was to protect certain particular corporate interests.
While you may say that copyright infringers "deserve what they get", the fact is that there are perfeclty legal uses for a device that unscrambles encrypted signals... like time-shifting, for example.
Why should you be forced to buy or lease a "DirecTV-approved" DVR, for example, when they would be cheaper on a competitive market?
When you have competitive markets, you see lower costs, and improved technology.
Sure, it leads to companies having their encryption broken, and being forced to re-invent the wheel... which they should be doing anyway.
In the long run, it drives improvements in the market and technology.
The DMCA is detrimental to the economy.
The DMCA works to stifle innovation, in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.
Protectionist policies, like this one, are seldom a good idea.
The free market always did better.
I am not blaming enforcement for enforcing the law, but it's a bad law.
A very bad law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723133</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if Dish Network made their money from advertisers instead of subscribers and then gave the signal away?  Then any company could produce hardware to convert the signal and render it (including Dish Network).  i go to Radio Shack or Best Buy and pick up a box made by whoever.  This allows more companies to make money and compete.</p><p>Or Dish Network could sell licenses to companies that give them the ability to decode that signal.   The license would change the keys every so often, so it could be a subscription.  That would be much like we have now, except that i'd be paying Radio Shack instead of the owners of the satellites.</p><p>When i was a kid my family enjoyed the Sky network on the cheap by buying cards that decoded the signal.</p><p>++</p><p>So when does a thought experiment/research into something that would be illegal to do become a crime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if Dish Network made their money from advertisers instead of subscribers and then gave the signal away ?
Then any company could produce hardware to convert the signal and render it ( including Dish Network ) .
i go to Radio Shack or Best Buy and pick up a box made by whoever .
This allows more companies to make money and compete.Or Dish Network could sell licenses to companies that give them the ability to decode that signal .
The license would change the keys every so often , so it could be a subscription .
That would be much like we have now , except that i 'd be paying Radio Shack instead of the owners of the satellites.When i was a kid my family enjoyed the Sky network on the cheap by buying cards that decoded the signal. + + So when does a thought experiment/research into something that would be illegal to do become a crime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if Dish Network made their money from advertisers instead of subscribers and then gave the signal away?
Then any company could produce hardware to convert the signal and render it (including Dish Network).
i go to Radio Shack or Best Buy and pick up a box made by whoever.
This allows more companies to make money and compete.Or Dish Network could sell licenses to companies that give them the ability to decode that signal.
The license would change the keys every so often, so it could be a subscription.
That would be much like we have now, except that i'd be paying Radio Shack instead of the owners of the satellites.When i was a kid my family enjoyed the Sky network on the cheap by buying cards that decoded the signal.++So when does a thought experiment/research into something that would be illegal to do become a crime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28755125</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Geminii</author>
	<datestamp>1248097980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government punishes you for thinking. Film at 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government punishes you for thinking .
Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government punishes you for thinking.
Film at 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722933</id>
	<title>Props to Smitty!</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247739720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JCTM,</p><p>Thanks for using the correct word of cracker instead of hacker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JCTM,Thanks for using the correct word of cracker instead of hacker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JCTM,Thanks for using the correct word of cracker instead of hacker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722265</id>
	<title>probably depends on intent .....</title>
	<author>taniwha</author>
	<datestamp>1247736720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy imports satellite boxes - if his goal was to reverse engineer the cards so that his boxes could work on Dish with a legally obtained card then the DCMA safe harbor for "interoperability" kicks in and he's legally OK. On the other hand if he's trying to obtain satellite service without paying Dish for the service they should throw the book at him.</p><p>Think of it from the O/S world - should people be allowed to reverse engineer the cards to allow MythTV to work with a paid for Dish card?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy imports satellite boxes - if his goal was to reverse engineer the cards so that his boxes could work on Dish with a legally obtained card then the DCMA safe harbor for " interoperability " kicks in and he 's legally OK. On the other hand if he 's trying to obtain satellite service without paying Dish for the service they should throw the book at him.Think of it from the O/S world - should people be allowed to reverse engineer the cards to allow MythTV to work with a paid for Dish card ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy imports satellite boxes - if his goal was to reverse engineer the cards so that his boxes could work on Dish with a legally obtained card then the DCMA safe harbor for "interoperability" kicks in and he's legally OK. On the other hand if he's trying to obtain satellite service without paying Dish for the service they should throw the book at him.Think of it from the O/S world - should people be allowed to reverse engineer the cards to allow MythTV to work with a paid for Dish card?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724761</id>
	<title>"theft"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not for interoperability. The goal of this operation was to create smart cards that allowed people to view channels they did not pay for and to allow people who do not have an account to view the channels. The goal was to facilitate <strong>theft of service</strong>, not interoperability.</p></div><p>Unauthorized access to service. Theft implies loss of use to others, which is certainly not the case in broadcast signals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not for interoperability .
The goal of this operation was to create smart cards that allowed people to view channels they did not pay for and to allow people who do not have an account to view the channels .
The goal was to facilitate theft of service , not interoperability.Unauthorized access to service .
Theft implies loss of use to others , which is certainly not the case in broadcast signals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not for interoperability.
The goal of this operation was to create smart cards that allowed people to view channels they did not pay for and to allow people who do not have an account to view the channels.
The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.Unauthorized access to service.
Theft implies loss of use to others, which is certainly not the case in broadcast signals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28733757</id>
	<title>Re:Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do thi</title>
	<author>CityZen</author>
	<datestamp>1247862660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Satellites that broadcast to the US don't also broadcast to the other side of the planet, so they'd have little incentive to work on hacking those signals. (Not to mention issues regarding western porn.)</p><p>Also, China is dependent on foreign trade, and those darn foreigners keep bringing those IP issues back to the trade table.</p><p>And even if they pirated everything piratable, that's still only a small dent in western economies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Satellites that broadcast to the US do n't also broadcast to the other side of the planet , so they 'd have little incentive to work on hacking those signals .
( Not to mention issues regarding western porn .
) Also , China is dependent on foreign trade , and those darn foreigners keep bringing those IP issues back to the trade table.And even if they pirated everything piratable , that 's still only a small dent in western economies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Satellites that broadcast to the US don't also broadcast to the other side of the planet, so they'd have little incentive to work on hacking those signals.
(Not to mention issues regarding western porn.
)Also, China is dependent on foreign trade, and those darn foreigners keep bringing those IP issues back to the trade table.And even if they pirated everything piratable, that's still only a small dent in western economies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722569</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100\%</title>
	<author>seekret</author>
	<datestamp>1247737920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are missing my point. I am against them trying to make a profit off of someone else's services. If they were just cracking the encryption for fair use acts (what most of us here consider fair use I mean) then I wouldn't care. But these guys were doing this in order to sell it to people who just didn't want to pay for the television service. If they didn't want to pay for the television service they should just get an internet connection and use the LEGALLY available free streaming sites such as Hulu or Joost etc... I am in full agreement that the DMCA is a violation of individual rights, but I think these guys need to be punished for whatever legal term is used to describe the selling of someone else's services without their permission.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing my point .
I am against them trying to make a profit off of someone else 's services .
If they were just cracking the encryption for fair use acts ( what most of us here consider fair use I mean ) then I would n't care .
But these guys were doing this in order to sell it to people who just did n't want to pay for the television service .
If they did n't want to pay for the television service they should just get an internet connection and use the LEGALLY available free streaming sites such as Hulu or Joost etc... I am in full agreement that the DMCA is a violation of individual rights , but I think these guys need to be punished for whatever legal term is used to describe the selling of someone else 's services without their permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing my point.
I am against them trying to make a profit off of someone else's services.
If they were just cracking the encryption for fair use acts (what most of us here consider fair use I mean) then I wouldn't care.
But these guys were doing this in order to sell it to people who just didn't want to pay for the television service.
If they didn't want to pay for the television service they should just get an internet connection and use the LEGALLY available free streaming sites such as Hulu or Joost etc... I am in full agreement that the DMCA is a violation of individual rights, but I think these guys need to be punished for whatever legal term is used to describe the selling of someone else's services without their permission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725857</id>
	<title>Change of view</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1247761980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead they should have held a "Contest" to "test" the security with a prize of $250,000 if it's broken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead they should have held a " Contest " to " test " the security with a prize of $ 250,000 if it 's broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead they should have held a "Contest" to "test" the security with a prize of $250,000 if it's broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721435</id>
	<title>offered a cracker more than $250,000</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247776740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see what his race has to do with it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see what his race has to do with it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see what his race has to do with it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721533</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1247777160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm (very) rarely a fan of the DMCA but, in my opinion, this is a good example of why it was set up - to stop commercial abuse of IP. These guys were knowingly circumventing copyright protection methods in an effort to make a profit. These exact situations are what needs to be stopped, not the teenager posting a mashup on youtube...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm ( very ) rarely a fan of the DMCA but , in my opinion , this is a good example of why it was set up - to stop commercial abuse of IP .
These guys were knowingly circumventing copyright protection methods in an effort to make a profit .
These exact situations are what needs to be stopped , not the teenager posting a mashup on youtube.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm (very) rarely a fan of the DMCA but, in my opinion, this is a good example of why it was set up - to stop commercial abuse of IP.
These guys were knowingly circumventing copyright protection methods in an effort to make a profit.
These exact situations are what needs to be stopped, not the teenager posting a mashup on youtube...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724737</id>
	<title>Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100\%</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1247749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The DMCA is detrimental to the economy. The DMCA works to stifle innovation, in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.</i></p><p><i>Protectionist policies, like this one, are seldom a good idea. The free market always did better. </i></p><p>What? That has nothing to do with the issue in question.</p><p><i>A free market cannot operate without legal protection from fraud and theft.</i></p><p>These guys were trying to hack themselves some free TV and make a business stealing from DirectTV. That's the opposite of a free market... it's technically a black market, a market based on stolen goods and properties, and one that is (almost) never better for society than an open free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DMCA is detrimental to the economy .
The DMCA works to stifle innovation , in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.Protectionist policies , like this one , are seldom a good idea .
The free market always did better .
What ? That has nothing to do with the issue in question.A free market can not operate without legal protection from fraud and theft.These guys were trying to hack themselves some free TV and make a business stealing from DirectTV .
That 's the opposite of a free market... it 's technically a black market , a market based on stolen goods and properties , and one that is ( almost ) never better for society than an open free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DMCA is detrimental to the economy.
The DMCA works to stifle innovation, in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.Protectionist policies, like this one, are seldom a good idea.
The free market always did better.
What? That has nothing to do with the issue in question.A free market cannot operate without legal protection from fraud and theft.These guys were trying to hack themselves some free TV and make a business stealing from DirectTV.
That's the opposite of a free market... it's technically a black market, a market based on stolen goods and properties, and one that is (almost) never better for society than an open free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723189</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>Pandrake</author>
	<datestamp>1247740800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Breaking encryption should never be a crime.</p></div></blockquote><p>Agreed.</p><blockquote><div><p>The satellite companies ahve a very weak business model. It involves sending information into everyoens house.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then what could be a stronger business model that delivers information (television signal, both satellite and non-satellite) into homes in a manner that is cheaper than competitors which doesn't involve encryption so that people cannot receive their service for free and offer their service to consumers as a competitor just as (or only a little more than) free?</p><blockquote><div><p> If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm think'n the chip inside the receiver needs to be covered in epoxy, like the Nintendo game cubes used to to. You're not breaking the law trying to decrypt the chip, but you are breaking the chip - which simply prevents people from stealing the service and making it extremely difficult to decrypt the signal by any other means (which is the whole point of selling the receiver with encryption in the first place). What's your idea? Other than to let all delivery of TV signals slip into an unsustainable business model of "free for all" ideology, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Breaking encryption should never be a crime.Agreed.The satellite companies ahve a very weak business model .
It involves sending information into everyoens house.Then what could be a stronger business model that delivers information ( television signal , both satellite and non-satellite ) into homes in a manner that is cheaper than competitors which does n't involve encryption so that people can not receive their service for free and offer their service to consumers as a competitor just as ( or only a little more than ) free ?
If consumers find another way to view the data in their house , then tough tits for the satellite company.I 'm think'n the chip inside the receiver needs to be covered in epoxy , like the Nintendo game cubes used to to .
You 're not breaking the law trying to decrypt the chip , but you are breaking the chip - which simply prevents people from stealing the service and making it extremely difficult to decrypt the signal by any other means ( which is the whole point of selling the receiver with encryption in the first place ) .
What 's your idea ?
Other than to let all delivery of TV signals slip into an unsustainable business model of " free for all " ideology , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breaking encryption should never be a crime.Agreed.The satellite companies ahve a very weak business model.
It involves sending information into everyoens house.Then what could be a stronger business model that delivers information (television signal, both satellite and non-satellite) into homes in a manner that is cheaper than competitors which doesn't involve encryption so that people cannot receive their service for free and offer their service to consumers as a competitor just as (or only a little more than) free?
If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.I'm think'n the chip inside the receiver needs to be covered in epoxy, like the Nintendo game cubes used to to.
You're not breaking the law trying to decrypt the chip, but you are breaking the chip - which simply prevents people from stealing the service and making it extremely difficult to decrypt the signal by any other means (which is the whole point of selling the receiver with encryption in the first place).
What's your idea?
Other than to let all delivery of TV signals slip into an unsustainable business model of "free for all" ideology, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737733</id>
	<title>Re:I agree with the feds on this one</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1247844540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you own a drive in theater, and I live nearby with a direct line of site of the theater, and someone sells me a radio that I use to receive the audio from the movie, and I sit on my porch every night and enjoy a different movie, all for free.... Is this a crime?</i></p><p>How about this:  you're my business's neighbor.  I want you as my ally, not my adversary, so when I want to do an expansion you come down to the zoning board and testify.</p><p>As the owner, I realize most of my customers are going to drive in, buy tickets, and even more importantly, soda and corn dogs.  So the guy who sits out on the side of the road on top of a 12' ladder setup in the bed of his pickup with binoculars and a parabolic mic aren't even on my radar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you own a drive in theater , and I live nearby with a direct line of site of the theater , and someone sells me a radio that I use to receive the audio from the movie , and I sit on my porch every night and enjoy a different movie , all for free.... Is this a crime ? How about this : you 're my business 's neighbor .
I want you as my ally , not my adversary , so when I want to do an expansion you come down to the zoning board and testify.As the owner , I realize most of my customers are going to drive in , buy tickets , and even more importantly , soda and corn dogs .
So the guy who sits out on the side of the road on top of a 12 ' ladder setup in the bed of his pickup with binoculars and a parabolic mic are n't even on my radar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you own a drive in theater, and I live nearby with a direct line of site of the theater, and someone sells me a radio that I use to receive the audio from the movie, and I sit on my porch every night and enjoy a different movie, all for free.... Is this a crime?How about this:  you're my business's neighbor.
I want you as my ally, not my adversary, so when I want to do an expansion you come down to the zoning board and testify.As the owner, I realize most of my customers are going to drive in, buy tickets, and even more importantly, soda and corn dogs.
So the guy who sits out on the side of the road on top of a 12' ladder setup in the bed of his pickup with binoculars and a parabolic mic aren't even on my radar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722187</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Bigby</author>
	<datestamp>1247736420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you treat the two differently?  Whether it is a company or a person, both entities are looking to violate or actually violating something.  If you can't treat individuals special or you introduce a loophole for companies to farm out their violations to individuals...actually quite similar to this instance.</p><p>Also, what does cracking the encryption have to do with copyright?  Cracking it doesn't mean you watched/streamed any channels.  Also, to what TV channels does Dish actually own a copyright?  How can they enforce someone else's copyright?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you treat the two differently ?
Whether it is a company or a person , both entities are looking to violate or actually violating something .
If you ca n't treat individuals special or you introduce a loophole for companies to farm out their violations to individuals...actually quite similar to this instance.Also , what does cracking the encryption have to do with copyright ?
Cracking it does n't mean you watched/streamed any channels .
Also , to what TV channels does Dish actually own a copyright ?
How can they enforce someone else 's copyright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you treat the two differently?
Whether it is a company or a person, both entities are looking to violate or actually violating something.
If you can't treat individuals special or you introduce a loophole for companies to farm out their violations to individuals...actually quite similar to this instance.Also, what does cracking the encryption have to do with copyright?
Cracking it doesn't mean you watched/streamed any channels.
Also, to what TV channels does Dish actually own a copyright?
How can they enforce someone else's copyright?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721719</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like awarding money to somebody's grant proposal so they can actually get the Nobel prize winning thing done.</p><p>Seriously, a conspiracy requires an overt act, the summary alone covers several.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like awarding money to somebody 's grant proposal so they can actually get the Nobel prize winning thing done.Seriously , a conspiracy requires an overt act , the summary alone covers several .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like awarding money to somebody's grant proposal so they can actually get the Nobel prize winning thing done.Seriously, a conspiracy requires an overt act, the summary alone covers several.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722237</id>
	<title>Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law?</title>
	<author>KylePflug</author>
	<datestamp>1247736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that's like awarding a sentence for "attempted" murder.</p><p>Or should we always wait until irreversible damage is done before we prosecute criminals? You'll find that every legal jurisdiction in the world has some concept of conspiracy culpability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's like awarding a sentence for " attempted " murder.Or should we always wait until irreversible damage is done before we prosecute criminals ?
You 'll find that every legal jurisdiction in the world has some concept of conspiracy culpability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's like awarding a sentence for "attempted" murder.Or should we always wait until irreversible damage is done before we prosecute criminals?
You'll find that every legal jurisdiction in the world has some concept of conspiracy culpability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28747427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28728289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28739071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28728191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28728897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28755125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28730809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28733757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28747405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28735459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28731245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1913227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28731245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28733757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28730809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28747427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722647
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737753
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28728191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28728289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722313
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722779
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723697
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737733
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28735459
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722511
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727097
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723593
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722621
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724905
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725149
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28737537
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722323
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723173
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722931
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724487
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723547
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722659
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28723133
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28726273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28725915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28739071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28727043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28747405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28722271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28755125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28728897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28724429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1913227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1913227.28721435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
