<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_30_1857241</id>
	<title>3 Strikes &mdash; Denying Physics Won't Save the Video Stars</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256889660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:folderol@fancypants.org" rel="nofollow">Philip K D</a> writes <i>"Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow has an editorial in today's Times of London.  Doctorow elegantly <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest\_contributors/article6896049.ece">eviscerates the basic injustice posed by the imminent Mandelson '3 Strikes' law</a> in Britain. He makes the explicit observation: 'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. It isn't just a conduit for getting a few naughty free movies, it is the circulatory system of the information age.'  It is worth noting that Doctorow was influential in the creation of the Creative Commons. He has enjoyed considerable commercial success for his writings, owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying."</i>
In related news, the UK's second-largest ISP, TalkTalk, is now <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/29/talktalk-threatens-legal-action-mandelson">threatening legal action</a> if Mandelson's plan goes through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Philip K D writes " Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow has an editorial in today 's Times of London .
Doctorow elegantly eviscerates the basic injustice posed by the imminent Mandelson '3 Strikes ' law in Britain .
He makes the explicit observation : 'The internet is an integral part of our children 's education ; it 's critical to our employment ; it 's how we stay in touch with distant relatives .
It 's how we engage with government .
It 's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech , freedom of the press and freedom of assembly .
It is n't just a conduit for getting a few naughty free movies , it is the circulatory system of the information age .
' It is worth noting that Doctorow was influential in the creation of the Creative Commons .
He has enjoyed considerable commercial success for his writings , owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying .
" In related news , the UK 's second-largest ISP , TalkTalk , is now threatening legal action if Mandelson 's plan goes through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Philip K D writes "Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow has an editorial in today's Times of London.
Doctorow elegantly eviscerates the basic injustice posed by the imminent Mandelson '3 Strikes' law in Britain.
He makes the explicit observation: 'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives.
It's how we engage with government.
It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
It isn't just a conduit for getting a few naughty free movies, it is the circulatory system of the information age.
'  It is worth noting that Doctorow was influential in the creation of the Creative Commons.
He has enjoyed considerable commercial success for his writings, owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying.
"
In related news, the UK's second-largest ISP, TalkTalk, is now threatening legal action if Mandelson's plan goes through.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929391</id>
	<title>Mu yourself</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256900400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is perfectly valid; it presupposes that people are illegally downloading copyrighted content. Which they are.</p><p>If you're going to try to "unask" the question on the basis that it makes an invalid supposition you'll have to try to argue that no one is illegally downloading content. Good luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is perfectly valid ; it presupposes that people are illegally downloading copyrighted content .
Which they are.If you 're going to try to " unask " the question on the basis that it makes an invalid supposition you 'll have to try to argue that no one is illegally downloading content .
Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is perfectly valid; it presupposes that people are illegally downloading copyrighted content.
Which they are.If you're going to try to "unask" the question on the basis that it makes an invalid supposition you'll have to try to argue that no one is illegally downloading content.
Good luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928837</id>
	<title>Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256896800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems easy. Let the law pass. Then start accusing people in power of copyright infringment to get their internet turned off. Then, because the people in power won't have the laws apply to them (as usual), accuse their families, then their family's family. You then systematically create a society with no internet access.</p><p>Now, if the law is written that a specific named company (or companies) are immune, legally change you name to the same as the company, then infringe all you want (because you will be named in the law! woohoo! that is step 2 in the 3 profit steps BTW, the ???).</p><p>At this point, it is *OBVIOUS* that the people making these sorts of laws are in no way acting out of their own opinion on the matter (well, if favoring the people who line your pockets is an opinion, then ignore my last statement).</p><p>At this point though, everyone should just go re-read "A Modest Proposal" and start using satire/ubsurdity to make a point, because being reasonable certainly doesn't work any more.</p><p>[/cynicism]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems easy .
Let the law pass .
Then start accusing people in power of copyright infringment to get their internet turned off .
Then , because the people in power wo n't have the laws apply to them ( as usual ) , accuse their families , then their family 's family .
You then systematically create a society with no internet access.Now , if the law is written that a specific named company ( or companies ) are immune , legally change you name to the same as the company , then infringe all you want ( because you will be named in the law !
woohoo ! that is step 2 in the 3 profit steps BTW , the ? ? ?
) .At this point , it is * OBVIOUS * that the people making these sorts of laws are in no way acting out of their own opinion on the matter ( well , if favoring the people who line your pockets is an opinion , then ignore my last statement ) .At this point though , everyone should just go re-read " A Modest Proposal " and start using satire/ubsurdity to make a point , because being reasonable certainly does n't work any more .
[ /cynicism ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems easy.
Let the law pass.
Then start accusing people in power of copyright infringment to get their internet turned off.
Then, because the people in power won't have the laws apply to them (as usual), accuse their families, then their family's family.
You then systematically create a society with no internet access.Now, if the law is written that a specific named company (or companies) are immune, legally change you name to the same as the company, then infringe all you want (because you will be named in the law!
woohoo! that is step 2 in the 3 profit steps BTW, the ???
).At this point, it is *OBVIOUS* that the people making these sorts of laws are in no way acting out of their own opinion on the matter (well, if favoring the people who line your pockets is an opinion, then ignore my last statement).At this point though, everyone should just go re-read "A Modest Proposal" and start using satire/ubsurdity to make a point, because being reasonable certainly doesn't work any more.
[/cynicism]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932815</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You download Brazil for yourself here:</p><p>http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4045942/Brazil\_1985.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You download Brazil for yourself here : http : //thepiratebay.org/torrent/4045942/Brazil \ _1985 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You download Brazil for yourself here:http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4045942/Brazil\_1985.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929481</id>
	<title>Re:let them pass all the laws they want</title>
	<author>Yogiz</author>
	<datestamp>1256901120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fucking care.</p><p>I'm sick and tired of everybody here cheering that "Internet routes around such damage etc." and  proposing that we should just let them do that to us.</p><p>That's just idiotic. Every day I'm hearing of tougher and more unjust laws being proposed by these people and every now and then these laws are accepted and become parts of our justice system. Every time a law like this gets passed we move closer and closer to the point in time where your explanation that you just "routed around damage" will no longer save you from going to jail or becoming bankrupt.</p><p>They are changing the world for the worse and I do not intend to sit and let that happen. You say they are already defeated. I do not see that. I only see that they are interfering with my life more and more each day while still making tremendous profits and gaining more power.</p><p>I'm afraid that in ten years I can be put in jail for downloading tor or for refusing the media companies to take my computer in for a compulsory check for illegally downloaded media.</p><p>Open you fucking eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fucking care.I 'm sick and tired of everybody here cheering that " Internet routes around such damage etc .
" and proposing that we should just let them do that to us.That 's just idiotic .
Every day I 'm hearing of tougher and more unjust laws being proposed by these people and every now and then these laws are accepted and become parts of our justice system .
Every time a law like this gets passed we move closer and closer to the point in time where your explanation that you just " routed around damage " will no longer save you from going to jail or becoming bankrupt.They are changing the world for the worse and I do not intend to sit and let that happen .
You say they are already defeated .
I do not see that .
I only see that they are interfering with my life more and more each day while still making tremendous profits and gaining more power.I 'm afraid that in ten years I can be put in jail for downloading tor or for refusing the media companies to take my computer in for a compulsory check for illegally downloaded media.Open you fucking eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fucking care.I'm sick and tired of everybody here cheering that "Internet routes around such damage etc.
" and  proposing that we should just let them do that to us.That's just idiotic.
Every day I'm hearing of tougher and more unjust laws being proposed by these people and every now and then these laws are accepted and become parts of our justice system.
Every time a law like this gets passed we move closer and closer to the point in time where your explanation that you just "routed around damage" will no longer save you from going to jail or becoming bankrupt.They are changing the world for the worse and I do not intend to sit and let that happen.
You say they are already defeated.
I do not see that.
I only see that they are interfering with my life more and more each day while still making tremendous profits and gaining more power.I'm afraid that in ten years I can be put in jail for downloading tor or for refusing the media companies to take my computer in for a compulsory check for illegally downloaded media.Open you fucking eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929711</id>
	<title>Piracy happens because of the high costs</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1256902560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of the things being pirated. The RIAA and MPAA should offer the lowest possible prices that still allow them to earn a profit and then sell at more reasonable prices. That would put big cuts in piracy of materials. Sell in quantities at lower prices, rather than sell less at higher prices and force poor people who cannot afford the materials into piracy.</p><p>Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials, but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free.</p><p><a href="http://www.hulu.com/" title="hulu.com">Hulu</a> [hulu.com] was a good idea, free TV shows and movies but with commercials. The RIAA and MPAA need to make a free access Hulu like site for videos, movies, TV shows, songs, music videos, etc and offer commercials in-between them for making money. Paid members can have the commercials removed and then buy the media for a low cost to download it to their computer or media playing device. The Internet is really based on a free content model of business, people don't want to pay access for a web site, but they do want to pay low prices to download media.</p><p>If the RIAA and MPAA did a Hulu like site, then there wouldn't be any need for media piracy as you could watch all you wanted for free, and then pay a small fee to download the media file you watched to your computer or media playing device. Commercials will pay for such free sites, and paying members can skip the commercials.</p><p>But I doubt the RIAA or MPAA would do that, as it makes too much common sense, and they are more of suing people for downloading content and are in fact suing their fans and customers. That makes a bad business model and gives bad PR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of the things being pirated .
The RIAA and MPAA should offer the lowest possible prices that still allow them to earn a profit and then sell at more reasonable prices .
That would put big cuts in piracy of materials .
Sell in quantities at lower prices , rather than sell less at higher prices and force poor people who can not afford the materials into piracy.Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials , but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free.Hulu [ hulu.com ] was a good idea , free TV shows and movies but with commercials .
The RIAA and MPAA need to make a free access Hulu like site for videos , movies , TV shows , songs , music videos , etc and offer commercials in-between them for making money .
Paid members can have the commercials removed and then buy the media for a low cost to download it to their computer or media playing device .
The Internet is really based on a free content model of business , people do n't want to pay access for a web site , but they do want to pay low prices to download media.If the RIAA and MPAA did a Hulu like site , then there would n't be any need for media piracy as you could watch all you wanted for free , and then pay a small fee to download the media file you watched to your computer or media playing device .
Commercials will pay for such free sites , and paying members can skip the commercials.But I doubt the RIAA or MPAA would do that , as it makes too much common sense , and they are more of suing people for downloading content and are in fact suing their fans and customers .
That makes a bad business model and gives bad PR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of the things being pirated.
The RIAA and MPAA should offer the lowest possible prices that still allow them to earn a profit and then sell at more reasonable prices.
That would put big cuts in piracy of materials.
Sell in quantities at lower prices, rather than sell less at higher prices and force poor people who cannot afford the materials into piracy.Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials, but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free.Hulu [hulu.com] was a good idea, free TV shows and movies but with commercials.
The RIAA and MPAA need to make a free access Hulu like site for videos, movies, TV shows, songs, music videos, etc and offer commercials in-between them for making money.
Paid members can have the commercials removed and then buy the media for a low cost to download it to their computer or media playing device.
The Internet is really based on a free content model of business, people don't want to pay access for a web site, but they do want to pay low prices to download media.If the RIAA and MPAA did a Hulu like site, then there wouldn't be any need for media piracy as you could watch all you wanted for free, and then pay a small fee to download the media file you watched to your computer or media playing device.
Commercials will pay for such free sites, and paying members can skip the commercials.But I doubt the RIAA or MPAA would do that, as it makes too much common sense, and they are more of suing people for downloading content and are in fact suing their fans and customers.
That makes a bad business model and gives bad PR.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.30018758</id>
	<title>Internet is like a phone and like the road</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1257609420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Denying people access to the phone has been done but only under the most extreme circumstances and you hardly ever hear about it.  Access to telephone is so important that it would be unimaginable to deny anyone access to it as it would deny people access to their own government quite often.</p><p>Denying people access to [driving on] the roads is also been done but only under the most extreme criminal circumstances such as too many accidents, drunk driving, etc.  Even vehicular manslaughter does not automatically deny one access to roads.</p><p>The internet is quickly becoming so tightly integrated with society that cutting people off of the internet would be to cut them off of society... and their government.  And for what?  At whose request is all this going to happen?  A special interest group and business model (copyright) that exists because of permission granted by "the people" and routinely abuses those same people.</p><p>I think it is beyond the time to visit the purpose and intent of copyright and correct the areas where current law and practice exceed the purpose and intent or fails to fulfill the purpose and intent.  Following this, we can talk about appropriate remedies for any civil abuses of copyrighted material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Denying people access to the phone has been done but only under the most extreme circumstances and you hardly ever hear about it .
Access to telephone is so important that it would be unimaginable to deny anyone access to it as it would deny people access to their own government quite often.Denying people access to [ driving on ] the roads is also been done but only under the most extreme criminal circumstances such as too many accidents , drunk driving , etc .
Even vehicular manslaughter does not automatically deny one access to roads.The internet is quickly becoming so tightly integrated with society that cutting people off of the internet would be to cut them off of society... and their government .
And for what ?
At whose request is all this going to happen ?
A special interest group and business model ( copyright ) that exists because of permission granted by " the people " and routinely abuses those same people.I think it is beyond the time to visit the purpose and intent of copyright and correct the areas where current law and practice exceed the purpose and intent or fails to fulfill the purpose and intent .
Following this , we can talk about appropriate remedies for any civil abuses of copyrighted material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Denying people access to the phone has been done but only under the most extreme circumstances and you hardly ever hear about it.
Access to telephone is so important that it would be unimaginable to deny anyone access to it as it would deny people access to their own government quite often.Denying people access to [driving on] the roads is also been done but only under the most extreme criminal circumstances such as too many accidents, drunk driving, etc.
Even vehicular manslaughter does not automatically deny one access to roads.The internet is quickly becoming so tightly integrated with society that cutting people off of the internet would be to cut them off of society... and their government.
And for what?
At whose request is all this going to happen?
A special interest group and business model (copyright) that exists because of permission granted by "the people" and routinely abuses those same people.I think it is beyond the time to visit the purpose and intent of copyright and correct the areas where current law and practice exceed the purpose and intent or fails to fulfill the purpose and intent.
Following this, we can talk about appropriate remedies for any civil abuses of copyrighted material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932777</id>
	<title>I pirate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257022020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pirate because I'm deaf. I can't use streamed media because it doesn't have subtitles. In my country, I can't watch what I want because the captioning just isn't there. Some of the DVDs that are sold here have no subtitles, yet the Zone 1 DVDs sold in America have English SDH subtitles. And the last thing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I pirate because I can't EVER go to movie theaters, yet the movie studios think it smart to release DVDs a few months later in the American market THEN a few weeks later in my country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pirate because I 'm deaf .
I ca n't use streamed media because it does n't have subtitles .
In my country , I ca n't watch what I want because the captioning just is n't there .
Some of the DVDs that are sold here have no subtitles , yet the Zone 1 DVDs sold in America have English SDH subtitles .
And the last thing ... I pirate because I ca n't EVER go to movie theaters , yet the movie studios think it smart to release DVDs a few months later in the American market THEN a few weeks later in my country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pirate because I'm deaf.
I can't use streamed media because it doesn't have subtitles.
In my country, I can't watch what I want because the captioning just isn't there.
Some of the DVDs that are sold here have no subtitles, yet the Zone 1 DVDs sold in America have English SDH subtitles.
And the last thing ... I pirate because I can't EVER go to movie theaters, yet the movie studios think it smart to release DVDs a few months later in the American market THEN a few weeks later in my country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928993</id>
	<title>Re:let them pass all the laws they want</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1256897580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya know, I kinda feel like I should go find all those old conversations we used to have on Kuro5hin where you expressed the exact opposite opinion.  Back then you were pro-copyright and felt the Internet was going to be destroyed by law makers.  Have you changed your tune on illicit drugs yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , I kinda feel like I should go find all those old conversations we used to have on Kuro5hin where you expressed the exact opposite opinion .
Back then you were pro-copyright and felt the Internet was going to be destroyed by law makers .
Have you changed your tune on illicit drugs yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, I kinda feel like I should go find all those old conversations we used to have on Kuro5hin where you expressed the exact opposite opinion.
Back then you were pro-copyright and felt the Internet was going to be destroyed by law makers.
Have you changed your tune on illicit drugs yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</id>
	<title>So what then ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256893560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ? Obviously the '3 strikes' isn't the answer to you, so what is ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if this is n't the answer , how do you propose that illegal software downloads , copyright infringing video clips on youtube , and illegal downloading of mp3 music * should * be handled ?
Obviously the '3 strikes ' is n't the answer to you , so what is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ?
Obviously the '3 strikes' isn't the answer to you, so what is ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930659</id>
	<title>Re:So what then ?</title>
	<author>scot4875</author>
	<datestamp>1256908380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what the parent poster is asking is how to handle a habitual "infringer", with the assumption that they have been caught and "convicted" multiple times.</p><p>Everyone has responded by throwing a fit that one only has to be accused 3 times, with no due process, and that is bad.  Well, of course it is.  Here's a gold star for everyone insightful enough to point this out.  No reasonable person would argue against due process.  (note: reasonable person)  Clearly, as it is written now, it's a bad law.</p><p>Instead, maybe someone should try to answer the question.  Assuming there's a method to catch and "convict" copyright infringers, how do you deal with habitual offenders?  Community service, IMO.  Personally, I don't want to waste tax dollars on jail time.</p><p>--Jeremy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what the parent poster is asking is how to handle a habitual " infringer " , with the assumption that they have been caught and " convicted " multiple times.Everyone has responded by throwing a fit that one only has to be accused 3 times , with no due process , and that is bad .
Well , of course it is .
Here 's a gold star for everyone insightful enough to point this out .
No reasonable person would argue against due process .
( note : reasonable person ) Clearly , as it is written now , it 's a bad law.Instead , maybe someone should try to answer the question .
Assuming there 's a method to catch and " convict " copyright infringers , how do you deal with habitual offenders ?
Community service , IMO .
Personally , I do n't want to waste tax dollars on jail time.--Jeremy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what the parent poster is asking is how to handle a habitual "infringer", with the assumption that they have been caught and "convicted" multiple times.Everyone has responded by throwing a fit that one only has to be accused 3 times, with no due process, and that is bad.
Well, of course it is.
Here's a gold star for everyone insightful enough to point this out.
No reasonable person would argue against due process.
(note: reasonable person)  Clearly, as it is written now, it's a bad law.Instead, maybe someone should try to answer the question.
Assuming there's a method to catch and "convict" copyright infringers, how do you deal with habitual offenders?
Community service, IMO.
Personally, I don't want to waste tax dollars on jail time.--Jeremy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934091</id>
	<title>Re:heh.</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1257000480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the real reason behind slime-balls like Mandelson signing up to legislation that targets downloaders is to restrict freedom of speech on the internet.</p></div><p>That's a serious charge, and I don't see the evidence for it.  It seems much more likely that it is about protecting intellectual property.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real reason behind slime-balls like Mandelson signing up to legislation that targets downloaders is to restrict freedom of speech on the internet.That 's a serious charge , and I do n't see the evidence for it .
It seems much more likely that it is about protecting intellectual property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real reason behind slime-balls like Mandelson signing up to legislation that targets downloaders is to restrict freedom of speech on the internet.That's a serious charge, and I don't see the evidence for it.
It seems much more likely that it is about protecting intellectual property.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930275</id>
	<title>Here's one solution</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1256906100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'd do it by telling all these folks with digital products that because it is SO cheap now to make copies, so cheap and so easy, that society has made an historical breakthrough in eliminating "want" and scarcity in an entire class of products, with this digital replicator technology, which is in the "public good" because our "arts and sciences" made a TREMENDOUS leap forward when this happened in the gestalt; that they either get real and charge a sane fair price, such as perhaps a full 100\% markup over bandwith costs for transfer and no more, and make their money on just much larger and legal mass volume sales then, because there is no scarcity now, or that they lose all copyright protections and it goes into public domain instantly if they attempt blatant price gouging by charging 100,000\% markup or similar, like they do now, or try to.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Charging folding dollars for a few cents worth of download bandwith is nuts, it's a ripoff and a dangerous precedent for the future as tangible replicators get developed.</p><p>
&nbsp; Now, if they did that, adopted rules that really reflect advances in technology, then society could still get strict then on really cheap people who wouldn't even pay that now really small and much more fair price as well. I think "cracking down" then would be justified.</p><p>
&nbsp; What they are doing is trying to maintain the completely junk science totally debunkable viewpoint that these digital copies are a "scarce resource", like they were with wax cylinders and vinyl and plastic tape holder conraptions or even a simple spinning plastic disk, <i>when they are not</i>.</p><p>
&nbsp; They should NOT be allowed to charge those huge sums for digital copies. Yes, this would require some serious paradigm shifting of the copyright laws, but those copyright laws are all man made, artificial constructs first designed for a much earlier age with primitive technology, and they are not a natural law, and as such, we-society as we-could and should adopt and change the laws as technological circumstances change.</p><p>
&nbsp; Blatant price gouging and relegating digital technology into the past, locking it down and carving in stone some huge no longer necessary markup for these products is no more than enforced legal Luddism and is abhorrent to the true advancement of the arts and sciences "in the public good" when they insist on such ludicrous prices. It is NOT in the public good for them to get away with that.</p><p>
&nbsp; The law just shouldn't treat them the same as truly scarce tangible copies which have much higher production and distribution costs. Times have changed, and oh ya they changed copyright law-for the worse, not the better.</p><p>BTW Mr. AC, your post was not a troll, it was a legit and honest question. Mods, please fix that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'd do it by telling all these folks with digital products that because it is SO cheap now to make copies , so cheap and so easy , that society has made an historical breakthrough in eliminating " want " and scarcity in an entire class of products , with this digital replicator technology , which is in the " public good " because our " arts and sciences " made a TREMENDOUS leap forward when this happened in the gestalt ; that they either get real and charge a sane fair price , such as perhaps a full 100 \ % markup over bandwith costs for transfer and no more , and make their money on just much larger and legal mass volume sales then , because there is no scarcity now , or that they lose all copyright protections and it goes into public domain instantly if they attempt blatant price gouging by charging 100,000 \ % markup or similar , like they do now , or try to .
    Charging folding dollars for a few cents worth of download bandwith is nuts , it 's a ripoff and a dangerous precedent for the future as tangible replicators get developed .
  Now , if they did that , adopted rules that really reflect advances in technology , then society could still get strict then on really cheap people who would n't even pay that now really small and much more fair price as well .
I think " cracking down " then would be justified .
  What they are doing is trying to maintain the completely junk science totally debunkable viewpoint that these digital copies are a " scarce resource " , like they were with wax cylinders and vinyl and plastic tape holder conraptions or even a simple spinning plastic disk , when they are not .
  They should NOT be allowed to charge those huge sums for digital copies .
Yes , this would require some serious paradigm shifting of the copyright laws , but those copyright laws are all man made , artificial constructs first designed for a much earlier age with primitive technology , and they are not a natural law , and as such , we-society as we-could and should adopt and change the laws as technological circumstances change .
  Blatant price gouging and relegating digital technology into the past , locking it down and carving in stone some huge no longer necessary markup for these products is no more than enforced legal Luddism and is abhorrent to the true advancement of the arts and sciences " in the public good " when they insist on such ludicrous prices .
It is NOT in the public good for them to get away with that .
  The law just should n't treat them the same as truly scarce tangible copies which have much higher production and distribution costs .
Times have changed , and oh ya they changed copyright law-for the worse , not the better.BTW Mr. AC , your post was not a troll , it was a legit and honest question .
Mods , please fix that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'd do it by telling all these folks with digital products that because it is SO cheap now to make copies, so cheap and so easy, that society has made an historical breakthrough in eliminating "want" and scarcity in an entire class of products, with this digital replicator technology, which is in the "public good" because our "arts and sciences" made a TREMENDOUS leap forward when this happened in the gestalt; that they either get real and charge a sane fair price, such as perhaps a full 100\% markup over bandwith costs for transfer and no more, and make their money on just much larger and legal mass volume sales then, because there is no scarcity now, or that they lose all copyright protections and it goes into public domain instantly if they attempt blatant price gouging by charging 100,000\% markup or similar, like they do now, or try to.
    Charging folding dollars for a few cents worth of download bandwith is nuts, it's a ripoff and a dangerous precedent for the future as tangible replicators get developed.
  Now, if they did that, adopted rules that really reflect advances in technology, then society could still get strict then on really cheap people who wouldn't even pay that now really small and much more fair price as well.
I think "cracking down" then would be justified.
  What they are doing is trying to maintain the completely junk science totally debunkable viewpoint that these digital copies are a "scarce resource", like they were with wax cylinders and vinyl and plastic tape holder conraptions or even a simple spinning plastic disk, when they are not.
  They should NOT be allowed to charge those huge sums for digital copies.
Yes, this would require some serious paradigm shifting of the copyright laws, but those copyright laws are all man made, artificial constructs first designed for a much earlier age with primitive technology, and they are not a natural law, and as such, we-society as we-could and should adopt and change the laws as technological circumstances change.
  Blatant price gouging and relegating digital technology into the past, locking it down and carving in stone some huge no longer necessary markup for these products is no more than enforced legal Luddism and is abhorrent to the true advancement of the arts and sciences "in the public good" when they insist on such ludicrous prices.
It is NOT in the public good for them to get away with that.
  The law just shouldn't treat them the same as truly scarce tangible copies which have much higher production and distribution costs.
Times have changed, and oh ya they changed copyright law-for the worse, not the better.BTW Mr. AC, your post was not a troll, it was a legit and honest question.
Mods, please fix that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934427</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its sad that the 'small government' people are cozying up to dictators, warlords, and thugs because they envy success done with the large modern state which is almost always democratic, free market, and free speech.</p></div><p>I know quite a few Objectivists and libertarians, and I'm unaware of this "cozying".  To the extent that there is admiration of countries like China, Hong Kong, and Australia, it is to the extent that these countries have been recently increasing their freedom.</p><p>Of course, none of these countries relegates government to its proper role of protecting the individual, but they are on a trend of increasing economic freedom, whereas the U.S. is trending toward decreasing economic freedom.</p><p>The economic controls in the U.S. have caused a steady exodus of wealth creation.  I don't think we're at the tipping point, but at some point the stifling lack of freedom in the U.S. will push people to emigrate to countries that are more respectful of freedom.</p><p>I'm also not so optimistic about social freedoms in the U.S.  The West made huge progress, as you indicated, but with the growth of things like "hate crimes" and "hate speech", and the tamp down on political speech - I fear it is also headed in the wrong direction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its sad that the 'small government ' people are cozying up to dictators , warlords , and thugs because they envy success done with the large modern state which is almost always democratic , free market , and free speech.I know quite a few Objectivists and libertarians , and I 'm unaware of this " cozying " .
To the extent that there is admiration of countries like China , Hong Kong , and Australia , it is to the extent that these countries have been recently increasing their freedom.Of course , none of these countries relegates government to its proper role of protecting the individual , but they are on a trend of increasing economic freedom , whereas the U.S. is trending toward decreasing economic freedom.The economic controls in the U.S. have caused a steady exodus of wealth creation .
I do n't think we 're at the tipping point , but at some point the stifling lack of freedom in the U.S. will push people to emigrate to countries that are more respectful of freedom.I 'm also not so optimistic about social freedoms in the U.S. The West made huge progress , as you indicated , but with the growth of things like " hate crimes " and " hate speech " , and the tamp down on political speech - I fear it is also headed in the wrong direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its sad that the 'small government' people are cozying up to dictators, warlords, and thugs because they envy success done with the large modern state which is almost always democratic, free market, and free speech.I know quite a few Objectivists and libertarians, and I'm unaware of this "cozying".
To the extent that there is admiration of countries like China, Hong Kong, and Australia, it is to the extent that these countries have been recently increasing their freedom.Of course, none of these countries relegates government to its proper role of protecting the individual, but they are on a trend of increasing economic freedom, whereas the U.S. is trending toward decreasing economic freedom.The economic controls in the U.S. have caused a steady exodus of wealth creation.
I don't think we're at the tipping point, but at some point the stifling lack of freedom in the U.S. will push people to emigrate to countries that are more respectful of freedom.I'm also not so optimistic about social freedoms in the U.S.  The West made huge progress, as you indicated, but with the growth of things like "hate crimes" and "hate speech", and the tamp down on political speech - I fear it is also headed in the wrong direction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29940895</id>
	<title>Re:"Three strikes" to ensure wide encryption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say if someone really wanted to have fun with encryption, they could use it and stenographic methods for embedding media, data, and software in other bandwidth-heavy media. And the app for doing so shouldn't be much different than other encrypting software so the whole process is as easy as zipping files. Thus you could put something like a small music playlist or some abandonware within hour long video. If done right, the video will play normally as a video when using media players and common codecs, while your bonus goodies will be interpreted as noise. But those with the cryptographic/stenographic embedding software and the magic keywords will be able to get access the other data you're sharing.</p><p>The thing is though, if you make the content of the container media file interesting enough, you'll have people sharing your other files without even knowing it. To these people it will appear as a video with funny cartoons, people doing stupid stuff, or porn and not as your typical encrypted file. And because of the nature of how stenography works - until somebody leaks or snitches, good luck in identifying the videos with the bonus goodies. I guess the tricky part would be figuring the right schema for a "circle of trust" in key distribution that allows access to the hidden content layer(s). Basically you'd want to keep that circle small enough so that the container has time to spread on it's own, before expanding how public the keys are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say if someone really wanted to have fun with encryption , they could use it and stenographic methods for embedding media , data , and software in other bandwidth-heavy media .
And the app for doing so should n't be much different than other encrypting software so the whole process is as easy as zipping files .
Thus you could put something like a small music playlist or some abandonware within hour long video .
If done right , the video will play normally as a video when using media players and common codecs , while your bonus goodies will be interpreted as noise .
But those with the cryptographic/stenographic embedding software and the magic keywords will be able to get access the other data you 're sharing.The thing is though , if you make the content of the container media file interesting enough , you 'll have people sharing your other files without even knowing it .
To these people it will appear as a video with funny cartoons , people doing stupid stuff , or porn and not as your typical encrypted file .
And because of the nature of how stenography works - until somebody leaks or snitches , good luck in identifying the videos with the bonus goodies .
I guess the tricky part would be figuring the right schema for a " circle of trust " in key distribution that allows access to the hidden content layer ( s ) .
Basically you 'd want to keep that circle small enough so that the container has time to spread on it 's own , before expanding how public the keys are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say if someone really wanted to have fun with encryption, they could use it and stenographic methods for embedding media, data, and software in other bandwidth-heavy media.
And the app for doing so shouldn't be much different than other encrypting software so the whole process is as easy as zipping files.
Thus you could put something like a small music playlist or some abandonware within hour long video.
If done right, the video will play normally as a video when using media players and common codecs, while your bonus goodies will be interpreted as noise.
But those with the cryptographic/stenographic embedding software and the magic keywords will be able to get access the other data you're sharing.The thing is though, if you make the content of the container media file interesting enough, you'll have people sharing your other files without even knowing it.
To these people it will appear as a video with funny cartoons, people doing stupid stuff, or porn and not as your typical encrypted file.
And because of the nature of how stenography works - until somebody leaks or snitches, good luck in identifying the videos with the bonus goodies.
I guess the tricky part would be figuring the right schema for a "circle of trust" in key distribution that allows access to the hidden content layer(s).
Basically you'd want to keep that circle small enough so that the container has time to spread on it's own, before expanding how public the keys are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928551</id>
	<title>Re:So what then ?</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1256895300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious solution is to make it legal instead. No more problem with illegal downloads or copyright infringing videos.</p><p>If you then want beyond free-market incentives for certain sectors, then there are any number of ways to pay out such incentives, the simplest of which is simply automatically slapping a levy on any revenue derived directly from such duplications and paying it directly to the creators.</p><p>Much easier to deal with shares of monetary transactions than attempt to prevent the unpreventable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious solution is to make it legal instead .
No more problem with illegal downloads or copyright infringing videos.If you then want beyond free-market incentives for certain sectors , then there are any number of ways to pay out such incentives , the simplest of which is simply automatically slapping a levy on any revenue derived directly from such duplications and paying it directly to the creators.Much easier to deal with shares of monetary transactions than attempt to prevent the unpreventable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious solution is to make it legal instead.
No more problem with illegal downloads or copyright infringing videos.If you then want beyond free-market incentives for certain sectors, then there are any number of ways to pay out such incentives, the simplest of which is simply automatically slapping a levy on any revenue derived directly from such duplications and paying it directly to the creators.Much easier to deal with shares of monetary transactions than attempt to prevent the unpreventable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928641</id>
	<title>Conduits of communication...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256895720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find this proposed 3 strikes law quite baffling. I mean, it's a conduit of communication, just like a telephone, right? I wonder what would happen if there was a 3 strikes law proposed for phones that kicked in if you were found conducting crime over the phone. How silly would that sound?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this proposed 3 strikes law quite baffling .
I mean , it 's a conduit of communication , just like a telephone , right ?
I wonder what would happen if there was a 3 strikes law proposed for phones that kicked in if you were found conducting crime over the phone .
How silly would that sound ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this proposed 3 strikes law quite baffling.
I mean, it's a conduit of communication, just like a telephone, right?
I wonder what would happen if there was a 3 strikes law proposed for phones that kicked in if you were found conducting crime over the phone.
How silly would that sound?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930003</id>
	<title>elected?</title>
	<author>SkunkPussy</author>
	<datestamp>1256904600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>peter mandelson isn't even elected so he should fuck right off - he is in the house of lords and the role of the house of lords is to monitor legislation passed by the house of commons</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>peter mandelson is n't even elected so he should fuck right off - he is in the house of lords and the role of the house of lords is to monitor legislation passed by the house of commons</tokentext>
<sentencetext>peter mandelson isn't even elected so he should fuck right off - he is in the house of lords and the role of the house of lords is to monitor legislation passed by the house of commons</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930017</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256904720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow</p> </div><p>Is this really what first comes to mind when people think of Cory Doctorow? I thought "Disney obsessed douchebag and general internet wanker" would be the more appropriate description.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow Is this really what first comes to mind when people think of Cory Doctorow ?
I thought " Disney obsessed douchebag and general internet wanker " would be the more appropriate description .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow Is this really what first comes to mind when people think of Cory Doctorow?
I thought "Disney obsessed douchebag and general internet wanker" would be the more appropriate description.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929731</id>
	<title>Re:let them pass all the laws they want</title>
	<author>kirillian</author>
	<datestamp>1256902680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One problem...did you ever read 1984? Have you ever considered China? Have you considered the US or the UK the past 60 years or so?

Control the information and you can control the population. It's a very basic premise that doesn't even have to be completely fulfilled for the result to happen...even just controlling part of the information may be enough to control a part of the population or part of what the whole population does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem...did you ever read 1984 ?
Have you ever considered China ?
Have you considered the US or the UK the past 60 years or so ?
Control the information and you can control the population .
It 's a very basic premise that does n't even have to be completely fulfilled for the result to happen...even just controlling part of the information may be enough to control a part of the population or part of what the whole population does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem...did you ever read 1984?
Have you ever considered China?
Have you considered the US or the UK the past 60 years or so?
Control the information and you can control the population.
It's a very basic premise that doesn't even have to be completely fulfilled for the result to happen...even just controlling part of the information may be enough to control a part of the population or part of what the whole population does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929837</id>
	<title>Re:How did we live 'till 1990ies?</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1256903520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but today we use the internet. And shit is relative. If everyone else gets to go on to ebay or whatever, one might feel really bad if one wasn't allowed online.</p><p>It might analogous to, if in the old days, one wasn't allowed to drive a car or use the postal or telephony service or walk the streets because one had used these to carry out crimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but today we use the internet .
And shit is relative .
If everyone else gets to go on to ebay or whatever , one might feel really bad if one was n't allowed online.It might analogous to , if in the old days , one was n't allowed to drive a car or use the postal or telephony service or walk the streets because one had used these to carry out crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but today we use the internet.
And shit is relative.
If everyone else gets to go on to ebay or whatever, one might feel really bad if one wasn't allowed online.It might analogous to, if in the old days, one wasn't allowed to drive a car or use the postal or telephony service or walk the streets because one had used these to carry out crimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929509</id>
	<title>Re:Physics?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1256901420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What bearing does physics have on this?</p></div><p>The point, which you could easily find in the fine article by simply searching for the word 'physics,' - is that all the things which make piracy attractive - cheap fat network pipes, easy access to tons of storage, easy connectivity to millions of people, etc won't go away just because they ratchet up the legal restrictions.  In fact, just the opposite, all of those things will continue to get fatter, cheaper, bigger and better due to engineering progress riding on the back of better applied physics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What bearing does physics have on this ? The point , which you could easily find in the fine article by simply searching for the word 'physics, ' - is that all the things which make piracy attractive - cheap fat network pipes , easy access to tons of storage , easy connectivity to millions of people , etc wo n't go away just because they ratchet up the legal restrictions .
In fact , just the opposite , all of those things will continue to get fatter , cheaper , bigger and better due to engineering progress riding on the back of better applied physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What bearing does physics have on this?The point, which you could easily find in the fine article by simply searching for the word 'physics,' - is that all the things which make piracy attractive - cheap fat network pipes, easy access to tons of storage, easy connectivity to millions of people, etc won't go away just because they ratchet up the legal restrictions.
In fact, just the opposite, all of those things will continue to get fatter, cheaper, bigger and better due to engineering progress riding on the back of better applied physics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929659</id>
	<title>Re:So what then ?</title>
	<author>Dysphoric1</author>
	<datestamp>1256902200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is to do nothing at all. They serve the market, not the other way around. If the market no longer thinks the product they sell is worth paying for, then they have to develop a new product that the market DOES find valuable or they die.</p><p>Their attempts to coerce the market to support their incompetence and unwillingness to adapt is despicable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is to do nothing at all .
They serve the market , not the other way around .
If the market no longer thinks the product they sell is worth paying for , then they have to develop a new product that the market DOES find valuable or they die.Their attempts to coerce the market to support their incompetence and unwillingness to adapt is despicable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is to do nothing at all.
They serve the market, not the other way around.
If the market no longer thinks the product they sell is worth paying for, then they have to develop a new product that the market DOES find valuable or they die.Their attempts to coerce the market to support their incompetence and unwillingness to adapt is despicable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928391</id>
	<title>Hmm.. no</title>
	<author>the\_leander</author>
	<datestamp>1256894580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even assuming the security services don't lynch the dark lord before this goes to the vote, i have to wonder how effective such a law would be. For 20 quid i can get a 3g pay and go modem. No contract, no names, just cash.</p><p>Then we have TOR and i2p, which if the papers are to be believed have the aformentioned services bricking it.</p><p>Still, so long as he keeps getting his back handers, I'm sure everything will work out fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even assuming the security services do n't lynch the dark lord before this goes to the vote , i have to wonder how effective such a law would be .
For 20 quid i can get a 3g pay and go modem .
No contract , no names , just cash.Then we have TOR and i2p , which if the papers are to be believed have the aformentioned services bricking it.Still , so long as he keeps getting his back handers , I 'm sure everything will work out fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even assuming the security services don't lynch the dark lord before this goes to the vote, i have to wonder how effective such a law would be.
For 20 quid i can get a 3g pay and go modem.
No contract, no names, just cash.Then we have TOR and i2p, which if the papers are to be believed have the aformentioned services bricking it.Still, so long as he keeps getting his back handers, I'm sure everything will work out fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929281</id>
	<title>the idea of disconnected from the internet</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1256899560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that the government would be able to disconnect you from the internet after "3 strikes" of copyright infringement is very scary. The internet has become the center of communication. Critics of big companies or opposition parties use it to voice their opinions. Although the British current law will not go to the extreme, I fear that if it passes, other countries will begin to pass more extreme laws until the copyright becomes an excuse to completely silence critics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the government would be able to disconnect you from the internet after " 3 strikes " of copyright infringement is very scary .
The internet has become the center of communication .
Critics of big companies or opposition parties use it to voice their opinions .
Although the British current law will not go to the extreme , I fear that if it passes , other countries will begin to pass more extreme laws until the copyright becomes an excuse to completely silence critics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that the government would be able to disconnect you from the internet after "3 strikes" of copyright infringement is very scary.
The internet has become the center of communication.
Critics of big companies or opposition parties use it to voice their opinions.
Although the British current law will not go to the extreme, I fear that if it passes, other countries will begin to pass more extreme laws until the copyright becomes an excuse to completely silence critics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933283</id>
	<title>Re:heh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256989980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please re-read the statement you quoted.</p><p>Does it say "we haven't eliminated drugs"? No. What it says is that *no progress has been made* in eliminating drugs.</p><p>Now, let's compare that to your examples:</p><p>Science, medicine, doctors and hospitals have all made progress over the last century in reducing the incidence of disease (we even completely eliminated one serious disease from the world) and in reducing death from diseases. People live longer now than they did 100 years ago.</p><p>We fund police departments... and the incidence of crime has generally dropped over the past century (although, this is complex, and probably little to do with the police themselves). Still, we see progress here.</p><p>We fund fire departments... and our ability to prevent and deal with fires has improved in the past century.</p><p>Gee, sure looks like your examples are *just like* the War on Drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please re-read the statement you quoted.Does it say " we have n't eliminated drugs " ?
No. What it says is that * no progress has been made * in eliminating drugs.Now , let 's compare that to your examples : Science , medicine , doctors and hospitals have all made progress over the last century in reducing the incidence of disease ( we even completely eliminated one serious disease from the world ) and in reducing death from diseases .
People live longer now than they did 100 years ago.We fund police departments... and the incidence of crime has generally dropped over the past century ( although , this is complex , and probably little to do with the police themselves ) .
Still , we see progress here.We fund fire departments... and our ability to prevent and deal with fires has improved in the past century.Gee , sure looks like your examples are * just like * the War on Drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please re-read the statement you quoted.Does it say "we haven't eliminated drugs"?
No. What it says is that *no progress has been made* in eliminating drugs.Now, let's compare that to your examples:Science, medicine, doctors and hospitals have all made progress over the last century in reducing the incidence of disease (we even completely eliminated one serious disease from the world) and in reducing death from diseases.
People live longer now than they did 100 years ago.We fund police departments... and the incidence of crime has generally dropped over the past century (although, this is complex, and probably little to do with the police themselves).
Still, we see progress here.We fund fire departments... and our ability to prevent and deal with fires has improved in the past century.Gee, sure looks like your examples are *just like* the War on Drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929511</id>
	<title>The Real Reason Doctorow Opposes This</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1256901480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just think it's funny to see Doctorow try to create reasons to oppose this law.  The number one reason Doctorow opposes this law is that he's a piracy advocate.  He's fighting for the legalization of filesharing.  This is all very well documented.  Of course, he can't actually come out and say that.  What's he going to say, "I oppose this anti-piracy legislation because it will cut-down on piracy"?  In fact, in a recent poll of internet users, a majority of pirates admitted that the threat of cutting off their internet access would reduce their willingness to pirate.  So, he has to resort to talking about secondary reasons to oppose this legislation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just think it 's funny to see Doctorow try to create reasons to oppose this law .
The number one reason Doctorow opposes this law is that he 's a piracy advocate .
He 's fighting for the legalization of filesharing .
This is all very well documented .
Of course , he ca n't actually come out and say that .
What 's he going to say , " I oppose this anti-piracy legislation because it will cut-down on piracy " ?
In fact , in a recent poll of internet users , a majority of pirates admitted that the threat of cutting off their internet access would reduce their willingness to pirate .
So , he has to resort to talking about secondary reasons to oppose this legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just think it's funny to see Doctorow try to create reasons to oppose this law.
The number one reason Doctorow opposes this law is that he's a piracy advocate.
He's fighting for the legalization of filesharing.
This is all very well documented.
Of course, he can't actually come out and say that.
What's he going to say, "I oppose this anti-piracy legislation because it will cut-down on piracy"?
In fact, in a recent poll of internet users, a majority of pirates admitted that the threat of cutting off their internet access would reduce their willingness to pirate.
So, he has to resort to talking about secondary reasons to oppose this legislation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159</id>
	<title>Not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256893380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He makes the explicit observation: 'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Cory, that's only encouraging them.  Now you've told them that if you can arbitrarily cut off people's Internet access, you've got those people by the gonads and can make them do whatever you want without going through the annoying process of actually passing laws and obtaining convictions and such.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He makes the explicit observation : 'The internet is an integral part of our children 's education ; it 's critical to our employment ; it 's how we stay in touch with distant relatives .
It 's how we engage with government .
It 's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech , freedom of the press and freedom of assembly .
Cory , that 's only encouraging them .
Now you 've told them that if you can arbitrarily cut off people 's Internet access , you 've got those people by the gonads and can make them do whatever you want without going through the annoying process of actually passing laws and obtaining convictions and such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He makes the explicit observation: 'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives.
It's how we engage with government.
It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
Cory, that's only encouraging them.
Now you've told them that if you can arbitrarily cut off people's Internet access, you've got those people by the gonads and can make them do whatever you want without going through the annoying process of actually passing laws and obtaining convictions and such.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>Philip K Dickhead</author>
	<datestamp>1256893980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, I agree.  The governments in the "west" are in their "wind-down" phase.  They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets, with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages.  It is working well (in their eyes) for China, with whom they imagine they must compete.</p><p>"Let 'em buy Mazdas and Nike, and they won't <i>care</i> if they're free.  Control the information they are allowed to consume, and they will vigorously <i>attack</i> with extreme chauvinism, any messenger that points out that they <i>are not</i> free."</p><p>I am consistently amazed at how deadly accurate was the prescient vision of Terry Gilliam, in the movie <i>Brazil</i> - so clearly seeing the dreadful intersection of a corporate/consumerist substitution for the values of a republic, and the enlistment of "state power" as the lick-spittle to enforce corporate conformity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , I agree .
The governments in the " west " are in their " wind-down " phase .
They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets , with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages .
It is working well ( in their eyes ) for China , with whom they imagine they must compete .
" Let 'em buy Mazdas and Nike , and they wo n't care if they 're free .
Control the information they are allowed to consume , and they will vigorously attack with extreme chauvinism , any messenger that points out that they are not free .
" I am consistently amazed at how deadly accurate was the prescient vision of Terry Gilliam , in the movie Brazil - so clearly seeing the dreadful intersection of a corporate/consumerist substitution for the values of a republic , and the enlistment of " state power " as the lick-spittle to enforce corporate conformity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, I agree.
The governments in the "west" are in their "wind-down" phase.
They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets, with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages.
It is working well (in their eyes) for China, with whom they imagine they must compete.
"Let 'em buy Mazdas and Nike, and they won't care if they're free.
Control the information they are allowed to consume, and they will vigorously attack with extreme chauvinism, any messenger that points out that they are not free.
"I am consistently amazed at how deadly accurate was the prescient vision of Terry Gilliam, in the movie Brazil - so clearly seeing the dreadful intersection of a corporate/consumerist substitution for the values of a republic, and the enlistment of "state power" as the lick-spittle to enforce corporate conformity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929199</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm.. no</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1256898840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know about the UK, aren't there any per-byte charges on a pay-as-you-go 3g plan? Unless it is truly "unlimited", (e.g. "go ahead and run you web server over it, we don't care!") there are going to be some serious downloading charges; it may in fact be cheaper to just buy the damn DVD or CD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know about the UK , are n't there any per-byte charges on a pay-as-you-go 3g plan ?
Unless it is truly " unlimited " , ( e.g .
" go ahead and run you web server over it , we do n't care !
" ) there are going to be some serious downloading charges ; it may in fact be cheaper to just buy the damn DVD or CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know about the UK, aren't there any per-byte charges on a pay-as-you-go 3g plan?
Unless it is truly "unlimited", (e.g.
"go ahead and run you web server over it, we don't care!
") there are going to be some serious downloading charges; it may in fact be cheaper to just buy the damn DVD or CD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932667</id>
	<title>Re:heh.</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1257019740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization.</i></p><p>The U.S. government worked <i>so</i> hard to demonize rock and roll when it first appeared. Held Senate hearings on the evil influence and tried to ban it. If you go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a display on this subject is (was) the first visual element you encounter -- a giant Frank Zappa, in a suit, testifying in the Senate. The existence of the Hall of Fame is a tribute to the failure of the government to stop rock and roll.</p><p>It took the record labels to make music illegal. It'll take musicians with Doctorow's attitude to make it legal again.</p><p>The only reason it could take 40 years (although I think they'd be broke in another seven) is that after 9 years of this nonsense, I have yet to randomly meet anyone in real life, much less musicians (and I am one) that had a clue what the RIAA (BPI, in this case, but the same people) is, much less what it is doing. Maybe the Brits are better informed, but average American hasn't even noticed anything going on at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization.The U.S. government worked so hard to demonize rock and roll when it first appeared .
Held Senate hearings on the evil influence and tried to ban it .
If you go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame , a display on this subject is ( was ) the first visual element you encounter -- a giant Frank Zappa , in a suit , testifying in the Senate .
The existence of the Hall of Fame is a tribute to the failure of the government to stop rock and roll.It took the record labels to make music illegal .
It 'll take musicians with Doctorow 's attitude to make it legal again.The only reason it could take 40 years ( although I think they 'd be broke in another seven ) is that after 9 years of this nonsense , I have yet to randomly meet anyone in real life , much less musicians ( and I am one ) that had a clue what the RIAA ( BPI , in this case , but the same people ) is , much less what it is doing .
Maybe the Brits are better informed , but average American has n't even noticed anything going on at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization.The U.S. government worked so hard to demonize rock and roll when it first appeared.
Held Senate hearings on the evil influence and tried to ban it.
If you go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a display on this subject is (was) the first visual element you encounter -- a giant Frank Zappa, in a suit, testifying in the Senate.
The existence of the Hall of Fame is a tribute to the failure of the government to stop rock and roll.It took the record labels to make music illegal.
It'll take musicians with Doctorow's attitude to make it legal again.The only reason it could take 40 years (although I think they'd be broke in another seven) is that after 9 years of this nonsense, I have yet to randomly meet anyone in real life, much less musicians (and I am one) that had a clue what the RIAA (BPI, in this case, but the same people) is, much less what it is doing.
Maybe the Brits are better informed, but average American hasn't even noticed anything going on at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934791</id>
	<title>Classic case of reactionary government</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1257006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Herein lies the essence of the problem: Any idea or piece of technology can be used for both good and evil.  However, government rarely takes that into account when creating legislation.  Oh, some moron chose not to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle and splattered his brains all over the road? Well then clearly every motorcycle rider is an idiot and we must save them from themselves and have a law requiring people to wear helmets and fine them if they don't.  Look!  I did something.  Re-elect me.  Oh and the government makes money on the deal!  How cool is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Herein lies the essence of the problem : Any idea or piece of technology can be used for both good and evil .
However , government rarely takes that into account when creating legislation .
Oh , some moron chose not to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle and splattered his brains all over the road ?
Well then clearly every motorcycle rider is an idiot and we must save them from themselves and have a law requiring people to wear helmets and fine them if they do n't .
Look ! I did something .
Re-elect me .
Oh and the government makes money on the deal !
How cool is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Herein lies the essence of the problem: Any idea or piece of technology can be used for both good and evil.
However, government rarely takes that into account when creating legislation.
Oh, some moron chose not to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle and splattered his brains all over the road?
Well then clearly every motorcycle rider is an idiot and we must save them from themselves and have a law requiring people to wear helmets and fine them if they don't.
Look!  I did something.
Re-elect me.
Oh and the government makes money on the deal!
How cool is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928529</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives</title>
	<author>Rycross</author>
	<datestamp>1256895120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take them to a court of law after doing due diligence to figure out if they were really the ones infringing.  Subject them to due process.  Don't play shenanigans in court or behave unethically in the proceedings.  If found guilty, then charge them fair, not extortionist, penalties.</p><p>The problem is that the media companies don't like the idea of not being able to railroad everyday people into settlement, or not being able to threaten the public with ridiculous penalties.  This is because they lose the FUD-factor, and the cost of throwing lawyers at the problem becomes prohibitive.</p><p>How do you solve this?  I don't know.  Its not my problem, and its not the duty of society to ensure that litigation is profitable.  Its the duty of society to make sure that due process is followed and the justice system improves society.  It's not my duty to ensure that the media companies stay in business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take them to a court of law after doing due diligence to figure out if they were really the ones infringing .
Subject them to due process .
Do n't play shenanigans in court or behave unethically in the proceedings .
If found guilty , then charge them fair , not extortionist , penalties.The problem is that the media companies do n't like the idea of not being able to railroad everyday people into settlement , or not being able to threaten the public with ridiculous penalties .
This is because they lose the FUD-factor , and the cost of throwing lawyers at the problem becomes prohibitive.How do you solve this ?
I do n't know .
Its not my problem , and its not the duty of society to ensure that litigation is profitable .
Its the duty of society to make sure that due process is followed and the justice system improves society .
It 's not my duty to ensure that the media companies stay in business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take them to a court of law after doing due diligence to figure out if they were really the ones infringing.
Subject them to due process.
Don't play shenanigans in court or behave unethically in the proceedings.
If found guilty, then charge them fair, not extortionist, penalties.The problem is that the media companies don't like the idea of not being able to railroad everyday people into settlement, or not being able to threaten the public with ridiculous penalties.
This is because they lose the FUD-factor, and the cost of throwing lawyers at the problem becomes prohibitive.How do you solve this?
I don't know.
Its not my problem, and its not the duty of society to ensure that litigation is profitable.
Its the duty of society to make sure that due process is followed and the justice system improves society.
It's not my duty to ensure that the media companies stay in business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933631</id>
	<title>Re:I think</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1256996100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws.</i> <br> <br>Or even for dumb politicians. Wonder if there is anywhere the politicians would be dumb enough to pass such a law. Alternativly we need a system where good government is a side effect of politicians fiddling their expenses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws .
Or even for dumb politicians .
Wonder if there is anywhere the politicians would be dumb enough to pass such a law .
Alternativly we need a system where good government is a side effect of politicians fiddling their expenses : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws.
Or even for dumb politicians.
Wonder if there is anywhere the politicians would be dumb enough to pass such a law.
Alternativly we need a system where good government is a side effect of politicians fiddling their expenses :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928647</id>
	<title>Re:Mu.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256895780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did not realise slashdot allows wife beaters to post.<br>
There should be legislation to force slashdot to block access to anyone from their address!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not realise slashdot allows wife beaters to post .
There should be legislation to force slashdot to block access to anyone from their address !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not realise slashdot allows wife beaters to post.
There should be legislation to force slashdot to block access to anyone from their address!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933333</id>
	<title>Re:heh.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256990820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> We've had science, medical research, doctors, and hospitals for a century now. We still haven't eliminated disease or death</p></div><p>We've eliminated diseases like polio and (in the UK) rabies, so we've made some progress.  Life expectancy is significantly greater than it was a century ago.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> We fund police departments. We still haven't eliminated crime.</p></div><p>But looking at statistics over the last hundred years or so, we've seen a fall in crime rates overall, and in violent crime in particular (although you wouldn't think so if you read a newspaper).</p><p><div class="quote"><p> We fund fire departments. Yet, we still haven't eliminated fires.</p></div><p>It's been a long time since we've had anything like the Great Fire of London.  One of the houses on my street caught fire a couple of years ago, and the fire brigade stopped it from spreading even to the house next door.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> 40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugs</p></div><p>Which is the point.  Not that it hasn't eliminated drug use - drug use is higher than it's ever been, more people are having their lives ruined by drug abuse and by society's reaction to it, and we are still spending vastly more on criminalisation than we would on medical treatment for all of the addicts (particularly if you realise that tax on drug sales would fund most, if not all, of this treatment if they were legal).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've had science , medical research , doctors , and hospitals for a century now .
We still have n't eliminated disease or deathWe 've eliminated diseases like polio and ( in the UK ) rabies , so we 've made some progress .
Life expectancy is significantly greater than it was a century ago .
We fund police departments .
We still have n't eliminated crime.But looking at statistics over the last hundred years or so , we 've seen a fall in crime rates overall , and in violent crime in particular ( although you would n't think so if you read a newspaper ) .
We fund fire departments .
Yet , we still have n't eliminated fires.It 's been a long time since we 've had anything like the Great Fire of London .
One of the houses on my street caught fire a couple of years ago , and the fire brigade stopped it from spreading even to the house next door .
40 years of the " War on Drugs " has wasted thousands of lives in jail , and we 're no closer to eliminating drugsWhich is the point .
Not that it has n't eliminated drug use - drug use is higher than it 's ever been , more people are having their lives ruined by drug abuse and by society 's reaction to it , and we are still spending vastly more on criminalisation than we would on medical treatment for all of the addicts ( particularly if you realise that tax on drug sales would fund most , if not all , of this treatment if they were legal ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We've had science, medical research, doctors, and hospitals for a century now.
We still haven't eliminated disease or deathWe've eliminated diseases like polio and (in the UK) rabies, so we've made some progress.
Life expectancy is significantly greater than it was a century ago.
We fund police departments.
We still haven't eliminated crime.But looking at statistics over the last hundred years or so, we've seen a fall in crime rates overall, and in violent crime in particular (although you wouldn't think so if you read a newspaper).
We fund fire departments.
Yet, we still haven't eliminated fires.It's been a long time since we've had anything like the Great Fire of London.
One of the houses on my street caught fire a couple of years ago, and the fire brigade stopped it from spreading even to the house next door.
40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugsWhich is the point.
Not that it hasn't eliminated drug use - drug use is higher than it's ever been, more people are having their lives ruined by drug abuse and by society's reaction to it, and we are still spending vastly more on criminalisation than we would on medical treatment for all of the addicts (particularly if you realise that tax on drug sales would fund most, if not all, of this treatment if they were legal).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29938069</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;As far as the East winding up, dont confuse catching up with getting past.  A lot of these countries were poverty states until recently and have terrible GDP per capita and terrible governments, terrible crime, and terrible abuses.  They have a significant portion of the population which is ready to revolt but is only held down by totalitarian elements (see China and Iran).  Ironically, they have only grown by accepting Western values like capitalism, easy access to markets, and some level of government and social openness.</p></div><p>You are so funny..<br>Speaking about "terrible GDP", you probably forgets a little the looting of these countries by the western colonial powers in recent history..<br>I can assure you that a lot a people there want to see the defeat of your imperialism more than the overturning of their government.<br>Don't fool yourself, these societies are stable and the "colorful revolutions" which your government may want to "promote", will be a complete failure!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As far as the East winding up , dont confuse catching up with getting past .
A lot of these countries were poverty states until recently and have terrible GDP per capita and terrible governments , terrible crime , and terrible abuses .
They have a significant portion of the population which is ready to revolt but is only held down by totalitarian elements ( see China and Iran ) .
Ironically , they have only grown by accepting Western values like capitalism , easy access to markets , and some level of government and social openness.You are so funny..Speaking about " terrible GDP " , you probably forgets a little the looting of these countries by the western colonial powers in recent history..I can assure you that a lot a people there want to see the defeat of your imperialism more than the overturning of their government.Do n't fool yourself , these societies are stable and the " colorful revolutions " which your government may want to " promote " , will be a complete failure !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;As far as the East winding up, dont confuse catching up with getting past.
A lot of these countries were poverty states until recently and have terrible GDP per capita and terrible governments, terrible crime, and terrible abuses.
They have a significant portion of the population which is ready to revolt but is only held down by totalitarian elements (see China and Iran).
Ironically, they have only grown by accepting Western values like capitalism, easy access to markets, and some level of government and social openness.You are so funny..Speaking about "terrible GDP", you probably forgets a little the looting of these countries by the western colonial powers in recent history..I can assure you that a lot a people there want to see the defeat of your imperialism more than the overturning of their government.Don't fool yourself, these societies are stable and the "colorful revolutions" which your government may want to "promote", will be a complete failure!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928449</id>
	<title>Mu.</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1256894760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ?</p></div><p>Have you stopped beating your wife yet?</p><p>Your question presupposes that people <b>accused</b> of something are automatically <b>guilty</b> of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if this is n't the answer , how do you propose that illegal software downloads , copyright infringing video clips on youtube , and illegal downloading of mp3 music * should * be handled ? Have you stopped beating your wife yet ? Your question presupposes that people accused of something are automatically guilty of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ?Have you stopped beating your wife yet?Your question presupposes that people accused of something are automatically guilty of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928881</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256896980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hold the opposite view. Once people are aware of how unjust this is, they will oppose the evil megacorps.</p><p>Bwahahaha. Who am I kidding?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hold the opposite view .
Once people are aware of how unjust this is , they will oppose the evil megacorps.Bwahahaha .
Who am I kidding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hold the opposite view.
Once people are aware of how unjust this is, they will oppose the evil megacorps.Bwahahaha.
Who am I kidding?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929267</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256899380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From now on port 85 is the "port of shame."</htmltext>
<tokenext>From now on port 85 is the " port of shame .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From now on port 85 is the "port of shame.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930259</id>
	<title>Has anyone stopped to think....</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1256905980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It occurs to me that taking away peoples' internet for what they may view as a perfectly reasonable use of their access (Or even worse, through no fault of their own) is going to KILL PEOPLE.  I wish I were joking.  I wish this was a joke.  But if some kid murders his parents because they took away his Xbox for playing too much Halo, or someone commits suicide because their WoW account was hacked... What's going to happen when people have their right to use the internet revoked?</p><p>I have no qualms about saying that I cannot function without the internet.  If I need to know something, I look it up on the internet.  If I want to know what's going on, I check news sites.  If I want to buy something, I buy it online.  I do business online.  And quite frankly, the number of people that I consider to be 'close friends' and 'colleagues' on the other side of my monitor far exceeds the number of people I know offline, by at least 20-to-1.</p><p>Nevermind the whole ridiculousness of it all anyway.  Piracy is not theft.  Nothing is stolen.  There are copies made.  And there's only two kinds of people who want copies of stuff:  The ones who never would have paid money for it to begin with, and the ones who will end up actually buying it anyway.  You can apply that to literally anything.</p><p><b>People are going to <i>die</i> because the entertainment industry doesn't want them getting something for free that <i>they wouldn't have bought anyway</i>.</b></p><p>Hundreds of people die every day in the industrialized world because they can't afford healthcare...and now we have the entertainment industry killing people because they think they lost a CD sale?</p><p>Here's a novel idea: Instead of trying to sell a CD with only one or two good songs on it for THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS and giving the artist (You know, those people who did all the work and that the consumer actually gives a shit about?) fuck-all, how about you get with the program and actually try to leverage the goddamn internet to sell things-- ACTUAL PRODUCTS PEOPLE WANT --in a manner that MAKES SENSE for a REASONABLE PRICE.</p><p>And people wonder why I don't want to participate in society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It occurs to me that taking away peoples ' internet for what they may view as a perfectly reasonable use of their access ( Or even worse , through no fault of their own ) is going to KILL PEOPLE .
I wish I were joking .
I wish this was a joke .
But if some kid murders his parents because they took away his Xbox for playing too much Halo , or someone commits suicide because their WoW account was hacked... What 's going to happen when people have their right to use the internet revoked ? I have no qualms about saying that I can not function without the internet .
If I need to know something , I look it up on the internet .
If I want to know what 's going on , I check news sites .
If I want to buy something , I buy it online .
I do business online .
And quite frankly , the number of people that I consider to be 'close friends ' and 'colleagues ' on the other side of my monitor far exceeds the number of people I know offline , by at least 20-to-1.Nevermind the whole ridiculousness of it all anyway .
Piracy is not theft .
Nothing is stolen .
There are copies made .
And there 's only two kinds of people who want copies of stuff : The ones who never would have paid money for it to begin with , and the ones who will end up actually buying it anyway .
You can apply that to literally anything.People are going to die because the entertainment industry does n't want them getting something for free that they would n't have bought anyway.Hundreds of people die every day in the industrialized world because they ca n't afford healthcare...and now we have the entertainment industry killing people because they think they lost a CD sale ? Here 's a novel idea : Instead of trying to sell a CD with only one or two good songs on it for THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS and giving the artist ( You know , those people who did all the work and that the consumer actually gives a shit about ?
) fuck-all , how about you get with the program and actually try to leverage the goddamn internet to sell things-- ACTUAL PRODUCTS PEOPLE WANT --in a manner that MAKES SENSE for a REASONABLE PRICE.And people wonder why I do n't want to participate in society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It occurs to me that taking away peoples' internet for what they may view as a perfectly reasonable use of their access (Or even worse, through no fault of their own) is going to KILL PEOPLE.
I wish I were joking.
I wish this was a joke.
But if some kid murders his parents because they took away his Xbox for playing too much Halo, or someone commits suicide because their WoW account was hacked... What's going to happen when people have their right to use the internet revoked?I have no qualms about saying that I cannot function without the internet.
If I need to know something, I look it up on the internet.
If I want to know what's going on, I check news sites.
If I want to buy something, I buy it online.
I do business online.
And quite frankly, the number of people that I consider to be 'close friends' and 'colleagues' on the other side of my monitor far exceeds the number of people I know offline, by at least 20-to-1.Nevermind the whole ridiculousness of it all anyway.
Piracy is not theft.
Nothing is stolen.
There are copies made.
And there's only two kinds of people who want copies of stuff:  The ones who never would have paid money for it to begin with, and the ones who will end up actually buying it anyway.
You can apply that to literally anything.People are going to die because the entertainment industry doesn't want them getting something for free that they wouldn't have bought anyway.Hundreds of people die every day in the industrialized world because they can't afford healthcare...and now we have the entertainment industry killing people because they think they lost a CD sale?Here's a novel idea: Instead of trying to sell a CD with only one or two good songs on it for THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS and giving the artist (You know, those people who did all the work and that the consumer actually gives a shit about?
) fuck-all, how about you get with the program and actually try to leverage the goddamn internet to sell things-- ACTUAL PRODUCTS PEOPLE WANT --in a manner that MAKES SENSE for a REASONABLE PRICE.And people wonder why I don't want to participate in society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928627</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1256895660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Assuming that they're going to create something stupid, what would be the least stupid alternative?</i></p><p>I have <i>no idea</i>, but I think I can figure out how to go in the opposite direction.  The main problem, to me, is that they're using a baseball analogy instead of a boxing analogy.</p><p>Instead of "3 strikes and you're out", it should be "roughly between 10 and 100 blows to the head and you're out".  With an optional "technical knockout rule" where if you fall over three times watching illegally downloaded porn you're out, or if the referee feels it would be unsafe to allow you to continue masturbating to internet porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming that they 're going to create something stupid , what would be the least stupid alternative ? I have no idea , but I think I can figure out how to go in the opposite direction .
The main problem , to me , is that they 're using a baseball analogy instead of a boxing analogy.Instead of " 3 strikes and you 're out " , it should be " roughly between 10 and 100 blows to the head and you 're out " .
With an optional " technical knockout rule " where if you fall over three times watching illegally downloaded porn you 're out , or if the referee feels it would be unsafe to allow you to continue masturbating to internet porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming that they're going to create something stupid, what would be the least stupid alternative?I have no idea, but I think I can figure out how to go in the opposite direction.
The main problem, to me, is that they're using a baseball analogy instead of a boxing analogy.Instead of "3 strikes and you're out", it should be "roughly between 10 and 100 blows to the head and you're out".
With an optional "technical knockout rule" where if you fall over three times watching illegally downloaded porn you're out, or if the referee feels it would be unsafe to allow you to continue masturbating to internet porn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189</id>
	<title>Alternatives</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1256893560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming that they're going to create <i>something</i> stupid, what would be the least stupid alternative?<br>How about something along the lines of "3 strikes and you're limited to ports X,Y,Z"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming that they 're going to create something stupid , what would be the least stupid alternative ? How about something along the lines of " 3 strikes and you 're limited to ports X,Y,Z "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming that they're going to create something stupid, what would be the least stupid alternative?How about something along the lines of "3 strikes and you're limited to ports X,Y,Z"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933661</id>
	<title>Re:I think</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1256996400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Mandelson already resigned twice for being a dodgy fuck but he keeps coming back. He's even said he'll work for the opposition if they'll have him. Some people have no principles.</i> <br> <br>He undoubtedly has "principles" just not those most people would espouse. His appear to be those of "corrupt career politician".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mandelson already resigned twice for being a dodgy fuck but he keeps coming back .
He 's even said he 'll work for the opposition if they 'll have him .
Some people have no principles .
He undoubtedly has " principles " just not those most people would espouse .
His appear to be those of " corrupt career politician " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mandelson already resigned twice for being a dodgy fuck but he keeps coming back.
He's even said he'll work for the opposition if they'll have him.
Some people have no principles.
He undoubtedly has "principles" just not those most people would espouse.
His appear to be those of "corrupt career politician".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932343</id>
	<title>Go to court to repeal this....</title>
	<author>ami.one</author>
	<datestamp>1256926680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't Britons allowed to go to court to get such an unconstitutional law repealed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't Britons allowed to go to court to get such an unconstitutional law repealed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't Britons allowed to go to court to get such an unconstitutional law repealed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928765</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256896500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How about something along the lines of "3 strikes and you're limited to ports X,Y,Z"</p><p>That's brilliant!</p><p>(Mostly because it's so damn easy to work around...  "But I only use port 80 now!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to my proxy server.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How about something along the lines of " 3 strikes and you 're limited to ports X,Y,Z " That 's brilliant !
( Mostly because it 's so damn easy to work around... " But I only use port 80 now !
... to my proxy server .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How about something along the lines of "3 strikes and you're limited to ports X,Y,Z"That's brilliant!
(Mostly because it's so damn easy to work around...  "But I only use port 80 now!
... to my proxy server.
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29936795</id>
	<title>Re:The Real Reason Doctorow Opposes This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256981040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because someone supports or opposes something for the "wrong" reason, doesn't make them wrong.</p><p>Thank you for playing. NEXT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because someone supports or opposes something for the " wrong " reason , does n't make them wrong.Thank you for playing .
NEXT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because someone supports or opposes something for the "wrong" reason, doesn't make them wrong.Thank you for playing.
NEXT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928269</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives</title>
	<author>bakawolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256893860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>howsabout 3 <i> convictions in a court of law </i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>howsabout 3 convictions in a court of law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>howsabout 3  convictions in a court of law ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929635</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm.. no</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1256902140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about downloading, this is about shutting people up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about downloading , this is about shutting people up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about downloading, this is about shutting people up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929749</id>
	<title>Re:How did we live 'till 1990ies?</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1256902800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the problem is that many of our government's communication and services ONLY run through Internet nowadays, due to modernism and budget cuttings.<br>This means that when you cut someone from the Internet in my country, you effectively make him/her a persona non Grata.</p><p>You might as well take that person's passport and social number and throw it away.</p><p>Finland has got it right in saying that an Internet connection is a CIVIL RIGHT!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the problem is that many of our government 's communication and services ONLY run through Internet nowadays , due to modernism and budget cuttings.This means that when you cut someone from the Internet in my country , you effectively make him/her a persona non Grata.You might as well take that person 's passport and social number and throw it away.Finland has got it right in saying that an Internet connection is a CIVIL RIGHT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the problem is that many of our government's communication and services ONLY run through Internet nowadays, due to modernism and budget cuttings.This means that when you cut someone from the Internet in my country, you effectively make him/her a persona non Grata.You might as well take that person's passport and social number and throw it away.Finland has got it right in saying that an Internet connection is a CIVIL RIGHT!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934139</id>
	<title>Re:So what then ?</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1257000960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fines? Prison?</p><p>And if that seems too extreme.... change the laws to make sense?</p><p>I'm not one of those "throw copyright out the window' guys - but something should change.   Copyright law was created by us in response to our newfound ability to do things like use the printing press and record audio for mass productions.  WE recognized that we wanted to protect, ultimately, the creators of these works.   THe laws were sufficient for the time.</p><p>Now, with the internet, we've made another quantum leap in our ability to copy.. rather than being feasible on a commercial scale, it's possible for something to be available to everyone, at a cost approaching zero, globally, at a personal level.  The law needs to catch up somehow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fines ?
Prison ? And if that seems too extreme.... change the laws to make sense ? I 'm not one of those " throw copyright out the window ' guys - but something should change .
Copyright law was created by us in response to our newfound ability to do things like use the printing press and record audio for mass productions .
WE recognized that we wanted to protect , ultimately , the creators of these works .
THe laws were sufficient for the time.Now , with the internet , we 've made another quantum leap in our ability to copy.. rather than being feasible on a commercial scale , it 's possible for something to be available to everyone , at a cost approaching zero , globally , at a personal level .
The law needs to catch up somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fines?
Prison?And if that seems too extreme.... change the laws to make sense?I'm not one of those "throw copyright out the window' guys - but something should change.
Copyright law was created by us in response to our newfound ability to do things like use the printing press and record audio for mass productions.
WE recognized that we wanted to protect, ultimately, the creators of these works.
THe laws were sufficient for the time.Now, with the internet, we've made another quantum leap in our ability to copy.. rather than being feasible on a commercial scale, it's possible for something to be available to everyone, at a cost approaching zero, globally, at a personal level.
The law needs to catch up somehow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928869</id>
	<title>How did we live 'till 1990ies?</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1256896980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, it is amazing, that the Internet has become all this &mdash; and more &mdash; but civilization did exist before 1990ies, and all of the freedoms mentioned were there &mdash; some of them even more so than today, perhaps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'The internet is an integral part of our children 's education ; it 's critical to our employment ; it 's how we stay in touch with distant relatives .
It 's how we engage with government .
It 's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech , freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.Yes , it is amazing , that the Internet has become all this    and more    but civilization did exist before 1990ies , and all of the freedoms mentioned were there    some of them even more so than today , perhaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives.
It's how we engage with government.
It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.Yes, it is amazing, that the Internet has become all this — and more — but civilization did exist before 1990ies, and all of the freedoms mentioned were there — some of them even more so than today, perhaps.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932421</id>
	<title>why we can't use the courts</title>
	<author>michaelhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1256928060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The court system would collapse under the weight of so many cases.

They need to deal with this like parking tickets.  See a violation, give a ticket.  If you want to fight the ticket, show up at court.  Most people don't fight it, because they have no grounds to.  The government gets their money and influences behavior.  The court system isn't destroyed.  People's lives aren't severely disrupted.  Yes they'll probably do it again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The court system would collapse under the weight of so many cases .
They need to deal with this like parking tickets .
See a violation , give a ticket .
If you want to fight the ticket , show up at court .
Most people do n't fight it , because they have no grounds to .
The government gets their money and influences behavior .
The court system is n't destroyed .
People 's lives are n't severely disrupted .
Yes they 'll probably do it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court system would collapse under the weight of so many cases.
They need to deal with this like parking tickets.
See a violation, give a ticket.
If you want to fight the ticket, show up at court.
Most people don't fight it, because they have no grounds to.
The government gets their money and influences behavior.
The court system isn't destroyed.
People's lives aren't severely disrupted.
Yes they'll probably do it again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929765</id>
	<title>Re:I think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256902980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cory Doctorow:</p><p><em>"It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly."</em> </p><p>But the British State knows nothing of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. Which is why you Americans had a revolution and codified those things into the First Amendment.</p><p>That's why Mandelson can do such things with the supreme power of Parliament unrestrained by a written Constitution. The British State hasn't changed at all since 1776.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cory Doctorow : " It 's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech , freedom of the press and freedom of assembly .
" But the British State knows nothing of freedom of speech , freedom of the press and freedom of assembly .
Which is why you Americans had a revolution and codified those things into the First Amendment.That 's why Mandelson can do such things with the supreme power of Parliament unrestrained by a written Constitution .
The British State has n't changed at all since 1776 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cory Doctorow:"It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
" But the British State knows nothing of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
Which is why you Americans had a revolution and codified those things into the First Amendment.That's why Mandelson can do such things with the supreme power of Parliament unrestrained by a written Constitution.
The British State hasn't changed at all since 1776.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932389</id>
	<title>3 strikes used with other forms of communication!</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1256927340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remove a method of communication if you break the law with it (slander, libel, insider trading rules, yelling fire in a theater)?

3 strikes on speech: vocal cords cut out

3 strikes on writing, typing, or sign language: hands severed

3 strikes on cell phones: must communicate via voice and writing for the rest of your life, unless you had those removed in earlier violations</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove a method of communication if you break the law with it ( slander , libel , insider trading rules , yelling fire in a theater ) ?
3 strikes on speech : vocal cords cut out 3 strikes on writing , typing , or sign language : hands severed 3 strikes on cell phones : must communicate via voice and writing for the rest of your life , unless you had those removed in earlier violations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove a method of communication if you break the law with it (slander, libel, insider trading rules, yelling fire in a theater)?
3 strikes on speech: vocal cords cut out

3 strikes on writing, typing, or sign language: hands severed

3 strikes on cell phones: must communicate via voice and writing for the rest of your life, unless you had those removed in earlier violations</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929143</id>
	<title>Cory's argument is bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256898480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not defending the 3-strikes law.  It has serious "due process" problems that everyone else is pointing out.
</p><p>But what Cory is really saying, is that the punishment is too severe.  That when you cut someone off (allegedly for infringement), you're not just stopping their future infringement, but you're also cutting them off from talking to grandma, and if you did the same thing to the bogus-accusers, it would be "corporate death penalty."
</p><p>
Well, guess what?  <strong>All</strong> punishment is like that.  If I put you in jail for theft or murder, I'm not just preventing future thefts or murders.  I'm also impacting your life in many other ways, perhaps even violating your "rights" in ways that are utterly disconnected from the crime itself.
</p><p>People seem ok with that, in general. Why wouldn't they be ok with that when it comes to the internet?  Copy that floppy, no more emails to grandma or your government representative.  Murder someone, no more visiting grandma's house or political assemblies.  What's the difference?  I don't see how TFA would persuade anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not defending the 3-strikes law .
It has serious " due process " problems that everyone else is pointing out .
But what Cory is really saying , is that the punishment is too severe .
That when you cut someone off ( allegedly for infringement ) , you 're not just stopping their future infringement , but you 're also cutting them off from talking to grandma , and if you did the same thing to the bogus-accusers , it would be " corporate death penalty .
" Well , guess what ?
All punishment is like that .
If I put you in jail for theft or murder , I 'm not just preventing future thefts or murders .
I 'm also impacting your life in many other ways , perhaps even violating your " rights " in ways that are utterly disconnected from the crime itself .
People seem ok with that , in general .
Why would n't they be ok with that when it comes to the internet ?
Copy that floppy , no more emails to grandma or your government representative .
Murder someone , no more visiting grandma 's house or political assemblies .
What 's the difference ?
I do n't see how TFA would persuade anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not defending the 3-strikes law.
It has serious "due process" problems that everyone else is pointing out.
But what Cory is really saying, is that the punishment is too severe.
That when you cut someone off (allegedly for infringement), you're not just stopping their future infringement, but you're also cutting them off from talking to grandma, and if you did the same thing to the bogus-accusers, it would be "corporate death penalty.
"

Well, guess what?
All punishment is like that.
If I put you in jail for theft or murder, I'm not just preventing future thefts or murders.
I'm also impacting your life in many other ways, perhaps even violating your "rights" in ways that are utterly disconnected from the crime itself.
People seem ok with that, in general.
Why wouldn't they be ok with that when it comes to the internet?
Copy that floppy, no more emails to grandma or your government representative.
Murder someone, no more visiting grandma's house or political assemblies.
What's the difference?
I don't see how TFA would persuade anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29937809</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256992140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod this up. Humanism and Western Values are a magnificent achivement. I think unfortunately it lies in the nature of human beings to hate pluralism. The more free, democratic and rich a country gets, the more people think they are "on the decline". In fact they just feel marginalised or are pissed because people they don't agree with have free speech too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod this up .
Humanism and Western Values are a magnificent achivement .
I think unfortunately it lies in the nature of human beings to hate pluralism .
The more free , democratic and rich a country gets , the more people think they are " on the decline " .
In fact they just feel marginalised or are pissed because people they do n't agree with have free speech too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod this up.
Humanism and Western Values are a magnificent achivement.
I think unfortunately it lies in the nature of human beings to hate pluralism.
The more free, democratic and rich a country gets, the more people think they are "on the decline".
In fact they just feel marginalised or are pissed because people they don't agree with have free speech too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928351</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256894340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about not punishing people who presumably have not been found guilty of breaking the law?  If they broke the law and were found guilty, they'd be subject to the ruling of the court.  If they haven't been found guilty or for that matter given no trial then the whole thing is a violation of due process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about not punishing people who presumably have not been found guilty of breaking the law ?
If they broke the law and were found guilty , they 'd be subject to the ruling of the court .
If they have n't been found guilty or for that matter given no trial then the whole thing is a violation of due process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about not punishing people who presumably have not been found guilty of breaking the law?
If they broke the law and were found guilty, they'd be subject to the ruling of the court.
If they haven't been found guilty or for that matter given no trial then the whole thing is a violation of due process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928711</id>
	<title>We vote the</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256896140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm from Romania and we have a very difficult economic situation right now, worse than others, because of a crappy political crisis. All I can think now is how could we vote these stupid fucks. All other countries from EU criticise us because of this. But I think in the end we are the same: Who the hell voted for Mandelson?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm from Romania and we have a very difficult economic situation right now , worse than others , because of a crappy political crisis .
All I can think now is how could we vote these stupid fucks .
All other countries from EU criticise us because of this .
But I think in the end we are the same : Who the hell voted for Mandelson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm from Romania and we have a very difficult economic situation right now, worse than others, because of a crappy political crisis.
All I can think now is how could we vote these stupid fucks.
All other countries from EU criticise us because of this.
But I think in the end we are the same: Who the hell voted for Mandelson?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928593</id>
	<title>Re:So what then ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256895540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple - copyright reform.  And, by that, I mean Mr. Capitalism pulling it's Corporate cock out of the Public Domain's ass and stop raping it.  Short term copyrights, pay-what-you-want donor-based pricing.  Open it wide open and the people will love it so much, they will want to give what they feel they need to the artists they love the most.  Of course, the MAFIAA does not like that because that connects the fans and the artists, but ultimately, that's what the internet is all about.  They used to be needed for distribution, aggregation, and promotion - with the internet and social networking sites, they are entirely obsolete and record labels can break up now and go back to being independent.</p><p>We need to start paying more attention to websites like kickstarter.com, they should be leading the way to busting this problem wide open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple - copyright reform .
And , by that , I mean Mr. Capitalism pulling it 's Corporate cock out of the Public Domain 's ass and stop raping it .
Short term copyrights , pay-what-you-want donor-based pricing .
Open it wide open and the people will love it so much , they will want to give what they feel they need to the artists they love the most .
Of course , the MAFIAA does not like that because that connects the fans and the artists , but ultimately , that 's what the internet is all about .
They used to be needed for distribution , aggregation , and promotion - with the internet and social networking sites , they are entirely obsolete and record labels can break up now and go back to being independent.We need to start paying more attention to websites like kickstarter.com , they should be leading the way to busting this problem wide open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple - copyright reform.
And, by that, I mean Mr. Capitalism pulling it's Corporate cock out of the Public Domain's ass and stop raping it.
Short term copyrights, pay-what-you-want donor-based pricing.
Open it wide open and the people will love it so much, they will want to give what they feel they need to the artists they love the most.
Of course, the MAFIAA does not like that because that connects the fans and the artists, but ultimately, that's what the internet is all about.
They used to be needed for distribution, aggregation, and promotion - with the internet and social networking sites, they are entirely obsolete and record labels can break up now and go back to being independent.We need to start paying more attention to websites like kickstarter.com, they should be leading the way to busting this problem wide open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929241</id>
	<title>STOP NOT WORKING</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256899140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>once again after reading a slashdot article description, I'm wondering what the hell they are even describing. don't just copy and paste a paragraph out of context, why don't you actually give a background before just pointing at someone else's work and going "See!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>once again after reading a slashdot article description , I 'm wondering what the hell they are even describing .
do n't just copy and paste a paragraph out of context , why do n't you actually give a background before just pointing at someone else 's work and going " See !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>once again after reading a slashdot article description, I'm wondering what the hell they are even describing.
don't just copy and paste a paragraph out of context, why don't you actually give a background before just pointing at someone else's work and going "See!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928277</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256893920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about, 3 strikes and you are subjected to due process?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about , 3 strikes and you are subjected to due process ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about, 3 strikes and you are subjected to due process?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933219</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256988000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if there are countries worse off than yours, it's impossible for your country to decline, right? You have to be completely blind to not see that civil rights are going backwards in the west. The fact that the west has the best track record in history when it comes to civil rights changes nothing about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if there are countries worse off than yours , it 's impossible for your country to decline , right ?
You have to be completely blind to not see that civil rights are going backwards in the west .
The fact that the west has the best track record in history when it comes to civil rights changes nothing about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if there are countries worse off than yours, it's impossible for your country to decline, right?
You have to be completely blind to not see that civil rights are going backwards in the west.
The fact that the west has the best track record in history when it comes to civil rights changes nothing about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929059</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives</title>
	<author>saintsfan</author>
	<datestamp>1256898000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not from my point of view. your comment indicates if it can be proven then it's ok. i don't think the crime fits the punishment whether you are guilty or not. while i think an ISP should be able to reserve the right to disconnect someone, I don't think there should be a blacklist law. heres my attempt at not laming it up: legitimately caught uploading an infringing mp3, youtube video and too much of another authors text on your personal website. three counts of infringement.  outcome- from home, you can no longer work over vpn or run an internet based business, call relatives over skype or chat on facebook including those international and possibly in the military, shop in the largest common marketplaces, use blackboard for school, access phone records outside of the city-issued phone book, etc. seem fair?  What if the law is extended to your place of business (you're fired), your school (bye) and public access cafes (now you're totally cut off). There are already services only available over the internet, and I assume that trend will grow. Hell food delivery may go that way some day. The punishment is so harsh because it's meant to be a deterrent, like cutting your hand off you get caught stealing, or fining you a million bucks for uploading a couple cds, or sending you to jail for years because you sold a rock of crack or got caught drinking and driving. In other words, it would fall into the category of areas that already need reform or have been reformed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. ya know, for humanitarian reasons. Some of those aren't corporate interests, but they are still special interest (madd, sheriffs unions).  i say if this law passes, copywrited works should instantly lose their copy write status if the holder or through proxy wrongly accuses three times, and it has to be the same standard, so whether proven or by accusation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not from my point of view .
your comment indicates if it can be proven then it 's ok. i do n't think the crime fits the punishment whether you are guilty or not .
while i think an ISP should be able to reserve the right to disconnect someone , I do n't think there should be a blacklist law .
heres my attempt at not laming it up : legitimately caught uploading an infringing mp3 , youtube video and too much of another authors text on your personal website .
three counts of infringement .
outcome- from home , you can no longer work over vpn or run an internet based business , call relatives over skype or chat on facebook including those international and possibly in the military , shop in the largest common marketplaces , use blackboard for school , access phone records outside of the city-issued phone book , etc .
seem fair ?
What if the law is extended to your place of business ( you 're fired ) , your school ( bye ) and public access cafes ( now you 're totally cut off ) .
There are already services only available over the internet , and I assume that trend will grow .
Hell food delivery may go that way some day .
The punishment is so harsh because it 's meant to be a deterrent , like cutting your hand off you get caught stealing , or fining you a million bucks for uploading a couple cds , or sending you to jail for years because you sold a rock of crack or got caught drinking and driving .
In other words , it would fall into the category of areas that already need reform or have been reformed .. ya know , for humanitarian reasons .
Some of those are n't corporate interests , but they are still special interest ( madd , sheriffs unions ) .
i say if this law passes , copywrited works should instantly lose their copy write status if the holder or through proxy wrongly accuses three times , and it has to be the same standard , so whether proven or by accusation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not from my point of view.
your comment indicates if it can be proven then it's ok. i don't think the crime fits the punishment whether you are guilty or not.
while i think an ISP should be able to reserve the right to disconnect someone, I don't think there should be a blacklist law.
heres my attempt at not laming it up: legitimately caught uploading an infringing mp3, youtube video and too much of another authors text on your personal website.
three counts of infringement.
outcome- from home, you can no longer work over vpn or run an internet based business, call relatives over skype or chat on facebook including those international and possibly in the military, shop in the largest common marketplaces, use blackboard for school, access phone records outside of the city-issued phone book, etc.
seem fair?
What if the law is extended to your place of business (you're fired), your school (bye) and public access cafes (now you're totally cut off).
There are already services only available over the internet, and I assume that trend will grow.
Hell food delivery may go that way some day.
The punishment is so harsh because it's meant to be a deterrent, like cutting your hand off you get caught stealing, or fining you a million bucks for uploading a couple cds, or sending you to jail for years because you sold a rock of crack or got caught drinking and driving.
In other words, it would fall into the category of areas that already need reform or have been reformed .. ya know, for humanitarian reasons.
Some of those aren't corporate interests, but they are still special interest (madd, sheriffs unions).
i say if this law passes, copywrited works should instantly lose their copy write status if the holder or through proxy wrongly accuses three times, and it has to be the same standard, so whether proven or by accusation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256896680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets, with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages.</p><p>I know this is popular in libertarian circles but its a bunch of BS.  Unlike a lot of anti-US commentators I have been to some of these countries and know immigrants from there. Its cute to see people go apeshit over internet connectivity and scream "decline of the west!!!" while tipping their hats to countries like China and Russia where human rights are less than a joke. Where political prisoners are the norm, where censorship firewall is the norm, where gays are beaten to death in front of police, where joining the opposition party is a risk to your life, where not subscribing to the state religion is a death sentence, where education is propaganda, etc.</p><p>I think this all stems from certain people hating the West for getting things right like the enlightenment, allowing criticism of religion and politics, allowing women full rights, allowing free speech, giving rights to minorities, allowing more than one party, univeral healthcare (sans a few), etc.  Its sad that the 'small government' people are cozying up to dictators, warlords, and thugs because they envy success done with the large modern state which is almost always democratic, free market, and free speech.</p><p>As far as the East winding up, dont confuse catching up with getting past.  A lot of these countries were poverty states until recently and have terrible GDP per capita and terrible governments, terrible crime, and terrible abuses.  They have a significant portion of the population which is ready to revolt but is only held down by totalitarian elements (see China and Iran).  Ironically, they have only grown by accepting Western values like capitalism, easy access to markets, and some level of government and social openness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets , with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages.I know this is popular in libertarian circles but its a bunch of BS .
Unlike a lot of anti-US commentators I have been to some of these countries and know immigrants from there .
Its cute to see people go apeshit over internet connectivity and scream " decline of the west ! ! !
" while tipping their hats to countries like China and Russia where human rights are less than a joke .
Where political prisoners are the norm , where censorship firewall is the norm , where gays are beaten to death in front of police , where joining the opposition party is a risk to your life , where not subscribing to the state religion is a death sentence , where education is propaganda , etc.I think this all stems from certain people hating the West for getting things right like the enlightenment , allowing criticism of religion and politics , allowing women full rights , allowing free speech , giving rights to minorities , allowing more than one party , univeral healthcare ( sans a few ) , etc .
Its sad that the 'small government ' people are cozying up to dictators , warlords , and thugs because they envy success done with the large modern state which is almost always democratic , free market , and free speech.As far as the East winding up , dont confuse catching up with getting past .
A lot of these countries were poverty states until recently and have terrible GDP per capita and terrible governments , terrible crime , and terrible abuses .
They have a significant portion of the population which is ready to revolt but is only held down by totalitarian elements ( see China and Iran ) .
Ironically , they have only grown by accepting Western values like capitalism , easy access to markets , and some level of government and social openness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;They see enormous advantages in operating closed-cartel oriented markets, with severely curtailed republic systems and controlled public messages.I know this is popular in libertarian circles but its a bunch of BS.
Unlike a lot of anti-US commentators I have been to some of these countries and know immigrants from there.
Its cute to see people go apeshit over internet connectivity and scream "decline of the west!!!
" while tipping their hats to countries like China and Russia where human rights are less than a joke.
Where political prisoners are the norm, where censorship firewall is the norm, where gays are beaten to death in front of police, where joining the opposition party is a risk to your life, where not subscribing to the state religion is a death sentence, where education is propaganda, etc.I think this all stems from certain people hating the West for getting things right like the enlightenment, allowing criticism of religion and politics, allowing women full rights, allowing free speech, giving rights to minorities, allowing more than one party, univeral healthcare (sans a few), etc.
Its sad that the 'small government' people are cozying up to dictators, warlords, and thugs because they envy success done with the large modern state which is almost always democratic, free market, and free speech.As far as the East winding up, dont confuse catching up with getting past.
A lot of these countries were poverty states until recently and have terrible GDP per capita and terrible governments, terrible crime, and terrible abuses.
They have a significant portion of the population which is ready to revolt but is only held down by totalitarian elements (see China and Iran).
Ironically, they have only grown by accepting Western values like capitalism, easy access to markets, and some level of government and social openness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931887</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy happens because of the high costs</title>
	<author>BorgCopyeditor</author>
	<datestamp>1256920020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is also the main reason behind auto theft. People should offer their cars for sale at all times and reduce the cost of their cars to a point low enough to discourage theft. Instead, we have lengthy (and costly!) prosecutions of car thieves. When will auto-havers ever learn? Probably not soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also the main reason behind auto theft .
People should offer their cars for sale at all times and reduce the cost of their cars to a point low enough to discourage theft .
Instead , we have lengthy ( and costly !
) prosecutions of car thieves .
When will auto-havers ever learn ?
Probably not soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also the main reason behind auto theft.
People should offer their cars for sale at all times and reduce the cost of their cars to a point low enough to discourage theft.
Instead, we have lengthy (and costly!
) prosecutions of car thieves.
When will auto-havers ever learn?
Probably not soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929395</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives</title>
	<author>mistralol</author>
	<datestamp>1256900400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
What about protocols with no ports ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about protocols with no ports ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What about protocols with no ports ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934137</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1257000900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently re-watched an excellent 3 part program called The Trap, which was about how the western governments decided it wasn't in their interests to try and change society for the better, but instead to allow the "market" to supply what people wanted and just stick to enforcement. Deregulation of the banks was one of the prime examples. <br> <br>So is it any wonder that the government is now following the path laid out by the corporations, and making laws based upon what the corps. need rather than what is best for the people. Copyright extension, sure how long do you want ? 3 strikes laws, sure no problem. Invasive ID schemes, sure, I bet you can make a nice profit there - be sure to pass some my way. <br> <br>The people are the product. That has been said before but when the govt. treats us like a product to be sold to the highest bidder, they have no place in power. People vote and elect politicians to represent us, not to do their best for the interests of the corporations. There is a name for a system that does that, and it's called Fascism. It is telling that since deregulation of the financial markets the gap between rich and poor has only got wider. Before then the gap was slowly closing. You can't buy a better future because you don't control it. Freedom is about having choice, not about having the latest gadget. I don't care if there are 1000 different cell phones on the market, you don't actually have a choice about how they interact. You are dependent on the cell providers who can pretty much do what they want. It is an illusion of choice. The public is being gradually sold off to private concerns, all for the price of a few shiny baubles. Education suffers because it threatens the corporations. It becomes acceptable to tell lies to the public in the interests of control. And most so called educated people see no problem with that. Maybe it threatens their sense of superiority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently re-watched an excellent 3 part program called The Trap , which was about how the western governments decided it was n't in their interests to try and change society for the better , but instead to allow the " market " to supply what people wanted and just stick to enforcement .
Deregulation of the banks was one of the prime examples .
So is it any wonder that the government is now following the path laid out by the corporations , and making laws based upon what the corps .
need rather than what is best for the people .
Copyright extension , sure how long do you want ?
3 strikes laws , sure no problem .
Invasive ID schemes , sure , I bet you can make a nice profit there - be sure to pass some my way .
The people are the product .
That has been said before but when the govt .
treats us like a product to be sold to the highest bidder , they have no place in power .
People vote and elect politicians to represent us , not to do their best for the interests of the corporations .
There is a name for a system that does that , and it 's called Fascism .
It is telling that since deregulation of the financial markets the gap between rich and poor has only got wider .
Before then the gap was slowly closing .
You ca n't buy a better future because you do n't control it .
Freedom is about having choice , not about having the latest gadget .
I do n't care if there are 1000 different cell phones on the market , you do n't actually have a choice about how they interact .
You are dependent on the cell providers who can pretty much do what they want .
It is an illusion of choice .
The public is being gradually sold off to private concerns , all for the price of a few shiny baubles .
Education suffers because it threatens the corporations .
It becomes acceptable to tell lies to the public in the interests of control .
And most so called educated people see no problem with that .
Maybe it threatens their sense of superiority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently re-watched an excellent 3 part program called The Trap, which was about how the western governments decided it wasn't in their interests to try and change society for the better, but instead to allow the "market" to supply what people wanted and just stick to enforcement.
Deregulation of the banks was one of the prime examples.
So is it any wonder that the government is now following the path laid out by the corporations, and making laws based upon what the corps.
need rather than what is best for the people.
Copyright extension, sure how long do you want ?
3 strikes laws, sure no problem.
Invasive ID schemes, sure, I bet you can make a nice profit there - be sure to pass some my way.
The people are the product.
That has been said before but when the govt.
treats us like a product to be sold to the highest bidder, they have no place in power.
People vote and elect politicians to represent us, not to do their best for the interests of the corporations.
There is a name for a system that does that, and it's called Fascism.
It is telling that since deregulation of the financial markets the gap between rich and poor has only got wider.
Before then the gap was slowly closing.
You can't buy a better future because you don't control it.
Freedom is about having choice, not about having the latest gadget.
I don't care if there are 1000 different cell phones on the market, you don't actually have a choice about how they interact.
You are dependent on the cell providers who can pretty much do what they want.
It is an illusion of choice.
The public is being gradually sold off to private concerns, all for the price of a few shiny baubles.
Education suffers because it threatens the corporations.
It becomes acceptable to tell lies to the public in the interests of control.
And most so called educated people see no problem with that.
Maybe it threatens their sense of superiority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930021</id>
	<title>Re:let them pass all the laws they want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256904720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only sad thing is that it will be terrible waste of money that could be spent on better things. For example, in Australia one of a Senators is pushing some expensive multi million dollar interweb filter that won't work. They lose, but the money could be spent on  fixing... I don't know, the roads, or public transport or even the heap of steaming crap that is our health system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only sad thing is that it will be terrible waste of money that could be spent on better things .
For example , in Australia one of a Senators is pushing some expensive multi million dollar interweb filter that wo n't work .
They lose , but the money could be spent on fixing... I do n't know , the roads , or public transport or even the heap of steaming crap that is our health system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only sad thing is that it will be terrible waste of money that could be spent on better things.
For example, in Australia one of a Senators is pushing some expensive multi million dollar interweb filter that won't work.
They lose, but the money could be spent on  fixing... I don't know, the roads, or public transport or even the heap of steaming crap that is our health system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929107</id>
	<title>How should escaped slaves be handled</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1256898300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No copyright and freedom of the individual are not the same thing, but the issue is here that you are asking a loaded question.
</p><p>You are asking, if hanging escaped slaves isn't the answer, then how should they be handled. Making it obvious that in your mind, that you already made up your mind that there should be punishment.
</p><p>Others would argue that you might ask whether the very concept of copyright might not need to be changed. Once again.
</p><p>Copyright has NOT been in existence for the vast majority of human history. Thousands of years, humanity has progressed and produced art that has endured across the ages, with absolutely no copyright.
</p><p>This changed, and NOT as you might think to protect the creators of content, but the publishers of content. Copyright is not for nothing called COPY right. It was created to protect music PUBLISHERS, printed music sheets, who bought the music from artist for a small sum and then printed money. Obviously, they wanted to be only ones to be allowed to do that, and so copyright was started in its modern form.
</p><p>The current system is a dreadful beast. The same Disney that has lobbied to have it extended published Pinocchio on the day after the copyright on it expired. Yet if you dare to use their work, you will be hounded by their lawyers, even with works of parody.
</p><p>No, you ask how the slave should be punished, when every right thinking person ask, should slavery be allowed.
</p><p>Copyright needs to change, it has no longer got anything to do with giving a creator a change to make a living of his work and everything with enormous business interests seeking to bleed every last penny from content others produced. When a music publishers seeks money a dozen times from the same person for the same song, the beast needs to be killed. 1 payment for the audio sample. Another for the tune on your iPod, then next for the home stereo, another fee to embed it in your birthday video, another if you play it a party, more money still for your ringtone, buy it again if you buy another MP3-player.
</p><p> <b>ENOUGH</b>
</p><p>Copyright has to change. Computer games that cost ever more for shorter and shorter games with tiny addons costing 10 bucks or more is nickle and diming the industry to death. People bought games when you could simply swap them on a floppy because the price was right. 70+ euro's for a PS3 games is just not on. Especially since the PC version costs 30-40 euro's LESS. The Collectors Edition of Dragon Age for the PC costs the same as the regular edition for the consoles. Greed gone out of control.
</p><p>For music the same goes. Apple lovers, turn away, this is going to hurt. The costs of an iTune song is the purest greed displayed, until the BBC named its pricing plans for the iPlayer. 1 dollar/euro for a song, that does not have to be pressed on a CD, put in a box with a printed sleeve, stocked and shipped, all with the risk of producing to few or to many, is JUST TO FUCKING MUCH. What happened to the CAPITALIST idea of cost savings reducing prices? The BBC even thought to charge 10 dollar per episode. God help the Eastenders fan. Or worse, neighbors.
</p><p>The prices got nothing more to do with demand and supply but with "We supply therefor we demand."
</p><p>Movies make record profits, yet the movie industry is being killed by downloading. How can this be? Because some MPAA accountant has told movie moguls that their are 6 billion people in this world and so their movie should at 10 dollars per ticket earn them 60 billion. When it doesn't, piracy is to blame.
</p><p>Pension funds in Holland invest in MUSIC rights for the future as their analysts who are boring men who think gold is unstable because it evaporates at a rate of few atoms every 1 million years, have determined it is a reliable investment. A safe buy that pays for itself in 10 years and is then a steady source of income at virtually no cost.
</p><p>Yet the music industry is supposedly at an edge.
</p><p>No, it is no wonder you posted as an AC. You are arguing a lost cause, people</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No copyright and freedom of the individual are not the same thing , but the issue is here that you are asking a loaded question .
You are asking , if hanging escaped slaves is n't the answer , then how should they be handled .
Making it obvious that in your mind , that you already made up your mind that there should be punishment .
Others would argue that you might ask whether the very concept of copyright might not need to be changed .
Once again .
Copyright has NOT been in existence for the vast majority of human history .
Thousands of years , humanity has progressed and produced art that has endured across the ages , with absolutely no copyright .
This changed , and NOT as you might think to protect the creators of content , but the publishers of content .
Copyright is not for nothing called COPY right .
It was created to protect music PUBLISHERS , printed music sheets , who bought the music from artist for a small sum and then printed money .
Obviously , they wanted to be only ones to be allowed to do that , and so copyright was started in its modern form .
The current system is a dreadful beast .
The same Disney that has lobbied to have it extended published Pinocchio on the day after the copyright on it expired .
Yet if you dare to use their work , you will be hounded by their lawyers , even with works of parody .
No , you ask how the slave should be punished , when every right thinking person ask , should slavery be allowed .
Copyright needs to change , it has no longer got anything to do with giving a creator a change to make a living of his work and everything with enormous business interests seeking to bleed every last penny from content others produced .
When a music publishers seeks money a dozen times from the same person for the same song , the beast needs to be killed .
1 payment for the audio sample .
Another for the tune on your iPod , then next for the home stereo , another fee to embed it in your birthday video , another if you play it a party , more money still for your ringtone , buy it again if you buy another MP3-player .
ENOUGH Copyright has to change .
Computer games that cost ever more for shorter and shorter games with tiny addons costing 10 bucks or more is nickle and diming the industry to death .
People bought games when you could simply swap them on a floppy because the price was right .
70 + euro 's for a PS3 games is just not on .
Especially since the PC version costs 30-40 euro 's LESS .
The Collectors Edition of Dragon Age for the PC costs the same as the regular edition for the consoles .
Greed gone out of control .
For music the same goes .
Apple lovers , turn away , this is going to hurt .
The costs of an iTune song is the purest greed displayed , until the BBC named its pricing plans for the iPlayer .
1 dollar/euro for a song , that does not have to be pressed on a CD , put in a box with a printed sleeve , stocked and shipped , all with the risk of producing to few or to many , is JUST TO FUCKING MUCH .
What happened to the CAPITALIST idea of cost savings reducing prices ?
The BBC even thought to charge 10 dollar per episode .
God help the Eastenders fan .
Or worse , neighbors .
The prices got nothing more to do with demand and supply but with " We supply therefor we demand .
" Movies make record profits , yet the movie industry is being killed by downloading .
How can this be ?
Because some MPAA accountant has told movie moguls that their are 6 billion people in this world and so their movie should at 10 dollars per ticket earn them 60 billion .
When it does n't , piracy is to blame .
Pension funds in Holland invest in MUSIC rights for the future as their analysts who are boring men who think gold is unstable because it evaporates at a rate of few atoms every 1 million years , have determined it is a reliable investment .
A safe buy that pays for itself in 10 years and is then a steady source of income at virtually no cost .
Yet the music industry is supposedly at an edge .
No , it is no wonder you posted as an AC .
You are arguing a lost cause , people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No copyright and freedom of the individual are not the same thing, but the issue is here that you are asking a loaded question.
You are asking, if hanging escaped slaves isn't the answer, then how should they be handled.
Making it obvious that in your mind, that you already made up your mind that there should be punishment.
Others would argue that you might ask whether the very concept of copyright might not need to be changed.
Once again.
Copyright has NOT been in existence for the vast majority of human history.
Thousands of years, humanity has progressed and produced art that has endured across the ages, with absolutely no copyright.
This changed, and NOT as you might think to protect the creators of content, but the publishers of content.
Copyright is not for nothing called COPY right.
It was created to protect music PUBLISHERS, printed music sheets, who bought the music from artist for a small sum and then printed money.
Obviously, they wanted to be only ones to be allowed to do that, and so copyright was started in its modern form.
The current system is a dreadful beast.
The same Disney that has lobbied to have it extended published Pinocchio on the day after the copyright on it expired.
Yet if you dare to use their work, you will be hounded by their lawyers, even with works of parody.
No, you ask how the slave should be punished, when every right thinking person ask, should slavery be allowed.
Copyright needs to change, it has no longer got anything to do with giving a creator a change to make a living of his work and everything with enormous business interests seeking to bleed every last penny from content others produced.
When a music publishers seeks money a dozen times from the same person for the same song, the beast needs to be killed.
1 payment for the audio sample.
Another for the tune on your iPod, then next for the home stereo, another fee to embed it in your birthday video, another if you play it a party, more money still for your ringtone, buy it again if you buy another MP3-player.
ENOUGH
Copyright has to change.
Computer games that cost ever more for shorter and shorter games with tiny addons costing 10 bucks or more is nickle and diming the industry to death.
People bought games when you could simply swap them on a floppy because the price was right.
70+ euro's for a PS3 games is just not on.
Especially since the PC version costs 30-40 euro's LESS.
The Collectors Edition of Dragon Age for the PC costs the same as the regular edition for the consoles.
Greed gone out of control.
For music the same goes.
Apple lovers, turn away, this is going to hurt.
The costs of an iTune song is the purest greed displayed, until the BBC named its pricing plans for the iPlayer.
1 dollar/euro for a song, that does not have to be pressed on a CD, put in a box with a printed sleeve, stocked and shipped, all with the risk of producing to few or to many, is JUST TO FUCKING MUCH.
What happened to the CAPITALIST idea of cost savings reducing prices?
The BBC even thought to charge 10 dollar per episode.
God help the Eastenders fan.
Or worse, neighbors.
The prices got nothing more to do with demand and supply but with "We supply therefor we demand.
"
Movies make record profits, yet the movie industry is being killed by downloading.
How can this be?
Because some MPAA accountant has told movie moguls that their are 6 billion people in this world and so their movie should at 10 dollars per ticket earn them 60 billion.
When it doesn't, piracy is to blame.
Pension funds in Holland invest in MUSIC rights for the future as their analysts who are boring men who think gold is unstable because it evaporates at a rate of few atoms every 1 million years, have determined it is a reliable investment.
A safe buy that pays for itself in 10 years and is then a steady source of income at virtually no cost.
Yet the music industry is supposedly at an edge.
No, it is no wonder you posted as an AC.
You are arguing a lost cause, people</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929569</id>
	<title>Re:heh.</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1256901840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"No kidding. 40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugs. It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization."</i>
<br> <br>
We've had science, medical research, doctors, and hospitals for a century now.  We still haven't eliminated disease or death.  We fund police departments.  We still haven't eliminated crime.  We fund fire departments.  Yet, we still haven't eliminated fires.
<br> <br>
I think it's time we all just gave up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" No kidding .
40 years of the " War on Drugs " has wasted thousands of lives in jail , and we 're no closer to eliminating drugs .
It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization .
" We 've had science , medical research , doctors , and hospitals for a century now .
We still have n't eliminated disease or death .
We fund police departments .
We still have n't eliminated crime .
We fund fire departments .
Yet , we still have n't eliminated fires .
I think it 's time we all just gave up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No kidding.
40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugs.
It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization.
"
 
We've had science, medical research, doctors, and hospitals for a century now.
We still haven't eliminated disease or death.
We fund police departments.
We still haven't eliminated crime.
We fund fire departments.
Yet, we still haven't eliminated fires.
I think it's time we all just gave up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29941413</id>
	<title>Re:Not helping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Noone is 'arbitrarily' cutting off people's 'rights.  First off when you are unplugging someone for irresponsible use it is not arbitrary.  Second access to the internet is by no means a right;  it is a priviledge.  I understand that it is extremely useful in Today's society...  but so is driving a car.  Even though a may car is necessary to attend school or get a good job it is by no means a right and if you get caught under the influence you can be damn right that society will restrict their right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Noone is 'arbitrarily ' cutting off people 's 'rights .
First off when you are unplugging someone for irresponsible use it is not arbitrary .
Second access to the internet is by no means a right ; it is a priviledge .
I understand that it is extremely useful in Today 's society... but so is driving a car .
Even though a may car is necessary to attend school or get a good job it is by no means a right and if you get caught under the influence you can be damn right that society will restrict their right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noone is 'arbitrarily' cutting off people's 'rights.
First off when you are unplugging someone for irresponsible use it is not arbitrary.
Second access to the internet is by no means a right;  it is a priviledge.
I understand that it is extremely useful in Today's society...  but so is driving a car.
Even though a may car is necessary to attend school or get a good job it is by no means a right and if you get caught under the influence you can be damn right that society will restrict their right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931783</id>
	<title>Re:How did we live 'till 1990ies?</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1256919180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If everyone else gets to go on to ebay or whatever, one might feel really bad if one wasn't allowed online.</p></div></blockquote><p>We are discussing a <em>punishment</em> &mdash; it is <em>supposed</em> to feel bad. Or even "really" bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If everyone else gets to go on to ebay or whatever , one might feel really bad if one was n't allowed online.We are discussing a punishment    it is supposed to feel bad .
Or even " really " bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everyone else gets to go on to ebay or whatever, one might feel really bad if one wasn't allowed online.We are discussing a punishment — it is supposed to feel bad.
Or even "really" bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933745</id>
	<title>We must preserve the democratic system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As this act clearly marks the end of democracy in that country, it is imperative that the US invade immediately to preserve democracy and build a new, democratic, constitutional basis for the government before we can withdraw our troops. We owe it to the people of our long-time friend and ally to save them from the loss of their freedom.</p><p>But who will save us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As this act clearly marks the end of democracy in that country , it is imperative that the US invade immediately to preserve democracy and build a new , democratic , constitutional basis for the government before we can withdraw our troops .
We owe it to the people of our long-time friend and ally to save them from the loss of their freedom.But who will save us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As this act clearly marks the end of democracy in that country, it is imperative that the US invade immediately to preserve democracy and build a new, democratic, constitutional basis for the government before we can withdraw our troops.
We owe it to the people of our long-time friend and ally to save them from the loss of their freedom.But who will save us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928163</id>
	<title>first comment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256893440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First comment,<br>So screw you all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First comment,So screw you all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First comment,So screw you all</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29939127</id>
	<title>Re:So what then ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the US at least, copyright in it's current form is unconstitutional.  (9th amendment)  repeal it, or return it's term lengths to what they were at the very inception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the US at least , copyright in it 's current form is unconstitutional .
( 9th amendment ) repeal it , or return it 's term lengths to what they were at the very inception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the US at least, copyright in it's current form is unconstitutional.
(9th amendment)  repeal it, or return it's term lengths to what they were at the very inception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929141</id>
	<title>Re:Physics?</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1256898480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
And I thought I was going senile - the whole title doesn't make any sense.
</p><p>
Soulskill managed to go beyond the call of duty this time onto the proverbial "THE NEXT LEVEL" of slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I thought I was going senile - the whole title does n't make any sense .
Soulskill managed to go beyond the call of duty this time onto the proverbial " THE NEXT LEVEL " of slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
And I thought I was going senile - the whole title doesn't make any sense.
Soulskill managed to go beyond the call of duty this time onto the proverbial "THE NEXT LEVEL" of slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931283</id>
	<title>Since Sith Lord Mandy is a gay</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1256913960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Hopefully he'll die from AIDS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully he 'll die from AIDS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hopefully he'll die from AIDS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933811</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy happens because of the high costs</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1256997780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials, but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free.</i> <br> <br>It's rather more complex than that. There are plenty of situations where a "legitimate copy" won't be available for some time, if ever. But a pirate download is available right now.<br>There are also plenty of free "podcasts" available which would be in competition with paid for materials.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials , but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free .
It 's rather more complex than that .
There are plenty of situations where a " legitimate copy " wo n't be available for some time , if ever .
But a pirate download is available right now.There are also plenty of free " podcasts " available which would be in competition with paid for materials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials, but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free.
It's rather more complex than that.
There are plenty of situations where a "legitimate copy" won't be available for some time, if ever.
But a pirate download is available right now.There are also plenty of free "podcasts" available which would be in competition with paid for materials.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928759</id>
	<title>As video begat radio...</title>
	<author>Gothic\_Walrus</author>
	<datestamp>1256896440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Physics killed the video star?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Physics killed the video star ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physics killed the video star?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928621</id>
	<title>Talk-Talk</title>
	<author>RotateLeftByte</author>
	<datestamp>1256895660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I normally would not give the time of day with this bunch of cowboys(&gt;&pound;10 in phone charges just to cancel a landline) but if they do take legal action over the latest silly idea to come out of Darth Vader (aka Mandy) I'll support them.</p><p>IF the EU has told the French that this goes against the EU laws why the f*** does NuLab think this will also pass their scrutiny. Dumb idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I normally would not give the time of day with this bunch of cowboys ( &gt;   10 in phone charges just to cancel a landline ) but if they do take legal action over the latest silly idea to come out of Darth Vader ( aka Mandy ) I 'll support them.IF the EU has told the French that this goes against the EU laws why the f * * * does NuLab think this will also pass their scrutiny .
Dumb idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I normally would not give the time of day with this bunch of cowboys(&gt;£10 in phone charges just to cancel a landline) but if they do take legal action over the latest silly idea to come out of Darth Vader (aka Mandy) I'll support them.IF the EU has told the French that this goes against the EU laws why the f*** does NuLab think this will also pass their scrutiny.
Dumb idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929253</id>
	<title>Re:I think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256899260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and dumb politicians</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and dumb politicians</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and dumb politicians</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932253</id>
	<title>Re:heh.</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1256925240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just think how bad the jails would be if all those good folks had not been sent there.</p><p>Not to mention the badasses that skated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think how bad the jails would be if all those good folks had not been sent there.Not to mention the badasses that skated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think how bad the jails would be if all those good folks had not been sent there.Not to mention the badasses that skated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611</id>
	<title>let them pass all the laws they want</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1256895600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who fucking cares? its just so much damage to route around</p><p>yes, they could make laws that would end filesharing... laws that would also essentially kill everything that makes the internet worthy our contribution and attention. that's not going to happen, unless media companies have more power than self-destructive military dictatorships</p><p>therefore, let them pass all of the half-assed measures that don't essentially kill the joy that is the internet all they want. let them joust with that technological hydra, and waste all their resources, a pool of cash and manpower that just keeps dwindling every day. obfuscation schemes, proxy schemes, encryption schemes, steganographic schemes, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... some college freshman in his dorm will handle all the complexities, for free, and make it as easy as point and click, and the program will spread like wildfire. and will of course get stamped out, just as the next moronic big media-sponsored law circumventing tool is spreading like wildfire. whack-a-mole is never a game you eternally prevail at</p><p>so let them buy as many legislators as they can, pass as many intrusive legal schemes as they want, waste as much of their dwindling reserves as they can</p><p>again, who fucking cares?</p><p>millions of media hungry, technologically savvy, and most importantly, POOR teenagers</p><p>versus a counple thousand lawyers basing their strategy on a philosophically flawed premise: that the internet can be controlled, that the distribution tollbooths that allowed media companies to thrive in the pre-internet age can be preserved</p><p>game over, douchebags</p><p>it doesn't reflect well on you when you are already defeated, and don't know it or won't admit it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who fucking cares ?
its just so much damage to route aroundyes , they could make laws that would end filesharing... laws that would also essentially kill everything that makes the internet worthy our contribution and attention .
that 's not going to happen , unless media companies have more power than self-destructive military dictatorshipstherefore , let them pass all of the half-assed measures that do n't essentially kill the joy that is the internet all they want .
let them joust with that technological hydra , and waste all their resources , a pool of cash and manpower that just keeps dwindling every day .
obfuscation schemes , proxy schemes , encryption schemes , steganographic schemes , etc ... some college freshman in his dorm will handle all the complexities , for free , and make it as easy as point and click , and the program will spread like wildfire .
and will of course get stamped out , just as the next moronic big media-sponsored law circumventing tool is spreading like wildfire .
whack-a-mole is never a game you eternally prevail atso let them buy as many legislators as they can , pass as many intrusive legal schemes as they want , waste as much of their dwindling reserves as they canagain , who fucking cares ? millions of media hungry , technologically savvy , and most importantly , POOR teenagersversus a counple thousand lawyers basing their strategy on a philosophically flawed premise : that the internet can be controlled , that the distribution tollbooths that allowed media companies to thrive in the pre-internet age can be preservedgame over , douchebagsit does n't reflect well on you when you are already defeated , and do n't know it or wo n't admit it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who fucking cares?
its just so much damage to route aroundyes, they could make laws that would end filesharing... laws that would also essentially kill everything that makes the internet worthy our contribution and attention.
that's not going to happen, unless media companies have more power than self-destructive military dictatorshipstherefore, let them pass all of the half-assed measures that don't essentially kill the joy that is the internet all they want.
let them joust with that technological hydra, and waste all their resources, a pool of cash and manpower that just keeps dwindling every day.
obfuscation schemes, proxy schemes, encryption schemes, steganographic schemes, etc ... some college freshman in his dorm will handle all the complexities, for free, and make it as easy as point and click, and the program will spread like wildfire.
and will of course get stamped out, just as the next moronic big media-sponsored law circumventing tool is spreading like wildfire.
whack-a-mole is never a game you eternally prevail atso let them buy as many legislators as they can, pass as many intrusive legal schemes as they want, waste as much of their dwindling reserves as they canagain, who fucking cares?millions of media hungry, technologically savvy, and most importantly, POOR teenagersversus a counple thousand lawyers basing their strategy on a philosophically flawed premise: that the internet can be controlled, that the distribution tollbooths that allowed media companies to thrive in the pre-internet age can be preservedgame over, douchebagsit doesn't reflect well on you when you are already defeated, and don't know it or won't admit it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175</id>
	<title>I think</title>
	<author>b0ttle</author>
	<datestamp>1256893500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932817</id>
	<title>Re:let them pass all the laws they want</title>
	<author>AxeTheMax</author>
	<datestamp>1256979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>who fucking cares? its just so much damage to route around</p></div><p>Repeated damage to the body is a cause of cancer. </p><p>


Actually, now I've said it, it is clear enough - Mandelson is a cancerous infection. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>who fucking cares ?
its just so much damage to route aroundRepeated damage to the body is a cause of cancer .
Actually , now I 've said it , it is clear enough - Mandelson is a cancerous infection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who fucking cares?
its just so much damage to route aroundRepeated damage to the body is a cause of cancer.
Actually, now I've said it, it is clear enough - Mandelson is a cancerous infection. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934291</id>
	<title>Evascerates?</title>
	<author>Demetris</author>
	<datestamp>1257002040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your freedom too can be taken from you if you break the law.  And freedom is far more important than the internet for things that are essential to humans.  So, according to Cory Doctorow's logic, we should also stop jailing people who break the law because freedom is so important.

What kind of argument is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your freedom too can be taken from you if you break the law .
And freedom is far more important than the internet for things that are essential to humans .
So , according to Cory Doctorow 's logic , we should also stop jailing people who break the law because freedom is so important .
What kind of argument is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your freedom too can be taken from you if you break the law.
And freedom is far more important than the internet for things that are essential to humans.
So, according to Cory Doctorow's logic, we should also stop jailing people who break the law because freedom is so important.
What kind of argument is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929423</id>
	<title>We need our own 3 Strikes Proposals...</title>
	<author>zotz</author>
	<datestamp>1256900640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a counter weight...</p><p><a href="http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-3-strikes-law-proposals.html" title="blogspot.com">http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-3-strikes-law-proposals.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>What can you suggest.</p><p>(Naturally, it would be best not to have these 3 strikes plays at all...)</p><p>all the best,</p><p>drew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a counter weight...http : //zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-3-strikes-law-proposals.html [ blogspot.com ] What can you suggest .
( Naturally , it would be best not to have these 3 strikes plays at all... ) all the best,drew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a counter weight...http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-3-strikes-law-proposals.html [blogspot.com]What can you suggest.
(Naturally, it would be best not to have these 3 strikes plays at all...)all the best,drew</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928751</id>
	<title>Illegal does not mean enforceable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256896440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright infringement laws are difficult to enforce.  That does not automatically justify making someone <i>guilty upon accusation.</i></p><p>Sure, the activities are illegal.  And some believe they are illegal with good reason (something about causing economic harm).  Be that as it may, it is <i>still not okay</i> to presume someone is guilty just because he has been accused too many times.</p><p>Any idiot can accuse, even if there is no guilt.  Innocent people must be protected against false accusations.  Allowing guilt to be presumed upon accusation is a far greater crime than copyright infringement.</p><p>So it doesn't matter how else the situation should be handled.  It doesn't matter if there is *no other way* to inforce copyright law.  Guilty-upon-accusation is outright unacceptable under any circumstance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright infringement laws are difficult to enforce .
That does not automatically justify making someone guilty upon accusation.Sure , the activities are illegal .
And some believe they are illegal with good reason ( something about causing economic harm ) .
Be that as it may , it is still not okay to presume someone is guilty just because he has been accused too many times.Any idiot can accuse , even if there is no guilt .
Innocent people must be protected against false accusations .
Allowing guilt to be presumed upon accusation is a far greater crime than copyright infringement.So it does n't matter how else the situation should be handled .
It does n't matter if there is * no other way * to inforce copyright law .
Guilty-upon-accusation is outright unacceptable under any circumstance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright infringement laws are difficult to enforce.
That does not automatically justify making someone guilty upon accusation.Sure, the activities are illegal.
And some believe they are illegal with good reason (something about causing economic harm).
Be that as it may, it is still not okay to presume someone is guilty just because he has been accused too many times.Any idiot can accuse, even if there is no guilt.
Innocent people must be protected against false accusations.
Allowing guilt to be presumed upon accusation is a far greater crime than copyright infringement.So it doesn't matter how else the situation should be handled.
It doesn't matter if there is *no other way* to inforce copyright law.
Guilty-upon-accusation is outright unacceptable under any circumstance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928819</id>
	<title>Re:heh.</title>
	<author>Conspicuous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1256896740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as the war on drugs is only tangentially related to actual drug abuse, the war on copyright infringement will only be tangentially related to piracy. </p><p>The "failed" drug policy of the last 50 years only makes sense to me when seen as a war waged against the underprivileged in our societies. Drug use is high in all sections of society but the poor and ethnic minority groups are the ones that end up in prison.</p><p>Equally, I think the real reason behind slime-balls like Mandelson signing up to legislation that targets downloaders is to restrict freedom of speech on the internet.</p><p>New Labour, and Mandelson in particular, have waged a vicious war on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and habeas corpus in Britain over the last 12 years. This legislation is the first step to widening that war to the internet. It gives unaccountable bureaucrats and corporate officials powers that were previously only available to the judiciary, just as New Labour is doing in other areas of British life. It will lead to (ab)use of these powers to curtail fundamental human rights, just as is happening with those other powers. </p><p>As much as our politicians are in the pockets of various corporations, I don't believe that's sufficient explanation for the assault on due process we see here. If there's one thing that terrifies politicians more than falling profits it's democracy. And large scale copyright infringement is just the excuse our politicians need to go after that on the internet with a vengeance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as the war on drugs is only tangentially related to actual drug abuse , the war on copyright infringement will only be tangentially related to piracy .
The " failed " drug policy of the last 50 years only makes sense to me when seen as a war waged against the underprivileged in our societies .
Drug use is high in all sections of society but the poor and ethnic minority groups are the ones that end up in prison.Equally , I think the real reason behind slime-balls like Mandelson signing up to legislation that targets downloaders is to restrict freedom of speech on the internet.New Labour , and Mandelson in particular , have waged a vicious war on freedom of speech , freedom of assembly and habeas corpus in Britain over the last 12 years .
This legislation is the first step to widening that war to the internet .
It gives unaccountable bureaucrats and corporate officials powers that were previously only available to the judiciary , just as New Labour is doing in other areas of British life .
It will lead to ( ab ) use of these powers to curtail fundamental human rights , just as is happening with those other powers .
As much as our politicians are in the pockets of various corporations , I do n't believe that 's sufficient explanation for the assault on due process we see here .
If there 's one thing that terrifies politicians more than falling profits it 's democracy .
And large scale copyright infringement is just the excuse our politicians need to go after that on the internet with a vengeance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as the war on drugs is only tangentially related to actual drug abuse, the war on copyright infringement will only be tangentially related to piracy.
The "failed" drug policy of the last 50 years only makes sense to me when seen as a war waged against the underprivileged in our societies.
Drug use is high in all sections of society but the poor and ethnic minority groups are the ones that end up in prison.Equally, I think the real reason behind slime-balls like Mandelson signing up to legislation that targets downloaders is to restrict freedom of speech on the internet.New Labour, and Mandelson in particular, have waged a vicious war on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and habeas corpus in Britain over the last 12 years.
This legislation is the first step to widening that war to the internet.
It gives unaccountable bureaucrats and corporate officials powers that were previously only available to the judiciary, just as New Labour is doing in other areas of British life.
It will lead to (ab)use of these powers to curtail fundamental human rights, just as is happening with those other powers.
As much as our politicians are in the pockets of various corporations, I don't believe that's sufficient explanation for the assault on due process we see here.
If there's one thing that terrifies politicians more than falling profits it's democracy.
And large scale copyright infringement is just the excuse our politicians need to go after that on the internet with a vengeance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931369</id>
	<title>You are missing a fundamental and basic point</title>
	<author>PipingSnail</author>
	<datestamp>1256914980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying."</i>

</p><p>The fundamental and basic point being, that is Cory's right to insist on those terms for <b>his</b> work, <b> NOT FOR THE WORK OF OTHERS</b>.

</p><p>How long until you people <b>get this</b>? What works for one person does not necessarily work for another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying .
" The fundamental and basic point being , that is Cory 's right to insist on those terms for his work , NOT FOR THE WORK OF OTHERS .
How long until you people get this ?
What works for one person does not necessarily work for another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying.
"

The fundamental and basic point being, that is Cory's right to insist on those terms for his work,  NOT FOR THE WORK OF OTHERS.
How long until you people get this?
What works for one person does not necessarily work for another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395</id>
	<title>Re:heh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256894580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding. 40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugs.  It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
40 years of the " War on Drugs " has wasted thousands of lives in jail , and we 're no closer to eliminating drugs .
It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
40 years of the "War on Drugs" has wasted thousands of lives in jail, and we're no closer to eliminating drugs.
It will take at least 40 years of a war on copyright infringers before anyone starts seriously discussing legalization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932737</id>
	<title>FRENCH (insurer) PIRATES protected by BANK SECRECY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all pirates are threatened by the law:</p><p>GROUPAMA was caught in a software <b>PIRACY case of $200 million</b> and has made an unofficial affidavit (claiming that it was not guilty) to divert Police investigations from the evidences officially collected one month ago at a different office.</p><p>GROUPAMA argued that <b>bank secrecy</b> entitled it <b>to limit the scope of Police investigations to a building that was not the place where evidences about the infraction were officially collected</b>.</p><p>GROUPAMA managed to have the <b>General Prosecutor of Paris to state that Police was 'right' to ignore the criminal file</b> and focus only on the irrelevant information provided by GROUPAMA itself!</p><p>All the details, including the General Prosecutor reply, the BEFTI investigation file and the unofficial affidavit cooked by GROUPAMA have been made publicly available:</p><p>http://remoteanything.com/archives/groupama.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all pirates are threatened by the law : GROUPAMA was caught in a software PIRACY case of $ 200 million and has made an unofficial affidavit ( claiming that it was not guilty ) to divert Police investigations from the evidences officially collected one month ago at a different office.GROUPAMA argued that bank secrecy entitled it to limit the scope of Police investigations to a building that was not the place where evidences about the infraction were officially collected.GROUPAMA managed to have the General Prosecutor of Paris to state that Police was 'right ' to ignore the criminal file and focus only on the irrelevant information provided by GROUPAMA itself ! All the details , including the General Prosecutor reply , the BEFTI investigation file and the unofficial affidavit cooked by GROUPAMA have been made publicly available : http : //remoteanything.com/archives/groupama.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all pirates are threatened by the law:GROUPAMA was caught in a software PIRACY case of $200 million and has made an unofficial affidavit (claiming that it was not guilty) to divert Police investigations from the evidences officially collected one month ago at a different office.GROUPAMA argued that bank secrecy entitled it to limit the scope of Police investigations to a building that was not the place where evidences about the infraction were officially collected.GROUPAMA managed to have the General Prosecutor of Paris to state that Police was 'right' to ignore the criminal file and focus only on the irrelevant information provided by GROUPAMA itself!All the details, including the General Prosecutor reply, the BEFTI investigation file and the unofficial affidavit cooked by GROUPAMA have been made publicly available:http://remoteanything.com/archives/groupama.pdf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931145</id>
	<title>In my amateur opinion...</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1256912460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cory Doctorow makes a decent living by restating the obvious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cory Doctorow makes a decent living by restating the obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cory Doctorow makes a decent living by restating the obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929217</id>
	<title>Re:I think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256898960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mandelson already resigned twice for being a dodgy fuck but he keeps coming back.  He's even said he'll work for the opposition if they'll have him.  Some people have no principles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mandelson already resigned twice for being a dodgy fuck but he keeps coming back .
He 's even said he 'll work for the opposition if they 'll have him .
Some people have no principles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mandelson already resigned twice for being a dodgy fuck but he keeps coming back.
He's even said he'll work for the opposition if they'll have him.
Some people have no principles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929075</id>
	<title>OT: movie</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1256898060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On a totally irrelevant note, what's going on with your movie?  You've been editing it for as long as I can remember<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a totally irrelevant note , what 's going on with your movie ?
You 've been editing it for as long as I can remember : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a totally irrelevant note, what's going on with your movie?
You've been editing it for as long as I can remember :p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929275</id>
	<title>Slashdot Bukkaki Fest</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1256899500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time there's a story about this self-promotion king, everyone here seems to go wild with all the masterbations. And Doctrow goes for more. He must be a Bukkaki fan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time there 's a story about this self-promotion king , everyone here seems to go wild with all the masterbations .
And Doctrow goes for more .
He must be a Bukkaki fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time there's a story about this self-promotion king, everyone here seems to go wild with all the masterbations.
And Doctrow goes for more.
He must be a Bukkaki fan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928689</id>
	<title>"Three strikes" to ensure wide encryption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256896020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lord Mandelson has today announced that the outgoing Labour government will be going ahead with the "three strikes" plan against Internet filesharing, thus ensuring <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/10/28/three-strikes-will-ensure-security-of-all-private-communications/" title="today.com">the widespread use of encryption</a> [today.com] in all routine network communications.

</p><p>"Encrypted communications as standard is the best possible thing for everyone's privacy," he said today, "but there's so much inertia from the installed base of unencrypted systems. This will provide a rapid incentive for everyone to upgrade as soon as possible. In our last few months in power at the fag-end of a failed government, we need to leave a real legacy for the future."

</p><p>The benchmark for the new system will be illegal filesharing dropping by 70\%. "That's <i>measured</i> illegal filesharing, of course. We have set out our metrics quite clearly. Furthermore, home taping is <i>killing</i> music."

</p><p>MI5 and the police have objected to the plan due to the difficulty of mass-monitoring encrypted systems, even with the RIPA power to obtain passwords, since mass anonymity systems such as TOR and Freenet have been constructed where the end-user never has nor sees the encryption key. "But a few hideous terrorist atrocities is a small price to pay for less Lily Allen songs being shared. Particularly if they happen on the Tories' watch. MuWAAAhahaha<i>ha</i>. By the way, have you noticed just how much Dave Cameron looks like Iggle Piggle? Uncanny."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lord Mandelson has today announced that the outgoing Labour government will be going ahead with the " three strikes " plan against Internet filesharing , thus ensuring the widespread use of encryption [ today.com ] in all routine network communications .
" Encrypted communications as standard is the best possible thing for everyone 's privacy , " he said today , " but there 's so much inertia from the installed base of unencrypted systems .
This will provide a rapid incentive for everyone to upgrade as soon as possible .
In our last few months in power at the fag-end of a failed government , we need to leave a real legacy for the future .
" The benchmark for the new system will be illegal filesharing dropping by 70 \ % .
" That 's measured illegal filesharing , of course .
We have set out our metrics quite clearly .
Furthermore , home taping is killing music .
" MI5 and the police have objected to the plan due to the difficulty of mass-monitoring encrypted systems , even with the RIPA power to obtain passwords , since mass anonymity systems such as TOR and Freenet have been constructed where the end-user never has nor sees the encryption key .
" But a few hideous terrorist atrocities is a small price to pay for less Lily Allen songs being shared .
Particularly if they happen on the Tories ' watch .
MuWAAAhahahaha. By the way , have you noticed just how much Dave Cameron looks like Iggle Piggle ?
Uncanny. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lord Mandelson has today announced that the outgoing Labour government will be going ahead with the "three strikes" plan against Internet filesharing, thus ensuring the widespread use of encryption [today.com] in all routine network communications.
"Encrypted communications as standard is the best possible thing for everyone's privacy," he said today, "but there's so much inertia from the installed base of unencrypted systems.
This will provide a rapid incentive for everyone to upgrade as soon as possible.
In our last few months in power at the fag-end of a failed government, we need to leave a real legacy for the future.
"

The benchmark for the new system will be illegal filesharing dropping by 70\%.
"That's measured illegal filesharing, of course.
We have set out our metrics quite clearly.
Furthermore, home taping is killing music.
"

MI5 and the police have objected to the plan due to the difficulty of mass-monitoring encrypted systems, even with the RIPA power to obtain passwords, since mass anonymity systems such as TOR and Freenet have been constructed where the end-user never has nor sees the encryption key.
"But a few hideous terrorist atrocities is a small price to pay for less Lily Allen songs being shared.
Particularly if they happen on the Tories' watch.
MuWAAAhahahaha. By the way, have you noticed just how much Dave Cameron looks like Iggle Piggle?
Uncanny."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29938311</id>
	<title>What's really bugging me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..Is that the "3 strikes" laws that I heard about all have this "The ISP shall cancel all service to individual X but will keep charging the fee as if the service were active." approach to it.</p><p>Because the ISP would not bother cutting access if their cash cow could be lost with it.</p><p>This falls under the "Don't steal! Governments don't like competition." clause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..Is that the " 3 strikes " laws that I heard about all have this " The ISP shall cancel all service to individual X but will keep charging the fee as if the service were active .
" approach to it.Because the ISP would not bother cutting access if their cash cow could be lost with it.This falls under the " Do n't steal !
Governments do n't like competition .
" clause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..Is that the "3 strikes" laws that I heard about all have this "The ISP shall cancel all service to individual X but will keep charging the fee as if the service were active.
" approach to it.Because the ISP would not bother cutting access if their cash cow could be lost with it.This falls under the "Don't steal!
Governments don't like competition.
" clause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928957</id>
	<title>Re:I think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256897340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They had such a law in ancient greece. It was, of course, abused. But it did help keep politicians in check.</p><p>A recent push in Germany to adopt such a law was, of course, refused by... the politicians who make laws. Tough luck. If you want to keep those in power in check, you have to put the rules into place before you put them into power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They had such a law in ancient greece .
It was , of course , abused .
But it did help keep politicians in check.A recent push in Germany to adopt such a law was , of course , refused by... the politicians who make laws .
Tough luck .
If you want to keep those in power in check , you have to put the rules into place before you put them into power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had such a law in ancient greece.
It was, of course, abused.
But it did help keep politicians in check.A recent push in Germany to adopt such a law was, of course, refused by... the politicians who make laws.
Tough luck.
If you want to keep those in power in check, you have to put the rules into place before you put them into power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928987</id>
	<title>Physics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256897580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What bearing does physics have on this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What bearing does physics have on this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What bearing does physics have on this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151</id>
	<title>heh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256893380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>good luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>good luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29938069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29939127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29936795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29937809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29940895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29941413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_30_1857241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929569
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933333
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928819
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29940895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29936795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29939127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29930021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29941413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928801
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29937809
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29938069
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933219
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29932815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29934137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29931887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29933811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_30_1857241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29928987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_30_1857241.29929141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
