<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_03_1943237</id>
	<title>Anti-Counterfeiting Deal Aims For Global DMCA</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257277500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Negotiations on the <a href="http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/seoul-seoul.aspx">Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continue</a> on Wednesday as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries secretly negotiate a copyright treaty that includes statutory damages, new search and seizure power, and anti-camcording rules. Now <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/">the substance of the Internet chapter has leaked</a>, with information that the proposed chapter would create a 'Global DMCA' with anti-circumvention rules, liability for ISPs, and the possibility of three-strikes and you're out requirements."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continue on Wednesday as the US , Europe , Japan , Korea , Canada , Australia , and a handful of other countries secretly negotiate a copyright treaty that includes statutory damages , new search and seizure power , and anti-camcording rules .
Now the substance of the Internet chapter has leaked , with information that the proposed chapter would create a 'Global DMCA ' with anti-circumvention rules , liability for ISPs , and the possibility of three-strikes and you 're out requirements .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement continue on Wednesday as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries secretly negotiate a copyright treaty that includes statutory damages, new search and seizure power, and anti-camcording rules.
Now the substance of the Internet chapter has leaked, with information that the proposed chapter would create a 'Global DMCA' with anti-circumvention rules, liability for ISPs, and the possibility of three-strikes and you're out requirements.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976256</id>
	<title>People have the power to boycott...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256992560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have the power to boycott. When businesses behave badly, boycott  until they relent or go extinct. Anything else is wishful thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have the power to boycott .
When businesses behave badly , boycott until they relent or go extinct .
Anything else is wishful thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have the power to boycott.
When businesses behave badly, boycott  until they relent or go extinct.
Anything else is wishful thinking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973326</id>
	<title>My two shillings</title>
	<author>chilvence</author>
	<datestamp>1257268020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to see a system where the 'distribution' of movies, games, music etc is completely detached from the actual funding of it. Right now, the cycle depends on people paying for the stuff by proxy via physical distribution. This is the reason they industry is squirming and whining hysterically, because they dont credit the viewers with enough intelligence to be able to work with them in other ways.

What really needs to happen is people funding the development of art directly, by their own personal choice. Then piracy becomes a non issue, because the artists still get their money. We would hopefully also by definition have a lot more choice on the trash they make. For example petitions to ressurect shows that have been axed (eg firefly, futurama) would have actually had more meaning, because the petitioners could have put their money where their mouth is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see a system where the 'distribution ' of movies , games , music etc is completely detached from the actual funding of it .
Right now , the cycle depends on people paying for the stuff by proxy via physical distribution .
This is the reason they industry is squirming and whining hysterically , because they dont credit the viewers with enough intelligence to be able to work with them in other ways .
What really needs to happen is people funding the development of art directly , by their own personal choice .
Then piracy becomes a non issue , because the artists still get their money .
We would hopefully also by definition have a lot more choice on the trash they make .
For example petitions to ressurect shows that have been axed ( eg firefly , futurama ) would have actually had more meaning , because the petitioners could have put their money where their mouth is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see a system where the 'distribution' of movies, games, music etc is completely detached from the actual funding of it.
Right now, the cycle depends on people paying for the stuff by proxy via physical distribution.
This is the reason they industry is squirming and whining hysterically, because they dont credit the viewers with enough intelligence to be able to work with them in other ways.
What really needs to happen is people funding the development of art directly, by their own personal choice.
Then piracy becomes a non issue, because the artists still get their money.
We would hopefully also by definition have a lot more choice on the trash they make.
For example petitions to ressurect shows that have been axed (eg firefly, futurama) would have actually had more meaning, because the petitioners could have put their money where their mouth is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969212</id>
	<title>For A Modern (and almost anonymous) Sneakernet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people have a cellphone nowadays.<br>Many cellphones are bluetooth enabled.<br>Some bluetooth profiles allow file sharing.<br>Cities with heavy public transport (subways, streetcar, buses, etc) bring a lot of people in close contact to one another.</p><p>With the right software or setup, it could be possible to share file between commuters via the cell's bluetooth.</p><p>Sure there are some points to consider:<br>* security: no one should be able to delete your files<br>* pull technology: your phone asks around if there is something around to download instead of pushing your files around<br>* file selection: not unlike current p2p, you specify the file type you are interested in (mp3, aac, mpg, whatever).<br>* maybe for music, have some sort of genre preferences, so your cell asks "anyone has some Classical music around?"</p><p>After a commuting trip, you check what you harvested and discard the junk or duplicates you are bound to get.</p><p>I said almost anonymous since you can't know who gave you a file except if there is only one other dude in your subway car. Since you don't push, it's not considered illegal in some jurisdictions (Canada I am looking at you).</p><p>Any suggestions to improve the concept?</p><p>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people have a cellphone nowadays.Many cellphones are bluetooth enabled.Some bluetooth profiles allow file sharing.Cities with heavy public transport ( subways , streetcar , buses , etc ) bring a lot of people in close contact to one another.With the right software or setup , it could be possible to share file between commuters via the cell 's bluetooth.Sure there are some points to consider : * security : no one should be able to delete your files * pull technology : your phone asks around if there is something around to download instead of pushing your files around * file selection : not unlike current p2p , you specify the file type you are interested in ( mp3 , aac , mpg , whatever ) .
* maybe for music , have some sort of genre preferences , so your cell asks " anyone has some Classical music around ?
" After a commuting trip , you check what you harvested and discard the junk or duplicates you are bound to get.I said almost anonymous since you ca n't know who gave you a file except if there is only one other dude in your subway car .
Since you do n't push , it 's not considered illegal in some jurisdictions ( Canada I am looking at you ) .Any suggestions to improve the concept ? AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people have a cellphone nowadays.Many cellphones are bluetooth enabled.Some bluetooth profiles allow file sharing.Cities with heavy public transport (subways, streetcar, buses, etc) bring a lot of people in close contact to one another.With the right software or setup, it could be possible to share file between commuters via the cell's bluetooth.Sure there are some points to consider:* security: no one should be able to delete your files* pull technology: your phone asks around if there is something around to download instead of pushing your files around* file selection: not unlike current p2p, you specify the file type you are interested in (mp3, aac, mpg, whatever).
* maybe for music, have some sort of genre preferences, so your cell asks "anyone has some Classical music around?
"After a commuting trip, you check what you harvested and discard the junk or duplicates you are bound to get.I said almost anonymous since you can't know who gave you a file except if there is only one other dude in your subway car.
Since you don't push, it's not considered illegal in some jurisdictions (Canada I am looking at you).Any suggestions to improve the concept?AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968654</id>
	<title>Re:Secret meetings.</title>
	<author>ChrisMounce</author>
	<datestamp>1257244620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That may be, but at least in America, we have a few advantages, such as high turnover of leaders (every 4.16 years, on average) and infighting.<br><br>If I have to have an evil government, I'd like it to be slow and incompetent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be , but at least in America , we have a few advantages , such as high turnover of leaders ( every 4.16 years , on average ) and infighting.If I have to have an evil government , I 'd like it to be slow and incompetent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be, but at least in America, we have a few advantages, such as high turnover of leaders (every 4.16 years, on average) and infighting.If I have to have an evil government, I'd like it to be slow and incompetent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968920</id>
	<title>Re:Secret meetings.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257245520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly! The short version: Humans that are in power have a basic conflict: 1. Every human works only for himself, and everything he does either directly or indirectly (family, friends, etc) benefits himself.* And 2. He is supposed to work for the good of us all.</p><p>This is why communism failed. And it is why democracy is forced to fail. No exceptions.<br>The only thing that can comply with those rules, is a automatism (like a computer) that is a true combination of the ideas of the people that it governs over. More like a tool, than a separate entity. More like a superposition of all people than a specific standpoint.<br>And this is why, the bigger such a community gets, the worse problems will be. Because people will be more different, and nobody can tell anymore, what the definition for right and wrong, for that whole group, should be.</p><p>But we're far from fucked. The view that nothing works, is pathetic bullshit. The obvious proof for this is:<br>If nobody can change the world... then how the hell do those who do it right now, do it?? After all they are also just humans.<br>Fact is: Everybody can change the world. He just has to be very, <em>very</em>, <strong>very</strong> self-confident. With the strongest set of values compared to all others he meets. Even in the face of complete disagreement and even hatred. Never cave to the masses! Never cave to the views of those still more powerful. But instead pull them into <em>his</em> view of reality! Never giving up or letting others stop him. Fuck bombs! Psychology is they key weapon in this world!</p><p>\_\_\_<br>* Most people reject this because of faulty social conditioning, and because they falsely assume, that that would mean anti-"social" behavior. But from a biological standpoint (we're all just expanding bio-mass, in a fight for resources), it's obvious that life works like this. In fact, most people don't even know what "social" means, and assume, that others exploiting you, would mean being "social".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
The short version : Humans that are in power have a basic conflict : 1 .
Every human works only for himself , and everything he does either directly or indirectly ( family , friends , etc ) benefits himself .
* And 2 .
He is supposed to work for the good of us all.This is why communism failed .
And it is why democracy is forced to fail .
No exceptions.The only thing that can comply with those rules , is a automatism ( like a computer ) that is a true combination of the ideas of the people that it governs over .
More like a tool , than a separate entity .
More like a superposition of all people than a specific standpoint.And this is why , the bigger such a community gets , the worse problems will be .
Because people will be more different , and nobody can tell anymore , what the definition for right and wrong , for that whole group , should be.But we 're far from fucked .
The view that nothing works , is pathetic bullshit .
The obvious proof for this is : If nobody can change the world... then how the hell do those who do it right now , do it ? ?
After all they are also just humans.Fact is : Everybody can change the world .
He just has to be very , very , very self-confident .
With the strongest set of values compared to all others he meets .
Even in the face of complete disagreement and even hatred .
Never cave to the masses !
Never cave to the views of those still more powerful .
But instead pull them into his view of reality !
Never giving up or letting others stop him .
Fuck bombs !
Psychology is they key weapon in this world ! \ _ \ _ \ _ * Most people reject this because of faulty social conditioning , and because they falsely assume , that that would mean anti- " social " behavior .
But from a biological standpoint ( we 're all just expanding bio-mass , in a fight for resources ) , it 's obvious that life works like this .
In fact , most people do n't even know what " social " means , and assume , that others exploiting you , would mean being " social " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
The short version: Humans that are in power have a basic conflict: 1.
Every human works only for himself, and everything he does either directly or indirectly (family, friends, etc) benefits himself.
* And 2.
He is supposed to work for the good of us all.This is why communism failed.
And it is why democracy is forced to fail.
No exceptions.The only thing that can comply with those rules, is a automatism (like a computer) that is a true combination of the ideas of the people that it governs over.
More like a tool, than a separate entity.
More like a superposition of all people than a specific standpoint.And this is why, the bigger such a community gets, the worse problems will be.
Because people will be more different, and nobody can tell anymore, what the definition for right and wrong, for that whole group, should be.But we're far from fucked.
The view that nothing works, is pathetic bullshit.
The obvious proof for this is:If nobody can change the world... then how the hell do those who do it right now, do it??
After all they are also just humans.Fact is: Everybody can change the world.
He just has to be very, very, very self-confident.
With the strongest set of values compared to all others he meets.
Even in the face of complete disagreement and even hatred.
Never cave to the masses!
Never cave to the views of those still more powerful.
But instead pull them into his view of reality!
Never giving up or letting others stop him.
Fuck bombs!
Psychology is they key weapon in this world!\_\_\_* Most people reject this because of faulty social conditioning, and because they falsely assume, that that would mean anti-"social" behavior.
But from a biological standpoint (we're all just expanding bio-mass, in a fight for resources), it's obvious that life works like this.
In fact, most people don't even know what "social" means, and assume, that others exploiting you, would mean being "social".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29975320</id>
	<title>Re:One way to solve this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256982600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's okay, the legislative-campaign contributor complex has solved that problem too! EMI, BMG etc can't afford to bribe politicos? Bailout time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's okay , the legislative-campaign contributor complex has solved that problem too !
EMI , BMG etc ca n't afford to bribe politicos ?
Bailout time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's okay, the legislative-campaign contributor complex has solved that problem too!
EMI, BMG etc can't afford to bribe politicos?
Bailout time!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968472</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1257243840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RIAA's big 5 companies have little American basis too. <br> <br>
This foreign invasion with paid or duped lawmakers exposes national weakness to payoff. Elsewhere, paid off reps get angry mob attacks with local police on the mob side.<br> <br>

Sharing knowledge is expected in every major religion as well as cultural evolution.
"Legal" != "Moral" and people know mainly morals.  Deviate Laws from them &amp; get the smart citizens either taking their country back, or moving out of it and letting it fail.<br> <br>
On a related note, look at all the American-trained tech people leaving America.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RIAA 's big 5 companies have little American basis too .
This foreign invasion with paid or duped lawmakers exposes national weakness to payoff .
Elsewhere , paid off reps get angry mob attacks with local police on the mob side .
Sharing knowledge is expected in every major religion as well as cultural evolution .
" Legal " ! = " Moral " and people know mainly morals .
Deviate Laws from them &amp; get the smart citizens either taking their country back , or moving out of it and letting it fail .
On a related note , look at all the American-trained tech people leaving America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIAA's big 5 companies have little American basis too.
This foreign invasion with paid or duped lawmakers exposes national weakness to payoff.
Elsewhere, paid off reps get angry mob attacks with local police on the mob side.
Sharing knowledge is expected in every major religion as well as cultural evolution.
"Legal" != "Moral" and people know mainly morals.
Deviate Laws from them &amp; get the smart citizens either taking their country back, or moving out of it and letting it fail.
On a related note, look at all the American-trained tech people leaving America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973438</id>
	<title>Meh - LAN parties do it for me.</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1257269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Crack a few beers, hook in to a hub, open up file sharing, raid each other's drives.
<p>
Dead simple, and WAY faster than sitting around waiting for Rapishare to stop its 90 second countdown...
</p><p>
Also, the songs come RECOMMENDED by friends whose tastes I think have merit.
</p><p>
Losing the ability to DL music will just make LAN parties and meshnets more common.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crack a few beers , hook in to a hub , open up file sharing , raid each other 's drives .
Dead simple , and WAY faster than sitting around waiting for Rapishare to stop its 90 second countdown.. . Also , the songs come RECOMMENDED by friends whose tastes I think have merit .
Losing the ability to DL music will just make LAN parties and meshnets more common .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crack a few beers, hook in to a hub, open up file sharing, raid each other's drives.
Dead simple, and WAY faster than sitting around waiting for Rapishare to stop its 90 second countdown...

Also, the songs come RECOMMENDED by friends whose tastes I think have merit.
Losing the ability to DL music will just make LAN parties and meshnets more common.
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976338</id>
	<title>Who have problem with copyright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256993460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe main problem is with copyright itself?<br>If you ( music/film industry ) do not want people to copy your products, protect it form copying.</p><p>You can not do it or it will cost too much?<br>It is your ( music/film industry ) problem<br>( and your business model )</p><p>CD's films etc will cost many times as now?<br>so what? is there no free music? no free films?</p><p>There will be no new films?</p><p>Personally I can imagine living with it.<br>(Sorry for my English(?))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe main problem is with copyright itself ? If you ( music/film industry ) do not want people to copy your products , protect it form copying.You can not do it or it will cost too much ? It is your ( music/film industry ) problem ( and your business model ) CD 's films etc will cost many times as now ? so what ?
is there no free music ?
no free films ? There will be no new films ? Personally I can imagine living with it .
( Sorry for my English ( ?
) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe main problem is with copyright itself?If you ( music/film industry ) do not want people to copy your products, protect it form copying.You can not do it or it will cost too much?It is your ( music/film industry ) problem( and your business model )CD's films etc will cost many times as now?so what?
is there no free music?
no free films?There will be no new films?Personally I can imagine living with it.
(Sorry for my English(?
))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976314</id>
	<title>Re:I find it difficult to believe...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256993220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or was that swapping jobs for imports, and a race to the bottom?<br>US can't compete with gizmos with a labour content, and hopes IP hocus pokus will cancel out a financial black hole.</p><p>This won't generate jobs - it wont generate taxable income in volume, and it won't pacify the jobless in front of their plasma's.</p><p>Ohhhh we'll track you down on the internet - (bug and spy and dob). Hello high grade encryption, and servers in countries that don't play the game, and sneakernet.</p><p>I'm sure this will be less successful than prohibition, or the war on drugs, as physical media gets cheaper, and people leave ports open. History, such as licensing printing presses, never really worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or was that swapping jobs for imports , and a race to the bottom ? US ca n't compete with gizmos with a labour content , and hopes IP hocus pokus will cancel out a financial black hole.This wo n't generate jobs - it wont generate taxable income in volume , and it wo n't pacify the jobless in front of their plasma 's.Ohhhh we 'll track you down on the internet - ( bug and spy and dob ) .
Hello high grade encryption , and servers in countries that do n't play the game , and sneakernet.I 'm sure this will be less successful than prohibition , or the war on drugs , as physical media gets cheaper , and people leave ports open .
History , such as licensing printing presses , never really worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or was that swapping jobs for imports, and a race to the bottom?US can't compete with gizmos with a labour content, and hopes IP hocus pokus will cancel out a financial black hole.This won't generate jobs - it wont generate taxable income in volume, and it won't pacify the jobless in front of their plasma's.Ohhhh we'll track you down on the internet - (bug and spy and dob).
Hello high grade encryption, and servers in countries that don't play the game, and sneakernet.I'm sure this will be less successful than prohibition, or the war on drugs, as physical media gets cheaper, and people leave ports open.
History, such as licensing printing presses, never really worked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967278</id>
	<title>didn't 3-strikes get striked out in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>didn't 3-strikes get striked out in France or something (I just remember it was some country in Europe and it got a "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag here on slashdot).</p><p>I wonder how this will fair with Finland, where Internet access (1Mbit/s now, 100Mbit/s by 2015) is a legal right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did n't 3-strikes get striked out in France or something ( I just remember it was some country in Europe and it got a " suddenoutbreakofcommonsense " tag here on slashdot ) .I wonder how this will fair with Finland , where Internet access ( 1Mbit/s now , 100Mbit/s by 2015 ) is a legal right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>didn't 3-strikes get striked out in France or something (I just remember it was some country in Europe and it got a "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag here on slashdot).I wonder how this will fair with Finland, where Internet access (1Mbit/s now, 100Mbit/s by 2015) is a legal right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974636</id>
	<title>Re:One way to solve this</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1257019200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem is, it's an attitude something like this that makes them push for these laws in the first place.
If they could pass laws that require you to purchase X content per time period, they would have a long time ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is , it 's an attitude something like this that makes them push for these laws in the first place .
If they could pass laws that require you to purchase X content per time period , they would have a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is, it's an attitude something like this that makes them push for these laws in the first place.
If they could pass laws that require you to purchase X content per time period, they would have a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967548</id>
	<title>Re:Return to sneakernet, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257239880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I hope this will motivate me to get some more fresh air and waste less time with TV and Movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I hope this will motivate me to get some more fresh air and waste less time with TV and Movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I hope this will motivate me to get some more fresh air and waste less time with TV and Movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967196</id>
	<title>Re:Americans</title>
	<author>kick6</author>
	<datestamp>1257281460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is your fault.</p></div><p>Our fault!?  The rest of the world cheered when Obama was elected proclaiming that America had "finally done something right."  This is as much everyone else's fault as it is America's.  See what happens when you believe warm-fuzzy liberal propaganda!?  They go and take your internet away!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is your fault.Our fault ! ?
The rest of the world cheered when Obama was elected proclaiming that America had " finally done something right .
" This is as much everyone else 's fault as it is America 's .
See what happens when you believe warm-fuzzy liberal propaganda ! ?
They go and take your internet away !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is your fault.Our fault!?
The rest of the world cheered when Obama was elected proclaiming that America had "finally done something right.
"  This is as much everyone else's fault as it is America's.
See what happens when you believe warm-fuzzy liberal propaganda!?
They go and take your internet away!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976782</id>
	<title>Re:Secret meetings.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like widespread Capitalism can't exist without turning into corrupt corporatism where the ones who hoard the money are the ones in power?</p><p>Or you know, maybe vast sweeping generalisations based on one example of a theory in practice don't accurately represent how that theory can work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like widespread Capitalism ca n't exist without turning into corrupt corporatism where the ones who hoard the money are the ones in power ? Or you know , maybe vast sweeping generalisations based on one example of a theory in practice do n't accurately represent how that theory can work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like widespread Capitalism can't exist without turning into corrupt corporatism where the ones who hoard the money are the ones in power?Or you know, maybe vast sweeping generalisations based on one example of a theory in practice don't accurately represent how that theory can work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976566</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1256995620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are looking at this the wrong way around. This treaty isn't something intended to force the politicians against their will; it's something the politicians can use as an excuse when passing unjust and unpopular laws to help their corporate masters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are looking at this the wrong way around .
This treaty is n't something intended to force the politicians against their will ; it 's something the politicians can use as an excuse when passing unjust and unpopular laws to help their corporate masters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are looking at this the wrong way around.
This treaty isn't something intended to force the politicians against their will; it's something the politicians can use as an excuse when passing unjust and unpopular laws to help their corporate masters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967926</id>
	<title>Re:Americans</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1257241620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>See what happens when you believe warm-fuzzy liberal propaganda!? They go and take your internet away!</p></div><p>Bush/McCain or Obama, it doesn't make a difference.</p><p>Either president could certainly have stopped this crap if he cared enough, these secret treaty negotiations <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Secret\_multilateral\_negotiations\_on\_ACTA\_commencing\_today" title="wikileaks.org">started while Bush was running the show.</a> [wikileaks.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>See what happens when you believe warm-fuzzy liberal propaganda ! ?
They go and take your internet away ! Bush/McCain or Obama , it does n't make a difference.Either president could certainly have stopped this crap if he cared enough , these secret treaty negotiations started while Bush was running the show .
[ wikileaks.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See what happens when you believe warm-fuzzy liberal propaganda!?
They go and take your internet away!Bush/McCain or Obama, it doesn't make a difference.Either president could certainly have stopped this crap if he cared enough, these secret treaty negotiations started while Bush was running the show.
[wikileaks.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969258</id>
	<title>Re:One way to solve this</title>
	<author>wayland</author>
	<datestamp>1257246780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>I decided to do this.&nbsp; But I still like music.&nbsp; My solution in the end was to attend the National Celtic Festival here in Australia every year, buy a pile of CDs, and then get out one new one every month.&nbsp; Sure, that means that the music is limited to Traditional Music, Celtic Rock, Celtic Punk, and the like, but I'm sure there are alternate solutions for those who like different kinds of music.<br><br>Additionally, I use the RIAA Radar to find out whether groups are connected with the RIAA.&nbsp; I've bought some CDs online that are fine by the RIAA Radar.<br><br>http://www.riaaradar.com/<br><br>What I'm trying to say is, there *are* alternatives out there, people!&nbsp; If you seek them out, you will enjoy your new music as much, and you'll have more chance of meeting the artists too if they're not mega-famous<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).&nbsp; </tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I decided to do this.   But I still like music.   My solution in the end was to attend the National Celtic Festival here in Australia every year , buy a pile of CDs , and then get out one new one every month.   Sure , that means that the music is limited to Traditional Music , Celtic Rock , Celtic Punk , and the like , but I 'm sure there are alternate solutions for those who like different kinds of music.Additionally , I use the RIAA Radar to find out whether groups are connected with the RIAA.   I 've bought some CDs online that are fine by the RIAA Radar.http : //www.riaaradar.com/What I 'm trying to say is , there * are * alternatives out there , people !   If you seek them out , you will enjoy your new music as much , and you 'll have more chance of meeting the artists too if they 're not mega-famous : ) .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I decided to do this.  But I still like music.  My solution in the end was to attend the National Celtic Festival here in Australia every year, buy a pile of CDs, and then get out one new one every month.  Sure, that means that the music is limited to Traditional Music, Celtic Rock, Celtic Punk, and the like, but I'm sure there are alternate solutions for those who like different kinds of music.Additionally, I use the RIAA Radar to find out whether groups are connected with the RIAA.  I've bought some CDs online that are fine by the RIAA Radar.http://www.riaaradar.com/What I'm trying to say is, there *are* alternatives out there, people!  If you seek them out, you will enjoy your new music as much, and you'll have more chance of meeting the artists too if they're not mega-famous :).  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29975442</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>Thnurg</author>
	<datestamp>1256983800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?</i> <br> <br>

Banking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded ?
Banking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?
Banking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968444</id>
	<title>Sure, why not.</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257243720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just make everyone a criminal, search everyones houses on demand.  We don't need any personal freedom or rights anyway do we? Some stupid *media company* is more important, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make everyone a criminal , search everyones houses on demand .
We do n't need any personal freedom or rights anyway do we ?
Some stupid * media company * is more important , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make everyone a criminal, search everyones houses on demand.
We don't need any personal freedom or rights anyway do we?
Some stupid *media company* is more important, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969080</id>
	<title>Re:Return to sneakernet, eh?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1257246120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1~2TB externals make sneakernet viable but having an internet base to run with makes it way nicer. Everyone dl a TB then share it around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ~ 2TB externals make sneakernet viable but having an internet base to run with makes it way nicer .
Everyone dl a TB then share it around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1~2TB externals make sneakernet viable but having an internet base to run with makes it way nicer.
Everyone dl a TB then share it around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29972372</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you understand bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is what allows someone to *avoid* paying their debts.</p><p>Because, despite what your oversimplified view of the economy leads you to think, it works out better for society as a whole to forgive debt in certain cases. Kind of like the bailout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you understand bankruptcy .
Bankruptcy is what allows someone to * avoid * paying their debts.Because , despite what your oversimplified view of the economy leads you to think , it works out better for society as a whole to forgive debt in certain cases .
Kind of like the bailout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you understand bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy is what allows someone to *avoid* paying their debts.Because, despite what your oversimplified view of the economy leads you to think, it works out better for society as a whole to forgive debt in certain cases.
Kind of like the bailout.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967244</id>
	<title>Re:Americans</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1257281700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Especially you Canadians and Peruvians! Oh wait, you meant US citizens didn't you? Never mind than.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially you Canadians and Peruvians !
Oh wait , you meant US citizens did n't you ?
Never mind than .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially you Canadians and Peruvians!
Oh wait, you meant US citizens didn't you?
Never mind than.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967280</id>
	<title>One world government power.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck these people</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck these people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck these people</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969824</id>
	<title>DRM drives formation of World Government!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257248580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who'd have thunk it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 'd have thunk it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who'd have thunk it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973056</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>Nytehauq</author>
	<datestamp>1257265860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously.  If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions <i>worse</i> than a system where those <i>same people</i> are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem.  Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...</p></div><p>Ah yes, the good old "government is corrupted by private interests, let's just let private interests run everything" argument. I guess we can cure disease by draining ourselves of our blood while we're at it. Have you noticed that the reason <i>those same people are in charge</i> is that we live in a money/greed/capitalist based system? It doesn't function <i>worse</i> than a system where those same people are in charge, it <i>is</i> that very system. When a company donates campaign contributions to a politician and in return gets bailed out, they aren't relying on their product to get money. They're getting paid by the taxpayer, and those companies cannot be voted out of office. Conversely, people in government don't have to be less greedy or more efficient than the people lobbying them - they just generally happen to have an interest in getting re-elected by their constituents. They still have that interest, even while being pressured by lobbyists. Businesses who expect the government to bail them out with taxpayer money have far less incentive to do anything to benefit their consumers - all they have to do is pander to the people those consumers elect. I'd rather have the corrupt elected middle man than a direct route to getting pounded in the ass (metaphorically speaking). Without government intervention, we'd all be working in excess of twelve hour days for less than currently stagnating and falling wages. It's a crude and imperfect system, but it's a lot better than the direct alternative.

Naturally, if you're not a crackpot far-right 'libertarian,' none of this applies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge , only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt , they have a serious worldview problem .
Somehow , people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...Ah yes , the good old " government is corrupted by private interests , let 's just let private interests run everything " argument .
I guess we can cure disease by draining ourselves of our blood while we 're at it .
Have you noticed that the reason those same people are in charge is that we live in a money/greed/capitalist based system ?
It does n't function worse than a system where those same people are in charge , it is that very system .
When a company donates campaign contributions to a politician and in return gets bailed out , they are n't relying on their product to get money .
They 're getting paid by the taxpayer , and those companies can not be voted out of office .
Conversely , people in government do n't have to be less greedy or more efficient than the people lobbying them - they just generally happen to have an interest in getting re-elected by their constituents .
They still have that interest , even while being pressured by lobbyists .
Businesses who expect the government to bail them out with taxpayer money have far less incentive to do anything to benefit their consumers - all they have to do is pander to the people those consumers elect .
I 'd rather have the corrupt elected middle man than a direct route to getting pounded in the ass ( metaphorically speaking ) .
Without government intervention , we 'd all be working in excess of twelve hour days for less than currently stagnating and falling wages .
It 's a crude and imperfect system , but it 's a lot better than the direct alternative .
Naturally , if you 're not a crackpot far-right 'libertarian, ' none of this applies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem.
Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...Ah yes, the good old "government is corrupted by private interests, let's just let private interests run everything" argument.
I guess we can cure disease by draining ourselves of our blood while we're at it.
Have you noticed that the reason those same people are in charge is that we live in a money/greed/capitalist based system?
It doesn't function worse than a system where those same people are in charge, it is that very system.
When a company donates campaign contributions to a politician and in return gets bailed out, they aren't relying on their product to get money.
They're getting paid by the taxpayer, and those companies cannot be voted out of office.
Conversely, people in government don't have to be less greedy or more efficient than the people lobbying them - they just generally happen to have an interest in getting re-elected by their constituents.
They still have that interest, even while being pressured by lobbyists.
Businesses who expect the government to bail them out with taxpayer money have far less incentive to do anything to benefit their consumers - all they have to do is pander to the people those consumers elect.
I'd rather have the corrupt elected middle man than a direct route to getting pounded in the ass (metaphorically speaking).
Without government intervention, we'd all be working in excess of twelve hour days for less than currently stagnating and falling wages.
It's a crude and imperfect system, but it's a lot better than the direct alternative.
Naturally, if you're not a crackpot far-right 'libertarian,' none of this applies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970194</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257249780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a way you can make your voice heard.</p><p>It's called a sniper rifle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a way you can make your voice heard.It 's called a sniper rifle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a way you can make your voice heard.It's called a sniper rifle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968214</id>
	<title>One of them is not like the others:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257242880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other <em>countries</em></p> </div><p>Can you spot, which one that could be?</p><p>Protip: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Seriously... such an epic failure right in the very article that supposedly is against the very problems that are caused by globalization (That there is no other place left to run to, in case your country treats you like crap)?!?<br>Seems somebody already got infected!</p><p>Kill it with fire! From orbit! It's the only way to be sure!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>as the US , Europe , Japan , Korea , Canada , Australia , and a handful of other countries Can you spot , which one that could be ? Protip : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent [ wikipedia.org ] Seriously... such an epic failure right in the very article that supposedly is against the very problems that are caused by globalization ( That there is no other place left to run to , in case your country treats you like crap ) ? !
? Seems somebody already got infected ! Kill it with fire !
From orbit !
It 's the only way to be sure !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as the US, Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and a handful of other countries Can you spot, which one that could be?Protip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent [wikipedia.org]Seriously... such an epic failure right in the very article that supposedly is against the very problems that are caused by globalization (That there is no other place left to run to, in case your country treats you like crap)?!
?Seems somebody already got infected!Kill it with fire!
From orbit!
It's the only way to be sure!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967832</id>
	<title>Ratification.</title>
	<author>captnbmoore</author>
	<datestamp>1257241200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This can be signed but until the U.S. Senate ratifies this it is not law. Also remember that no treaty can supercede our laws or Constitution. If the treaty is not in linewith our lsaws then it canot be placed in effect no matter how much the *iaa want's it to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This can be signed but until the U.S. Senate ratifies this it is not law .
Also remember that no treaty can supercede our laws or Constitution .
If the treaty is not in linewith our lsaws then it canot be placed in effect no matter how much the * iaa want 's it to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can be signed but until the U.S. Senate ratifies this it is not law.
Also remember that no treaty can supercede our laws or Constitution.
If the treaty is not in linewith our lsaws then it canot be placed in effect no matter how much the *iaa want's it to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967458</id>
	<title>Open-source and unapproved software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257239340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kiss it goodbye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kiss it goodbye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kiss it goodbye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968826</id>
	<title>Re:Return to sneakernet, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so where do i go to cop a terabyte ?</p><p>jr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so where do i go to cop a terabyte ? jr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so where do i go to cop a terabyte ?jr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967434</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>andymadigan</author>
	<datestamp>1257239280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the United States, in order to ratify a treaty it must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate. We're not bound by treaties which we have not ratified.<br><br>Wikipedia:<br>In the US, treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties.<br><br>Of course, the President can sign a treaty, and follow it through government policies and executive order, without the treaty being ratified, but that gives it no inherent weight in law.<br><br>The treaty which ended World War I was hotly debated in the senate, and in fact we did not ratify the treaty as presented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the United States , in order to ratify a treaty it must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate .
We 're not bound by treaties which we have not ratified.Wikipedia : In the US , treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the Senate .
While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all , the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties.Of course , the President can sign a treaty , and follow it through government policies and executive order , without the treaty being ratified , but that gives it no inherent weight in law.The treaty which ended World War I was hotly debated in the senate , and in fact we did not ratify the treaty as presented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the United States, in order to ratify a treaty it must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate.
We're not bound by treaties which we have not ratified.Wikipedia:In the US, treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties.Of course, the President can sign a treaty, and follow it through government policies and executive order, without the treaty being ratified, but that gives it no inherent weight in law.The treaty which ended World War I was hotly debated in the senate, and in fact we did not ratify the treaty as presented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967410</id>
	<title>three-strikes will need to have due process for it</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1257239160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>three-strikes will need to have due process for it to work in the us and many other places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>three-strikes will need to have due process for it to work in the us and many other places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>three-strikes will need to have due process for it to work in the us and many other places.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967724</id>
	<title>DMCA == liability for ISPs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257240720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't match up.  In effect, the DMCA showed ISPs a clear path how to <i>avoid</i> liability.  This is what makes services with rampant infringement possible (like Youtube).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't match up .
In effect , the DMCA showed ISPs a clear path how to avoid liability .
This is what makes services with rampant infringement possible ( like Youtube ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't match up.
In effect, the DMCA showed ISPs a clear path how to avoid liability.
This is what makes services with rampant infringement possible (like Youtube).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974856</id>
	<title>Re:One way to solve this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting this on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is just preaching to the choir. It's Average Joe that has to stop, and I don't see that happening any time soon.<br>"But it's what all my friends are listening to!"<br>"Then what will I listen to??"<br>"I'm sure the government knows what they're doing. If it was really bad for us, they'd never let it pass."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting this on / .
is just preaching to the choir .
It 's Average Joe that has to stop , and I do n't see that happening any time soon .
" But it 's what all my friends are listening to !
" " Then what will I listen to ? ?
" " I 'm sure the government knows what they 're doing .
If it was really bad for us , they 'd never let it pass .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting this on /.
is just preaching to the choir.
It's Average Joe that has to stop, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
"But it's what all my friends are listening to!
""Then what will I listen to??
""I'm sure the government knows what they're doing.
If it was really bad for us, they'd never let it pass.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276</id>
	<title>As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1257281880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>their complaints against filesharing eroding their bottom line basically amounts to a coverup for what is the real problem, a crappy business model.
<br>
<br>
The brainiacs that run the movie houses continually fork over huge amounts of cash to persons who had one hit that made money, and who continually bomb after that.
<br>
<br>
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?  In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?</htmltext>
<tokenext>their complaints against filesharing eroding their bottom line basically amounts to a coverup for what is the real problem , a crappy business model .
The brainiacs that run the movie houses continually fork over huge amounts of cash to persons who had one hit that made money , and who continually bomb after that .
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded ?
In what business school would they teach this sort of practice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their complaints against filesharing eroding their bottom line basically amounts to a coverup for what is the real problem, a crappy business model.
The brainiacs that run the movie houses continually fork over huge amounts of cash to persons who had one hit that made money, and who continually bomb after that.
In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?
In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969510</id>
	<title>Stand up and protect your creativity!</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1257247680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yefwoEIhW4o" title="youtube.com">My message is clear</a> [youtube.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Time to guard and stand up for our own art or loose it forever!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My message is clear [ youtube.com ] ...Time to guard and stand up for our own art or loose it forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My message is clear [youtube.com] ...Time to guard and stand up for our own art or loose it forever!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967898</id>
	<title>Re:didn't 3-strikes get striked out in...</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1257241500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd be AMAZED at how far you could over-subscribe data connections if there were no multi-media files flying around.  Funnel the music &amp; video thru "approved" delivery channels and edge cache them at the mega-ISPs and you'll find that the rest of the Internet hums along nicely at 20-50:1 oversubscribed endpoints.</p><p>Look at hard drive usage.  Take your average PC, remove any music, video and installed games and they'll probably have less than 2 Gb of total data.  Probably FAR less.  The same thing goes for network bandwidth.  Get rid of a lot of the media flying around and EVERYONE can have a 100 Mbps link.  Mostly because no one ever honestly USES a 100 Mbps link for more than a few seconds of burst.</p><p>Yes, there are exceptions.  Think of the Bell Curve model.  The vast bulk are in the middle, not on the far ends.</p><p><a href="http://classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory\_processing/learning\_opportunities/sensory\_profile/bell\_curve.htm" title="kumc.edu">http://classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory\_processing/learning\_opportunities/sensory\_profile/bell\_curve.htm</a> [kumc.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd be AMAZED at how far you could over-subscribe data connections if there were no multi-media files flying around .
Funnel the music &amp; video thru " approved " delivery channels and edge cache them at the mega-ISPs and you 'll find that the rest of the Internet hums along nicely at 20-50 : 1 oversubscribed endpoints.Look at hard drive usage .
Take your average PC , remove any music , video and installed games and they 'll probably have less than 2 Gb of total data .
Probably FAR less .
The same thing goes for network bandwidth .
Get rid of a lot of the media flying around and EVERYONE can have a 100 Mbps link .
Mostly because no one ever honestly USES a 100 Mbps link for more than a few seconds of burst.Yes , there are exceptions .
Think of the Bell Curve model .
The vast bulk are in the middle , not on the far ends.http : //classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory \ _processing/learning \ _opportunities/sensory \ _profile/bell \ _curve.htm [ kumc.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd be AMAZED at how far you could over-subscribe data connections if there were no multi-media files flying around.
Funnel the music &amp; video thru "approved" delivery channels and edge cache them at the mega-ISPs and you'll find that the rest of the Internet hums along nicely at 20-50:1 oversubscribed endpoints.Look at hard drive usage.
Take your average PC, remove any music, video and installed games and they'll probably have less than 2 Gb of total data.
Probably FAR less.
The same thing goes for network bandwidth.
Get rid of a lot of the media flying around and EVERYONE can have a 100 Mbps link.
Mostly because no one ever honestly USES a 100 Mbps link for more than a few seconds of burst.Yes, there are exceptions.
Think of the Bell Curve model.
The vast bulk are in the middle, not on the far ends.http://classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory\_processing/learning\_opportunities/sensory\_profile/bell\_curve.htm [kumc.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968648</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257244560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not much. You just have a to have a couple of trained agents who are very good at psychology. At getting people to think how they like it.<br>That's a profession and a job nowadays. Read up on that area. It's the WMD of the 21st century. More powerful than any money or any bank.</p><p>Churches were the most successful groups to exploit it. But we have far surpassed their techniques and knowledge, with modern mass psychology.</p><p>I really recommend getting a (hobbyist) professional in that area. It's like hacking. But with minds. The most powerful and complex computers on this planet! And the results are stunning.<br>Now imagine the botnet equivalent of that! Yeah... now you're getting the relevance!</p><p>How can a true hacker not be drawn to that? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not much .
You just have a to have a couple of trained agents who are very good at psychology .
At getting people to think how they like it.That 's a profession and a job nowadays .
Read up on that area .
It 's the WMD of the 21st century .
More powerful than any money or any bank.Churches were the most successful groups to exploit it .
But we have far surpassed their techniques and knowledge , with modern mass psychology.I really recommend getting a ( hobbyist ) professional in that area .
It 's like hacking .
But with minds .
The most powerful and complex computers on this planet !
And the results are stunning.Now imagine the botnet equivalent of that !
Yeah... now you 're getting the relevance ! How can a true hacker not be drawn to that ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not much.
You just have a to have a couple of trained agents who are very good at psychology.
At getting people to think how they like it.That's a profession and a job nowadays.
Read up on that area.
It's the WMD of the 21st century.
More powerful than any money or any bank.Churches were the most successful groups to exploit it.
But we have far surpassed their techniques and knowledge, with modern mass psychology.I really recommend getting a (hobbyist) professional in that area.
It's like hacking.
But with minds.
The most powerful and complex computers on this planet!
And the results are stunning.Now imagine the botnet equivalent of that!
Yeah... now you're getting the relevance!How can a true hacker not be drawn to that?
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29978336</id>
	<title>Re:Ratification.</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1257005100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's ratified then it becomes law.  It will be ratified because big money is at stake for Congress.  Constitutionality is not an issue here because the Constitution ceased to exist in 2001, everything is a national security issue any more and gets rubber stamped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's ratified then it becomes law .
It will be ratified because big money is at stake for Congress .
Constitutionality is not an issue here because the Constitution ceased to exist in 2001 , everything is a national security issue any more and gets rubber stamped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's ratified then it becomes law.
It will be ratified because big money is at stake for Congress.
Constitutionality is not an issue here because the Constitution ceased to exist in 2001, everything is a national security issue any more and gets rubber stamped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969884</id>
	<title>STOP RAPING COPYRIGHT!</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1257248820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You fucking worthless entertainment industry, copyright was created as an incentive for artists to create works that would enter the public domain (i.e. the culture) after a while. You know, as opposed to doing useful work like the rest of us.</p><p>You have perverted this into an abomination, its purpose to artificially boost your business model.</p><p>You are just leeches who practice price-fixing, have what are in effect cartels, and get away with it because the part of your income that isn't spent on cocaine is spent on lobbying politicians or outright buying them. If companies in ANY other industry practiced what you do they would be fined, and those responsible sent to jail.</p><p>You produce focus group-based industry entertainment products, 90 \% of which will be forgotten long before the insane copyrights eventually expire. You produce shit that no one really needs and trick consumers into giving you money instead of spending it on something worthwhile. And then you attack your very customers with shit like "oh it's not a product so you really ought not to resell it or rip it onto your music player without paying us extra, but for these tax purposes it is a product though".</p><p>How many poor and elderly are helped by J-lo wriggling her butt on a video? How many roads get built by Amy Winehouse's endless chain of rehabs?</p><p>Get a fucking job, asshats. And leave culture to the cultured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You fucking worthless entertainment industry , copyright was created as an incentive for artists to create works that would enter the public domain ( i.e .
the culture ) after a while .
You know , as opposed to doing useful work like the rest of us.You have perverted this into an abomination , its purpose to artificially boost your business model.You are just leeches who practice price-fixing , have what are in effect cartels , and get away with it because the part of your income that is n't spent on cocaine is spent on lobbying politicians or outright buying them .
If companies in ANY other industry practiced what you do they would be fined , and those responsible sent to jail.You produce focus group-based industry entertainment products , 90 \ % of which will be forgotten long before the insane copyrights eventually expire .
You produce shit that no one really needs and trick consumers into giving you money instead of spending it on something worthwhile .
And then you attack your very customers with shit like " oh it 's not a product so you really ought not to resell it or rip it onto your music player without paying us extra , but for these tax purposes it is a product though " .How many poor and elderly are helped by J-lo wriggling her butt on a video ?
How many roads get built by Amy Winehouse 's endless chain of rehabs ? Get a fucking job , asshats .
And leave culture to the cultured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You fucking worthless entertainment industry, copyright was created as an incentive for artists to create works that would enter the public domain (i.e.
the culture) after a while.
You know, as opposed to doing useful work like the rest of us.You have perverted this into an abomination, its purpose to artificially boost your business model.You are just leeches who practice price-fixing, have what are in effect cartels, and get away with it because the part of your income that isn't spent on cocaine is spent on lobbying politicians or outright buying them.
If companies in ANY other industry practiced what you do they would be fined, and those responsible sent to jail.You produce focus group-based industry entertainment products, 90 \% of which will be forgotten long before the insane copyrights eventually expire.
You produce shit that no one really needs and trick consumers into giving you money instead of spending it on something worthwhile.
And then you attack your very customers with shit like "oh it's not a product so you really ought not to resell it or rip it onto your music player without paying us extra, but for these tax purposes it is a product though".How many poor and elderly are helped by J-lo wriggling her butt on a video?
How many roads get built by Amy Winehouse's endless chain of rehabs?Get a fucking job, asshats.
And leave culture to the cultured.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968466</id>
	<title>Re:This is so open to abuse</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1257243780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think copyright infringement is typically a criminal offense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think copyright infringement is typically a criminal offense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think copyright infringement is typically a criminal offense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967388</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257239100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would still have to be voted on by the Senate.  And since both parties are owned by big media, guess what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would still have to be voted on by the Senate .
And since both parties are owned by big media , guess what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would still have to be voted on by the Senate.
And since both parties are owned by big media, guess what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968624</id>
	<title>Re:The best part?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And especially with Stephen Harper. I mean sure any other Prime Minister would fuck it up but good ol' Stephen Horefucker even loved sucking George W Bushs dick. Pretty sure Obama gets to fuck him in the ass at least once a week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And especially with Stephen Harper .
I mean sure any other Prime Minister would fuck it up but good ol ' Stephen Horefucker even loved sucking George W Bushs dick .
Pretty sure Obama gets to fuck him in the ass at least once a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And especially with Stephen Harper.
I mean sure any other Prime Minister would fuck it up but good ol' Stephen Horefucker even loved sucking George W Bushs dick.
Pretty sure Obama gets to fuck him in the ass at least once a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973200</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257267120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't get it, they are abandoning the old business model, this is the new business model.</p><p>Once you have money, the next step is gaining power. This consortium of companies are not just manipulating one governing body to bend to their will, they're bending half of the civilized world to their will. They are becoming the government of governments, they are going to use politically appointed figures to enforce their own laws, and use those "laws" to squeeze money out of us, despite actually creating anything. These people want to live high on the hog, and want to do very little for it.</p><p>These people could give less a shit about your rights, or the constitution, or any laws of your country, they understand basic human nature, and that is, you promise the morally bankrupt guy below you comfort and power off your dime if he helps you gain power at the cost of someone else, he will more than likely do it.</p><p>It's not about media anymore, it has never been about piracy, it's about utter power. Private individuals having power to have anyone arrested for "copyright" which will be redefined in the next two decades as anything that even mentions anything they *MIGHT* have rights to, and they will have 500 year terms for their copyrights, and only theirs, anyone else copyrights something, there will be hidden loopholes and clauses that will take those copyrights away and allow them to rebrand those ideas as theirs, and of course, copyright them. They try to assert that even now.</p><p>It may not be a bleak and dismal future, but you can bet it won't be pretty. Want to see a great example of attempts at controlling what people can do gone overboard? The war on drugs. Eventually we're going to see black box vans with the initials of some new copyright enforcement bureau ramming down doors, dragging people out of their homes in the morning and drawing weapons on them. Sounds crazy, no? Imagine being alive 100 years ago to this date and hearing how growing hemp would get you imprisoned and ruined by well-armed taskforces to make sure you cannot grow such things. They would have been furious. then of course, one major war, and one ruined economy later, and a generation gap or two, and you have people more concerned with their own wellbeing than to care what the government is doing, thus you get draconian drug laws outlawing "evil substances" including hemp, which was a cash crop not very long before that.</p><p>Flash forward to today. 20 years ago, real piracy was rampant, all the media conglomerates, while powerful, were still gaining their political power to what they have today, but dubbing tapes at the time was fine, or at least couldnt be stopped without the fear of trampling over fair use rights, people would be furious. You had politicians calling for parts of the media to be banned, such as rock music. Despite piracy, these poor media powerhouses made huge amounts of money, which helped fuel their lobbying powers.<br>skip forward 10 years, media finally find a strawman to attack, because it's new. The internet, P2P. They dont control either, they cant profit off either, and it gives them something new to use as grounds to push a new agenda, which 3 years prior started with the "Mickey Mouse" Copyright law, which extended copyright, then 1 year prior, the dreaded DMCA.</p><p>Back to the present, we now have ideas, something free, being locked down, the DMCA, being used to silence and censor anyone the media conglomerates are not fond of, and being used to override fair use. Now they're talking about a worldwide system where a system with a guilty first, presume no innocence at all mantra will be applied against "copyright violators" and "pirates" with a "three strikes" system and away with your rights, and abolishing fundamental rights (unreasonable search and seizure, etc) and the only logical way of enforcing such a system with be localized taskforces, on the taxpayer's dime, of course, for their own good, because people who pirate are criminals, and criminals are dangerous thugs with guns!</p><p>In short, a</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't get it , they are abandoning the old business model , this is the new business model.Once you have money , the next step is gaining power .
This consortium of companies are not just manipulating one governing body to bend to their will , they 're bending half of the civilized world to their will .
They are becoming the government of governments , they are going to use politically appointed figures to enforce their own laws , and use those " laws " to squeeze money out of us , despite actually creating anything .
These people want to live high on the hog , and want to do very little for it.These people could give less a shit about your rights , or the constitution , or any laws of your country , they understand basic human nature , and that is , you promise the morally bankrupt guy below you comfort and power off your dime if he helps you gain power at the cost of someone else , he will more than likely do it.It 's not about media anymore , it has never been about piracy , it 's about utter power .
Private individuals having power to have anyone arrested for " copyright " which will be redefined in the next two decades as anything that even mentions anything they * MIGHT * have rights to , and they will have 500 year terms for their copyrights , and only theirs , anyone else copyrights something , there will be hidden loopholes and clauses that will take those copyrights away and allow them to rebrand those ideas as theirs , and of course , copyright them .
They try to assert that even now.It may not be a bleak and dismal future , but you can bet it wo n't be pretty .
Want to see a great example of attempts at controlling what people can do gone overboard ?
The war on drugs .
Eventually we 're going to see black box vans with the initials of some new copyright enforcement bureau ramming down doors , dragging people out of their homes in the morning and drawing weapons on them .
Sounds crazy , no ?
Imagine being alive 100 years ago to this date and hearing how growing hemp would get you imprisoned and ruined by well-armed taskforces to make sure you can not grow such things .
They would have been furious .
then of course , one major war , and one ruined economy later , and a generation gap or two , and you have people more concerned with their own wellbeing than to care what the government is doing , thus you get draconian drug laws outlawing " evil substances " including hemp , which was a cash crop not very long before that.Flash forward to today .
20 years ago , real piracy was rampant , all the media conglomerates , while powerful , were still gaining their political power to what they have today , but dubbing tapes at the time was fine , or at least couldnt be stopped without the fear of trampling over fair use rights , people would be furious .
You had politicians calling for parts of the media to be banned , such as rock music .
Despite piracy , these poor media powerhouses made huge amounts of money , which helped fuel their lobbying powers.skip forward 10 years , media finally find a strawman to attack , because it 's new .
The internet , P2P .
They dont control either , they cant profit off either , and it gives them something new to use as grounds to push a new agenda , which 3 years prior started with the " Mickey Mouse " Copyright law , which extended copyright , then 1 year prior , the dreaded DMCA.Back to the present , we now have ideas , something free , being locked down , the DMCA , being used to silence and censor anyone the media conglomerates are not fond of , and being used to override fair use .
Now they 're talking about a worldwide system where a system with a guilty first , presume no innocence at all mantra will be applied against " copyright violators " and " pirates " with a " three strikes " system and away with your rights , and abolishing fundamental rights ( unreasonable search and seizure , etc ) and the only logical way of enforcing such a system with be localized taskforces , on the taxpayer 's dime , of course , for their own good , because people who pirate are criminals , and criminals are dangerous thugs with guns ! In short , a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't get it, they are abandoning the old business model, this is the new business model.Once you have money, the next step is gaining power.
This consortium of companies are not just manipulating one governing body to bend to their will, they're bending half of the civilized world to their will.
They are becoming the government of governments, they are going to use politically appointed figures to enforce their own laws, and use those "laws" to squeeze money out of us, despite actually creating anything.
These people want to live high on the hog, and want to do very little for it.These people could give less a shit about your rights, or the constitution, or any laws of your country, they understand basic human nature, and that is, you promise the morally bankrupt guy below you comfort and power off your dime if he helps you gain power at the cost of someone else, he will more than likely do it.It's not about media anymore, it has never been about piracy, it's about utter power.
Private individuals having power to have anyone arrested for "copyright" which will be redefined in the next two decades as anything that even mentions anything they *MIGHT* have rights to, and they will have 500 year terms for their copyrights, and only theirs, anyone else copyrights something, there will be hidden loopholes and clauses that will take those copyrights away and allow them to rebrand those ideas as theirs, and of course, copyright them.
They try to assert that even now.It may not be a bleak and dismal future, but you can bet it won't be pretty.
Want to see a great example of attempts at controlling what people can do gone overboard?
The war on drugs.
Eventually we're going to see black box vans with the initials of some new copyright enforcement bureau ramming down doors, dragging people out of their homes in the morning and drawing weapons on them.
Sounds crazy, no?
Imagine being alive 100 years ago to this date and hearing how growing hemp would get you imprisoned and ruined by well-armed taskforces to make sure you cannot grow such things.
They would have been furious.
then of course, one major war, and one ruined economy later, and a generation gap or two, and you have people more concerned with their own wellbeing than to care what the government is doing, thus you get draconian drug laws outlawing "evil substances" including hemp, which was a cash crop not very long before that.Flash forward to today.
20 years ago, real piracy was rampant, all the media conglomerates, while powerful, were still gaining their political power to what they have today, but dubbing tapes at the time was fine, or at least couldnt be stopped without the fear of trampling over fair use rights, people would be furious.
You had politicians calling for parts of the media to be banned, such as rock music.
Despite piracy, these poor media powerhouses made huge amounts of money, which helped fuel their lobbying powers.skip forward 10 years, media finally find a strawman to attack, because it's new.
The internet, P2P.
They dont control either, they cant profit off either, and it gives them something new to use as grounds to push a new agenda, which 3 years prior started with the "Mickey Mouse" Copyright law, which extended copyright, then 1 year prior, the dreaded DMCA.Back to the present, we now have ideas, something free, being locked down, the DMCA, being used to silence and censor anyone the media conglomerates are not fond of, and being used to override fair use.
Now they're talking about a worldwide system where a system with a guilty first, presume no innocence at all mantra will be applied against "copyright violators" and "pirates" with a "three strikes" system and away with your rights, and abolishing fundamental rights (unreasonable search and seizure, etc) and the only logical way of enforcing such a system with be localized taskforces, on the taxpayer's dime, of course, for their own good, because people who pirate are criminals, and criminals are dangerous thugs with guns!In short, a</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968638</id>
	<title>Re:Ahem...</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1257244560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The very high crime including Treason, Sedition, Perjury that you speak of could just as easily be applied to the president who backs out of the treaty. After all, it isn't the general population in a referendum (and never will be) who decide whether a president is guilty of such a thing. The corruption that instigates such a treaty will also be the one that defends it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The very high crime including Treason , Sedition , Perjury that you speak of could just as easily be applied to the president who backs out of the treaty .
After all , it is n't the general population in a referendum ( and never will be ) who decide whether a president is guilty of such a thing .
The corruption that instigates such a treaty will also be the one that defends it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very high crime including Treason, Sedition, Perjury that you speak of could just as easily be applied to the president who backs out of the treaty.
After all, it isn't the general population in a referendum (and never will be) who decide whether a president is guilty of such a thing.
The corruption that instigates such a treaty will also be the one that defends it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29987052</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1256988900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a familiar meme (Hollywood is full of liberals), but I would be surprised if the execs of the studios and big theaters were liberal at all.</p><p>It's not about who you represent, it's about who has the most money to give.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.This is a familiar meme ( Hollywood is full of liberals ) , but I would be surprised if the execs of the studios and big theaters were liberal at all.It 's not about who you represent , it 's about who has the most money to give .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.This is a familiar meme (Hollywood is full of liberals), but I would be surprised if the execs of the studios and big theaters were liberal at all.It's not about who you represent, it's about who has the most money to give.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968614</id>
	<title>Re:Secret meetings.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"These meetings are held in secret. Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands. But this isn't war against nations."</p><p>Nope, it's a war against consumers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" These meetings are held in secret .
Now , one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war , in case possible plans fell into enemy hands .
But this is n't war against nations .
" Nope , it 's a war against consumers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"These meetings are held in secret.
Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands.
But this isn't war against nations.
"Nope, it's a war against consumers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378</id>
	<title>Secret meetings.</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1257239040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These meetings are held in secret.  Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands.  But this isn't war against nations.</p><p>This is subjugation of the citizens.  These meetings are secret simply so the populace don't find out what's being planned--for the same reason the American South made teaching slaves how to read illegal--the information is too much of a threat to let out.  The whole myth of government for the people, by the people, is just that, a myth, a cultural fable told to instill flag-waving patriotism in the citizenry.  Nothing shuts up dissent faster than "my country, love it or leave it" and the nationalistic fervor that accompanies it.</p><p>PEOPLE DO NOT REALLY CONTROL THEIR GOVERNMENTS, AND THE STRUCTURE OF LARGE-SCALE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS NATURALLY LENDS ITSELF TO OLIGARCHY.   Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY "good in theory" but it doesn't actually work.  Whenever someone says "we just need more education!" or some other reform, they are trying to save democracy and insist it can run as planned just like the communists that claim that widespread communism can exist without degenerating into USSR-style totalitarianism.  The only difference is is communism is generally someone else's myth and not your own, so you can't see it.</p><p>What works?  Nothing works.  You're on your own, buddy, you're gonna have boots stomping you no matter what.  Such is life...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These meetings are held in secret .
Now , one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war , in case possible plans fell into enemy hands .
But this is n't war against nations.This is subjugation of the citizens .
These meetings are secret simply so the populace do n't find out what 's being planned--for the same reason the American South made teaching slaves how to read illegal--the information is too much of a threat to let out .
The whole myth of government for the people , by the people , is just that , a myth , a cultural fable told to instill flag-waving patriotism in the citizenry .
Nothing shuts up dissent faster than " my country , love it or leave it " and the nationalistic fervor that accompanies it.PEOPLE DO NOT REALLY CONTROL THEIR GOVERNMENTS , AND THE STRUCTURE OF LARGE-SCALE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS NATURALLY LENDS ITSELF TO OLIGARCHY .
Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY " good in theory " but it does n't actually work .
Whenever someone says " we just need more education !
" or some other reform , they are trying to save democracy and insist it can run as planned just like the communists that claim that widespread communism can exist without degenerating into USSR-style totalitarianism .
The only difference is is communism is generally someone else 's myth and not your own , so you ca n't see it.What works ?
Nothing works .
You 're on your own , buddy , you 're gon na have boots stomping you no matter what .
Such is life.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These meetings are held in secret.
Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands.
But this isn't war against nations.This is subjugation of the citizens.
These meetings are secret simply so the populace don't find out what's being planned--for the same reason the American South made teaching slaves how to read illegal--the information is too much of a threat to let out.
The whole myth of government for the people, by the people, is just that, a myth, a cultural fable told to instill flag-waving patriotism in the citizenry.
Nothing shuts up dissent faster than "my country, love it or leave it" and the nationalistic fervor that accompanies it.PEOPLE DO NOT REALLY CONTROL THEIR GOVERNMENTS, AND THE STRUCTURE OF LARGE-SCALE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS NATURALLY LENDS ITSELF TO OLIGARCHY.
Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY "good in theory" but it doesn't actually work.
Whenever someone says "we just need more education!
" or some other reform, they are trying to save democracy and insist it can run as planned just like the communists that claim that widespread communism can exist without degenerating into USSR-style totalitarianism.
The only difference is is communism is generally someone else's myth and not your own, so you can't see it.What works?
Nothing works.
You're on your own, buddy, you're gonna have boots stomping you no matter what.
Such is life...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968432</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257243660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending on the substance of the treaty, it may be necessary for the ratifying nation to pass an implementation law before the treaty actually takes effect. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is one such treaty. In the USA, it was implemented as the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on the substance of the treaty , it may be necessary for the ratifying nation to pass an implementation law before the treaty actually takes effect .
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is one such treaty .
In the USA , it was implemented as the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on the substance of the treaty, it may be necessary for the ratifying nation to pass an implementation law before the treaty actually takes effect.
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is one such treaty.
In the USA, it was implemented as the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29972286</id>
	<title>Give up essential liberty for corporate lawyers?</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1257259560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step one: Convert a minor crime that virtually everyone does at some point into a major one...Step 2: Globalize the practice...Step 3: Probable cause for all police forces, reason to monitor everyone.

Personally, I would rather see the end of all commercial content producers than to see this happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step one : Convert a minor crime that virtually everyone does at some point into a major one...Step 2 : Globalize the practice...Step 3 : Probable cause for all police forces , reason to monitor everyone .
Personally , I would rather see the end of all commercial content producers than to see this happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step one: Convert a minor crime that virtually everyone does at some point into a major one...Step 2: Globalize the practice...Step 3: Probable cause for all police forces, reason to monitor everyone.
Personally, I would rather see the end of all commercial content producers than to see this happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971486</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's over for us then.  The senate is 100\% rats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's over for us then .
The senate is 100 \ % rats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's over for us then.
The senate is 100\% rats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967742</id>
	<title>Only solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257240780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... move to China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... move to China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... move to China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967746</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257240780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you've got the cart before the horse...  An Ambassador has almost no decisionmaking authority.  He/she represents his/her country in negotiations and serves as a proxy.</p><p>Ratification always goes through a country's law-making body.  The Ambassador is given the document, which he then forwards to (in the case of the US) Congress, who ratifies or rejects the document like any other law, then gets the President to sign it (or not).</p><p>Of course, the negotiations to get to a version that every signatory can agree on can get far more complex, but the Ambassador cannot unilaterally accept or reject anything.  They can negotiate, but they must go back to the Congress for approval.  In some cases, Congress gives them parameters within which approval is pretty much guaranteed on a particular subject, but the Ambassador is only trying to get the "best deal" within the stated parameters.</p><p>The US, by the way, is not a part of the Kyoto Protocol, and we're not because the Protocol as agreed on by the signatories could not get through the US Congress at the time, and the rest of the signatories would not accept the changes that the US wanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 've got the cart before the horse... An Ambassador has almost no decisionmaking authority .
He/she represents his/her country in negotiations and serves as a proxy.Ratification always goes through a country 's law-making body .
The Ambassador is given the document , which he then forwards to ( in the case of the US ) Congress , who ratifies or rejects the document like any other law , then gets the President to sign it ( or not ) .Of course , the negotiations to get to a version that every signatory can agree on can get far more complex , but the Ambassador can not unilaterally accept or reject anything .
They can negotiate , but they must go back to the Congress for approval .
In some cases , Congress gives them parameters within which approval is pretty much guaranteed on a particular subject , but the Ambassador is only trying to get the " best deal " within the stated parameters.The US , by the way , is not a part of the Kyoto Protocol , and we 're not because the Protocol as agreed on by the signatories could not get through the US Congress at the time , and the rest of the signatories would not accept the changes that the US wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you've got the cart before the horse...  An Ambassador has almost no decisionmaking authority.
He/she represents his/her country in negotiations and serves as a proxy.Ratification always goes through a country's law-making body.
The Ambassador is given the document, which he then forwards to (in the case of the US) Congress, who ratifies or rejects the document like any other law, then gets the President to sign it (or not).Of course, the negotiations to get to a version that every signatory can agree on can get far more complex, but the Ambassador cannot unilaterally accept or reject anything.
They can negotiate, but they must go back to the Congress for approval.
In some cases, Congress gives them parameters within which approval is pretty much guaranteed on a particular subject, but the Ambassador is only trying to get the "best deal" within the stated parameters.The US, by the way, is not a part of the Kyoto Protocol, and we're not because the Protocol as agreed on by the signatories could not get through the US Congress at the time, and the rest of the signatories would not accept the changes that the US wanted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973588</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1257270300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it does but I'm sure the RIAA want it approved anyway so putting it though them is really just a waste of paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it does but I 'm sure the RIAA want it approved anyway so putting it though them is really just a waste of paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it does but I'm sure the RIAA want it approved anyway so putting it though them is really just a waste of paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968542</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257244200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple: The same way it happens with every other group of pathetic losers:</p><p>One person who is very full of himself, is loudly yelling, what he thinks things should be like. Often that one is not even part of the group. And everybody else in that group acts accordingly, because he thinks that everybody else will be too, and that everybody else will beat him up or laugh at him if he doesn't. Which itself then makes that very thing true in the first place.</p><p>Also known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.</p><p>Guess what other thing worked like that too, some 70 years ago. And guess how much people have learned since back then.<br>Nothing. Exactly.</p><p>The key is, to be even stronger than that one asshole, and believe in your own things even more. Even if everybody tells you they are complete and utter shit.<br>Because attacking such a group-beast works like this: If you try to save them, by killing him, they will kill you, to protect him.<br>The reason for this again, is that their self-respect would completely brake down. Nobody accepts that!</p><p>So you don't only have to be so full of yourself, that you can't hold it back. You even have to pull them with you, into your reality. Making them believe that by following you, they <em>gain</em> self-respect, and can be even more proud of themselves as before. Until they themselves believe it more strongly than even you yourself did, to protect their self-respect.<br>If you're good, you can weave a nice little subconscious trap for them, that they will never be able to get out again, without having to commit seppuku on the spot out of shame and self-hatred.</p><p>Powerful people often act very much like a group of school children.</p><p>The pen might be more powerful than the sword. But psychology beats them all! The true mother of all WMDs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple : The same way it happens with every other group of pathetic losers : One person who is very full of himself , is loudly yelling , what he thinks things should be like .
Often that one is not even part of the group .
And everybody else in that group acts accordingly , because he thinks that everybody else will be too , and that everybody else will beat him up or laugh at him if he does n't .
Which itself then makes that very thing true in the first place.Also known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.Guess what other thing worked like that too , some 70 years ago .
And guess how much people have learned since back then.Nothing .
Exactly.The key is , to be even stronger than that one asshole , and believe in your own things even more .
Even if everybody tells you they are complete and utter shit.Because attacking such a group-beast works like this : If you try to save them , by killing him , they will kill you , to protect him.The reason for this again , is that their self-respect would completely brake down .
Nobody accepts that ! So you do n't only have to be so full of yourself , that you ca n't hold it back .
You even have to pull them with you , into your reality .
Making them believe that by following you , they gain self-respect , and can be even more proud of themselves as before .
Until they themselves believe it more strongly than even you yourself did , to protect their self-respect.If you 're good , you can weave a nice little subconscious trap for them , that they will never be able to get out again , without having to commit seppuku on the spot out of shame and self-hatred.Powerful people often act very much like a group of school children.The pen might be more powerful than the sword .
But psychology beats them all !
The true mother of all WMDs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple: The same way it happens with every other group of pathetic losers:One person who is very full of himself, is loudly yelling, what he thinks things should be like.
Often that one is not even part of the group.
And everybody else in that group acts accordingly, because he thinks that everybody else will be too, and that everybody else will beat him up or laugh at him if he doesn't.
Which itself then makes that very thing true in the first place.Also known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.Guess what other thing worked like that too, some 70 years ago.
And guess how much people have learned since back then.Nothing.
Exactly.The key is, to be even stronger than that one asshole, and believe in your own things even more.
Even if everybody tells you they are complete and utter shit.Because attacking such a group-beast works like this: If you try to save them, by killing him, they will kill you, to protect him.The reason for this again, is that their self-respect would completely brake down.
Nobody accepts that!So you don't only have to be so full of yourself, that you can't hold it back.
You even have to pull them with you, into your reality.
Making them believe that by following you, they gain self-respect, and can be even more proud of themselves as before.
Until they themselves believe it more strongly than even you yourself did, to protect their self-respect.If you're good, you can weave a nice little subconscious trap for them, that they will never be able to get out again, without having to commit seppuku on the spot out of shame and self-hatred.Powerful people often act very much like a group of school children.The pen might be more powerful than the sword.
But psychology beats them all!
The true mother of all WMDs!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969718</id>
	<title>Ah, so they get to bypass half our legislature!</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1257248280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the United States, in order to ratify a treaty it must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate. We're not bound by treaties which we have not ratified.</p><p>Wikipedia:<br>In the US, treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties.</p><p>Of course, the President can sign a treaty, and follow it through government policies and executive order, without the treaty being ratified, but that gives it no inherent weight in law.</p><p>The treaty which ended World War I was hotly debated in the senate, and in fact we did not ratify the treaty as presented.</p></div><p>So they get to bypass the house, which is also the most representative and populist part of our legislature.</p><p>The US constitution obviously has a massive hole in it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the United States , in order to ratify a treaty it must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate .
We 're not bound by treaties which we have not ratified.Wikipedia : In the US , treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the Senate .
While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all , the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties.Of course , the President can sign a treaty , and follow it through government policies and executive order , without the treaty being ratified , but that gives it no inherent weight in law.The treaty which ended World War I was hotly debated in the senate , and in fact we did not ratify the treaty as presented.So they get to bypass the house , which is also the most representative and populist part of our legislature.The US constitution obviously has a massive hole in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the United States, in order to ratify a treaty it must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate.
We're not bound by treaties which we have not ratified.Wikipedia:In the US, treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties.Of course, the President can sign a treaty, and follow it through government policies and executive order, without the treaty being ratified, but that gives it no inherent weight in law.The treaty which ended World War I was hotly debated in the senate, and in fact we did not ratify the treaty as presented.So they get to bypass the house, which is also the most representative and populist part of our legislature.The US constitution obviously has a massive hole in it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967736</id>
	<title>Re:I Wonder...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257240780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests.</i></p><p>In the US the corporate interests ARE the ones they represent. Money talks. Usually the candidate with the most campaign fundage wins. The political hacks know which side of the bread is buttered.</p><p>There are fewer than 12 million people in Illinois, and only those over 18 who are not felons can vote for Senator Durbin when he runs for re-elction. But there are over three hundred million people who can legally send him a campaign contribution.</p><p>Corporations can't vote, but they don't need to. ADM's and BP's and Sony's billions of world trade dollars trumps my one measly Illinois vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests.In the US the corporate interests ARE the ones they represent .
Money talks .
Usually the candidate with the most campaign fundage wins .
The political hacks know which side of the bread is buttered.There are fewer than 12 million people in Illinois , and only those over 18 who are not felons can vote for Senator Durbin when he runs for re-elction .
But there are over three hundred million people who can legally send him a campaign contribution.Corporations ca n't vote , but they do n't need to .
ADM 's and BP 's and Sony 's billions of world trade dollars trumps my one measly Illinois vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests.In the US the corporate interests ARE the ones they represent.
Money talks.
Usually the candidate with the most campaign fundage wins.
The political hacks know which side of the bread is buttered.There are fewer than 12 million people in Illinois, and only those over 18 who are not felons can vote for Senator Durbin when he runs for re-elction.
But there are over three hundred million people who can legally send him a campaign contribution.Corporations can't vote, but they don't need to.
ADM's and BP's and Sony's billions of world trade dollars trumps my one measly Illinois vote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967580</id>
	<title>I find it difficult to believe...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257240000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>that our elected officials would do something that isn't in the best interest of their citizens while handing over the keys to the castle to the corporations...</htmltext>
<tokenext>that our elected officials would do something that is n't in the best interest of their citizens while handing over the keys to the castle to the corporations.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that our elected officials would do something that isn't in the best interest of their citizens while handing over the keys to the castle to the corporations...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968622</id>
	<title>Re:The best part?</title>
	<author>loftwyr</author>
	<datestamp>1257244500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The scary thing is, if ACTA is presented as final, I can't imagine any Canadian government (Lib, Cons or NDP) not immediately ratifying it.  the Canadian government has never been seen as defiant of US desires.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The scary thing is , if ACTA is presented as final , I ca n't imagine any Canadian government ( Lib , Cons or NDP ) not immediately ratifying it .
the Canadian government has never been seen as defiant of US desires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scary thing is, if ACTA is presented as final, I can't imagine any Canadian government (Lib, Cons or NDP) not immediately ratifying it.
the Canadian government has never been seen as defiant of US desires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971432</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257254460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still though, it's like an international version of a contract.  If we fail to ratify the treaty, could that put us in hot water internationally?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still though , it 's like an international version of a contract .
If we fail to ratify the treaty , could that put us in hot water internationally ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still though, it's like an international version of a contract.
If we fail to ratify the treaty, could that put us in hot water internationally?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967264</id>
	<title>The eco-political takeover of Earth continues.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't be the only one who opines this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't be the only one who opines this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't be the only one who opines this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478</id>
	<title>One way to solve this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257243900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP.</p><p>If they cant afford to buy the laws, we the people get them back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP.If they cant afford to buy the laws , we the people get them back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP.If they cant afford to buy the laws, we the people get them back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967362</id>
	<title>The best part?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257238980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in Canada we recently finished a national copyright consultation.  I can't wait to see how our government fucks this one up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Canada we recently finished a national copyright consultation .
I ca n't wait to see how our government fucks this one up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Canada we recently finished a national copyright consultation.
I can't wait to see how our government fucks this one up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967862</id>
	<title>Yes!</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1257241320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fantastic news! In your face, terrorism! We just need a few more directives like this and the war on terror will be won!!!! (sarcasm-meter catches fire)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fantastic news !
In your face , terrorism !
We just need a few more directives like this and the war on terror will be won ! ! ! !
( sarcasm-meter catches fire )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fantastic news!
In your face, terrorism!
We just need a few more directives like this and the war on terror will be won!!!!
(sarcasm-meter catches fire)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969528</id>
	<title>Re:I find it difficult to believe...</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1257247740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Especially the Great Champion of the Secret CopyRight Treaty - Our President</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially the Great Champion of the Secret CopyRight Treaty - Our President</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially the Great Champion of the Secret CopyRight Treaty - Our President</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967988</id>
	<title>Re:who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257241920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Every great new movement in any art (cinema, music, painting, etc.) is done by people who just do these things because they want to, not because they are looking for millions of dollars.</p></div></blockquote><p>You think Warhol didn't care about money? Or Picasso ran a charity? Or that Frank Lloyd Wright, as ridiculously in debt as he constantly managed to keep himself, wouldn't have had even more obstacles in doing all the work he did (or had his underlings do) if he didn't have lots of money rolling in? Sure, all of them had huge egos that needed stroking, but they all wanted the lifestyle -- including the money -- that came with what they did. You're really pulling this theory out of your ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every great new movement in any art ( cinema , music , painting , etc .
) is done by people who just do these things because they want to , not because they are looking for millions of dollars.You think Warhol did n't care about money ?
Or Picasso ran a charity ?
Or that Frank Lloyd Wright , as ridiculously in debt as he constantly managed to keep himself , would n't have had even more obstacles in doing all the work he did ( or had his underlings do ) if he did n't have lots of money rolling in ?
Sure , all of them had huge egos that needed stroking , but they all wanted the lifestyle -- including the money -- that came with what they did .
You 're really pulling this theory out of your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every great new movement in any art (cinema, music, painting, etc.
) is done by people who just do these things because they want to, not because they are looking for millions of dollars.You think Warhol didn't care about money?
Or Picasso ran a charity?
Or that Frank Lloyd Wright, as ridiculously in debt as he constantly managed to keep himself, wouldn't have had even more obstacles in doing all the work he did (or had his underlings do) if he didn't have lots of money rolling in?
Sure, all of them had huge egos that needed stroking, but they all wanted the lifestyle -- including the money -- that came with what they did.
You're really pulling this theory out of your ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971498</id>
	<title>Who owns culture?</title>
	<author>Simonetta</author>
	<datestamp>1257254880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who owns culture?  That's what this is all about.  The five global entertainment companies claim that they do.  They own all the recordings.  They own all the video, all the film, all the books, all the comic books, all the whatever.  Sooner or later, they are going to claim to own the ideas and stories behind the 'product'.  Then they will claim to own things like the C#minor chord or the plot device of a simple hero driven to vengence by a dastardly crime.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; So their lawyers tell them. And their lawyers will have no trouble buying politicians to pass laws supporting these fantasies.  Especially in countries that are totally corrupt and owned by corporations, like the USA.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; But owning culture is like owning air.  The ability to enforce ownership is dependent on the ability to use violence to force people to give you their money.  Sooner or later, everyone will realize that all copyright is nothing but extortion.   And they will realize that they have done nothing to morally justify the extremely harsh verdicts imposed upon them for so-called copyright crimes.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Historically in situations like this, people fight back.  Someone gets a notice that they 'owe' $100000000 for being overheard humming a copyrighted tune in the park by a secret microphone.  They track down the person who sent the notice, pay a fee to get background on this person and his family, and kidnap one or all of this bozo's children.  Ransom being equal to the amount 'owed' for humming a tune in the park.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; All you end up with is a lot of dead children and lawyers who aren't worried any more about making child support payments.  What? You assumed that an entertainment industry lawyer had the ability to actually love somebody, like a family?  No way.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; All copyright is stupid with the technology available to us in the 21st century.  Accept it.  Don't let these assholes steal your money.  Don't give them any of your money.  And don't kidnap and kill their children because it's bad for your karma.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Stupidity passes in time: evil remains.  Don't let entertainment lawyers trick you into transforming yourself into an evil person.  I keep telling myself this over and over.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Hope that it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who owns culture ?
That 's what this is all about .
The five global entertainment companies claim that they do .
They own all the recordings .
They own all the video , all the film , all the books , all the comic books , all the whatever .
Sooner or later , they are going to claim to own the ideas and stories behind the 'product' .
Then they will claim to own things like the C # minor chord or the plot device of a simple hero driven to vengence by a dastardly crime .
    So their lawyers tell them .
And their lawyers will have no trouble buying politicians to pass laws supporting these fantasies .
Especially in countries that are totally corrupt and owned by corporations , like the USA .
    But owning culture is like owning air .
The ability to enforce ownership is dependent on the ability to use violence to force people to give you their money .
Sooner or later , everyone will realize that all copyright is nothing but extortion .
And they will realize that they have done nothing to morally justify the extremely harsh verdicts imposed upon them for so-called copyright crimes .
    Historically in situations like this , people fight back .
Someone gets a notice that they 'owe ' $ 100000000 for being overheard humming a copyrighted tune in the park by a secret microphone .
They track down the person who sent the notice , pay a fee to get background on this person and his family , and kidnap one or all of this bozo 's children .
Ransom being equal to the amount 'owed ' for humming a tune in the park .
    All you end up with is a lot of dead children and lawyers who are n't worried any more about making child support payments .
What ? You assumed that an entertainment industry lawyer had the ability to actually love somebody , like a family ?
No way .
    All copyright is stupid with the technology available to us in the 21st century .
Accept it .
Do n't let these assholes steal your money .
Do n't give them any of your money .
And do n't kidnap and kill their children because it 's bad for your karma .
    Stupidity passes in time : evil remains .
Do n't let entertainment lawyers trick you into transforming yourself into an evil person .
I keep telling myself this over and over .
    Hope that it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who owns culture?
That's what this is all about.
The five global entertainment companies claim that they do.
They own all the recordings.
They own all the video, all the film, all the books, all the comic books, all the whatever.
Sooner or later, they are going to claim to own the ideas and stories behind the 'product'.
Then they will claim to own things like the C#minor chord or the plot device of a simple hero driven to vengence by a dastardly crime.
    So their lawyers tell them.
And their lawyers will have no trouble buying politicians to pass laws supporting these fantasies.
Especially in countries that are totally corrupt and owned by corporations, like the USA.
    But owning culture is like owning air.
The ability to enforce ownership is dependent on the ability to use violence to force people to give you their money.
Sooner or later, everyone will realize that all copyright is nothing but extortion.
And they will realize that they have done nothing to morally justify the extremely harsh verdicts imposed upon them for so-called copyright crimes.
    Historically in situations like this, people fight back.
Someone gets a notice that they 'owe' $100000000 for being overheard humming a copyrighted tune in the park by a secret microphone.
They track down the person who sent the notice, pay a fee to get background on this person and his family, and kidnap one or all of this bozo's children.
Ransom being equal to the amount 'owed' for humming a tune in the park.
    All you end up with is a lot of dead children and lawyers who aren't worried any more about making child support payments.
What? You assumed that an entertainment industry lawyer had the ability to actually love somebody, like a family?
No way.
    All copyright is stupid with the technology available to us in the 21st century.
Accept it.
Don't let these assholes steal your money.
Don't give them any of your money.
And don't kidnap and kill their children because it's bad for your karma.
    Stupidity passes in time: evil remains.
Don't let entertainment lawyers trick you into transforming yourself into an evil person.
I keep telling myself this over and over.
    Hope that it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974704</id>
	<title>Hollywood is lieing - the cinema model works.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257019860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Hollywood is lieing.</p><p>I don't believe that online downloads are hurting their sales in a measurable way. And it will take a very detailed and thorough investigation to prove it to me.</p><p>They are definitely not hurting their cinema based revenue - e.g. movies like "The Dark Knight" and Transformers are still making a huge killing at the box office.</p><p>This year the cinema industry in Australia is predicting to record its best gross and net return to date. So the cinema based business model *IS* continuing to work - and I believe it always will.</p><p>If rampant piracy is killing the industry, why are movies making record profits?<br>Why are sales at the box office still going up?</p><p>Lets imagine, for a moment, that a popular download of a movie, such as The Dark Knight, reached 10,000 downloads via bittorrent. On the shelf, that is $40. Total loss? $400,000. For a movie that grosses in excess of $1bn, the loss there is noise. To become significant, the number of downloads would need to be 250,000 downloads (1\% of $1bn).</p><p>How many movie torrents reach the point where they can have a 1\% impact on the gross total?</p><p>I suspect that what Hollywood is really worried about is China. There's 1.3bn people there that don't have much respect for copyright and "copies" of movies are rampant there, despite crackdowns. But this treaty between the aforementioned western countries will do nothing to fix that problem.</p><p>Something is not right here.</p><p>Maybe this treaty is intended to be the "copyright protection" that DRM failed to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Hollywood is lieing.I do n't believe that online downloads are hurting their sales in a measurable way .
And it will take a very detailed and thorough investigation to prove it to me.They are definitely not hurting their cinema based revenue - e.g .
movies like " The Dark Knight " and Transformers are still making a huge killing at the box office.This year the cinema industry in Australia is predicting to record its best gross and net return to date .
So the cinema based business model * IS * continuing to work - and I believe it always will.If rampant piracy is killing the industry , why are movies making record profits ? Why are sales at the box office still going up ? Lets imagine , for a moment , that a popular download of a movie , such as The Dark Knight , reached 10,000 downloads via bittorrent .
On the shelf , that is $ 40 .
Total loss ?
$ 400,000. For a movie that grosses in excess of $ 1bn , the loss there is noise .
To become significant , the number of downloads would need to be 250,000 downloads ( 1 \ % of $ 1bn ) .How many movie torrents reach the point where they can have a 1 \ % impact on the gross total ? I suspect that what Hollywood is really worried about is China .
There 's 1.3bn people there that do n't have much respect for copyright and " copies " of movies are rampant there , despite crackdowns .
But this treaty between the aforementioned western countries will do nothing to fix that problem.Something is not right here.Maybe this treaty is intended to be the " copyright protection " that DRM failed to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Hollywood is lieing.I don't believe that online downloads are hurting their sales in a measurable way.
And it will take a very detailed and thorough investigation to prove it to me.They are definitely not hurting their cinema based revenue - e.g.
movies like "The Dark Knight" and Transformers are still making a huge killing at the box office.This year the cinema industry in Australia is predicting to record its best gross and net return to date.
So the cinema based business model *IS* continuing to work - and I believe it always will.If rampant piracy is killing the industry, why are movies making record profits?Why are sales at the box office still going up?Lets imagine, for a moment, that a popular download of a movie, such as The Dark Knight, reached 10,000 downloads via bittorrent.
On the shelf, that is $40.
Total loss?
$400,000. For a movie that grosses in excess of $1bn, the loss there is noise.
To become significant, the number of downloads would need to be 250,000 downloads (1\% of $1bn).How many movie torrents reach the point where they can have a 1\% impact on the gross total?I suspect that what Hollywood is really worried about is China.
There's 1.3bn people there that don't have much respect for copyright and "copies" of movies are rampant there, despite crackdowns.
But this treaty between the aforementioned western countries will do nothing to fix that problem.Something is not right here.Maybe this treaty is intended to be the "copyright protection" that DRM failed to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967978</id>
	<title>Re:I find it difficult to believe...</title>
	<author>mooingyak</author>
	<datestamp>1257241860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a first for everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a first for everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a first for everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974294</id>
	<title>Re:The best part?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257275040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they pass legislation requiring one to divulge of encryption keys in cases where their lawful intercept equipment isn't decrypting the latest Britney Spears single.</p><p>I have no real doubts about ACTA being "enacted" under the Stephen Harper Government.  I have no real doubt's this will fly over Ignatieff's head either - he's to busy harping on about things that are becoming more and more irrelevant.</p><p>That leave's Jack...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they pass legislation requiring one to divulge of encryption keys in cases where their lawful intercept equipment is n't decrypting the latest Britney Spears single.I have no real doubts about ACTA being " enacted " under the Stephen Harper Government .
I have no real doubt 's this will fly over Ignatieff 's head either - he 's to busy harping on about things that are becoming more and more irrelevant.That leave 's Jack.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they pass legislation requiring one to divulge of encryption keys in cases where their lawful intercept equipment isn't decrypting the latest Britney Spears single.I have no real doubts about ACTA being "enacted" under the Stephen Harper Government.
I have no real doubt's this will fly over Ignatieff's head either - he's to busy harping on about things that are becoming more and more irrelevant.That leave's Jack...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967132</id>
	<title>Americans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is your fault.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is your fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is your fault.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968036</id>
	<title>Anti-Counterfeiting, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257242100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean our government will stop counterfeiting 'money'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean our government will stop counterfeiting 'money ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean our government will stop counterfeiting 'money'?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</id>
	<title>also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wouldn't any signed treaty also have to be made law in each respective country?</p><p>I've never understood how countries can be bound by a treaty through ratification (Kyoto protocol?) without it going through a country's law-making body...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>would n't any signed treaty also have to be made law in each respective country ? I 've never understood how countries can be bound by a treaty through ratification ( Kyoto protocol ?
) without it going through a country 's law-making body.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wouldn't any signed treaty also have to be made law in each respective country?I've never understood how countries can be bound by a treaty through ratification (Kyoto protocol?
) without it going through a country's law-making body...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973316</id>
	<title>Re:Secret meetings.</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1257267900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole "secret meetings" device is just to get everyone to miss the obvious.</p><p>What we really have is an agreement between the people in the U.S. who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, people in Europe who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, people in Japan who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, Australians who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, etc. that they fully expect will become international law.</p><p>They <i>really</i> want people to stop listening to their music. This is the total opposite of life in the 60s and 70s.</p><p>This will continue until we all do what they say and find something to listen to that the RIAA does not own. I haven't given them a dime in 10 years and I don't use p2p, but I've spent more than ever before on music, paying the artists directly.</p><p>If you cut the RIAA out of your life, this whole "secret treaty" nonsense is a non-issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole " secret meetings " device is just to get everyone to miss the obvious.What we really have is an agreement between the people in the U.S. who work for Sony , Warner , EMI and Universal , people in Europe who work for Sony , Warner , EMI and Universal , people in Japan who work for Sony , Warner , EMI and Universal , Australians who work for Sony , Warner , EMI and Universal , etc .
that they fully expect will become international law.They really want people to stop listening to their music .
This is the total opposite of life in the 60s and 70s.This will continue until we all do what they say and find something to listen to that the RIAA does not own .
I have n't given them a dime in 10 years and I do n't use p2p , but I 've spent more than ever before on music , paying the artists directly.If you cut the RIAA out of your life , this whole " secret treaty " nonsense is a non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole "secret meetings" device is just to get everyone to miss the obvious.What we really have is an agreement between the people in the U.S. who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, people in Europe who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, people in Japan who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, Australians who work for Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal, etc.
that they fully expect will become international law.They really want people to stop listening to their music.
This is the total opposite of life in the 60s and 70s.This will continue until we all do what they say and find something to listen to that the RIAA does not own.
I haven't given them a dime in 10 years and I don't use p2p, but I've spent more than ever before on music, paying the artists directly.If you cut the RIAA out of your life, this whole "secret treaty" nonsense is a non-issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976638</id>
	<title>Re:three-strikes will need to have due process for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>three-strikes will need to have due process for it to work in the us and many other places.</p></div><p>You can lose your property have it seized before your day in court by the DEA.  Having this property seized hinders your ability to pay for legal counsel.  Due process has been violated in this instance and others as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>three-strikes will need to have due process for it to work in the us and many other places.You can lose your property have it seized before your day in court by the DEA .
Having this property seized hinders your ability to pay for legal counsel .
Due process has been violated in this instance and others as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>three-strikes will need to have due process for it to work in the us and many other places.You can lose your property have it seized before your day in court by the DEA.
Having this property seized hinders your ability to pay for legal counsel.
Due process has been violated in this instance and others as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29979614</id>
	<title>Re: I Wonder...</title>
	<author>Demiah</author>
	<datestamp>1257009240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Corporations can't vote, but they don't need to. ADM's and BP's and Sony's billions of world trade dollars trumps my one measly Illinois vote.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Not to mention the fact they can finance all the candidates, ensuring they get their way rendering your vote useless against them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations ca n't vote , but they do n't need to .
ADM 's and BP 's and Sony 's billions of world trade dollars trumps my one measly Illinois vote .
Not to mention the fact they can finance all the candidates , ensuring they get their way rendering your vote useless against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations can't vote, but they don't need to.
ADM's and BP's and Sony's billions of world trade dollars trumps my one measly Illinois vote.
Not to mention the fact they can finance all the candidates, ensuring they get their way rendering your vote useless against them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967734</id>
	<title>Re:Secret meetings.</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1257240780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TL;DR:</p><blockquote><div><p>It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.</p></div></blockquote><p>- Winston Churchill</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TL ; DR : It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.- Winston Churchill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TL;DR:It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.- Winston Churchill
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967384</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257239100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck with that, I can't wait for the entire media industry to vanish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck with that , I ca n't wait for the entire media industry to vanish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck with that, I can't wait for the entire media industry to vanish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970326</id>
	<title>How is this a change?</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1257250200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parties negotiating this, with the exception of Canada, already have xeroxed copies of the US DMCA on their books.</p><p>How does this change anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parties negotiating this , with the exception of Canada , already have xeroxed copies of the US DMCA on their books.How does this change anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parties negotiating this, with the exception of Canada, already have xeroxed copies of the US DMCA on their books.How does this change anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968124</id>
	<title>Educating the public...</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1257242520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, maybe it's time to publicize the issue as much as possible. The easiest way is to do it by calling it stuff like "the anti-iPod law". (Let's not get pedantic with law/treaty/etc crap - it serves to divert attention).</p><p>There's a lot of things that ACTA makes illegal that common people do daily, so a big publicity campaign can cause people to get agitated. Stuff like singing in the shower (not too farfetched) or humming a tune. Recording a TV show to watch later. Ripping a CD for your iPod.</p><p>First we should call it something catchy. "The Anti-iPod Law" is pretty good since practically everyone knows what an iPod is and what it does. Then alert them to everyday activities that would be banned, or they can be sued for doing. Public doesn't care about RIAA suing filesharers. They do care if the RIAA starts suing people for ripping CDs to their iPods, though. Or if the MPAA sues people for recording that movie off of TV onto their VCR/DVR. Or singing in the workplace (sure it happend in the UK, but it isn't a big stretch in the UK). How about having your iPod searched at the border? They keep saying they won't force iPods to be searched, but there's no guarantee.</p><p>Start campaigning on how it will impact the common people. Pro-ACTA will have to campaign how it will benefit people, but that can be turned around quite easily ("poor starving hollywood actors need more money to pay for their gold faucets" and the like).</p><p>Heck, I've seen newspapers publish about the "Is your iPod illegal?" law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , maybe it 's time to publicize the issue as much as possible .
The easiest way is to do it by calling it stuff like " the anti-iPod law " .
( Let 's not get pedantic with law/treaty/etc crap - it serves to divert attention ) .There 's a lot of things that ACTA makes illegal that common people do daily , so a big publicity campaign can cause people to get agitated .
Stuff like singing in the shower ( not too farfetched ) or humming a tune .
Recording a TV show to watch later .
Ripping a CD for your iPod.First we should call it something catchy .
" The Anti-iPod Law " is pretty good since practically everyone knows what an iPod is and what it does .
Then alert them to everyday activities that would be banned , or they can be sued for doing .
Public does n't care about RIAA suing filesharers .
They do care if the RIAA starts suing people for ripping CDs to their iPods , though .
Or if the MPAA sues people for recording that movie off of TV onto their VCR/DVR .
Or singing in the workplace ( sure it happend in the UK , but it is n't a big stretch in the UK ) .
How about having your iPod searched at the border ?
They keep saying they wo n't force iPods to be searched , but there 's no guarantee.Start campaigning on how it will impact the common people .
Pro-ACTA will have to campaign how it will benefit people , but that can be turned around quite easily ( " poor starving hollywood actors need more money to pay for their gold faucets " and the like ) .Heck , I 've seen newspapers publish about the " Is your iPod illegal ?
" law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, maybe it's time to publicize the issue as much as possible.
The easiest way is to do it by calling it stuff like "the anti-iPod law".
(Let's not get pedantic with law/treaty/etc crap - it serves to divert attention).There's a lot of things that ACTA makes illegal that common people do daily, so a big publicity campaign can cause people to get agitated.
Stuff like singing in the shower (not too farfetched) or humming a tune.
Recording a TV show to watch later.
Ripping a CD for your iPod.First we should call it something catchy.
"The Anti-iPod Law" is pretty good since practically everyone knows what an iPod is and what it does.
Then alert them to everyday activities that would be banned, or they can be sued for doing.
Public doesn't care about RIAA suing filesharers.
They do care if the RIAA starts suing people for ripping CDs to their iPods, though.
Or if the MPAA sues people for recording that movie off of TV onto their VCR/DVR.
Or singing in the workplace (sure it happend in the UK, but it isn't a big stretch in the UK).
How about having your iPod searched at the border?
They keep saying they won't force iPods to be searched, but there's no guarantee.Start campaigning on how it will impact the common people.
Pro-ACTA will have to campaign how it will benefit people, but that can be turned around quite easily ("poor starving hollywood actors need more money to pay for their gold faucets" and the like).Heck, I've seen newspapers publish about the "Is your iPod illegal?
" law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257240360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?</p></div><p>Well, in the US, most recently: banking and auto making.  Elsewhere I haven't kept up with, so I can't answer for other countries.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?</p></div><p>The same schools that apparently taught many US politicians/senators and are currently trying to put many other "businesses" under the government... because if there's anywhere that bureaucracy is not tolerated, where failure is not rewarded, where money is not wasted, where decisions are based on the good of the customer, and where underperforming employees are fired, it's a government!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yes, you do sense sarcasm (I hope).</p><p>Seriously.  If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions <i>worse</i> than a system where those <i>same people</i> are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem.  Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...</p><p>At least private businesses have to rely - presumably - on their product to make money.  They can't just tax their non-customers.</p><p>It's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded ? Well , in the US , most recently : banking and auto making .
Elsewhere I have n't kept up with , so I ca n't answer for other countries.In what business school would they teach this sort of practice ? The same schools that apparently taught many US politicians/senators and are currently trying to put many other " businesses " under the government... because if there 's anywhere that bureaucracy is not tolerated , where failure is not rewarded , where money is not wasted , where decisions are based on the good of the customer , and where underperforming employees are fired , it 's a government !
... yes , you do sense sarcasm ( I hope ) .Seriously .
If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge , only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt , they have a serious worldview problem .
Somehow , people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...At least private businesses have to rely - presumably - on their product to make money .
They ca n't just tax their non-customers.It 's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?Well, in the US, most recently: banking and auto making.
Elsewhere I haven't kept up with, so I can't answer for other countries.In what business school would they teach this sort of practice?The same schools that apparently taught many US politicians/senators and are currently trying to put many other "businesses" under the government... because if there's anywhere that bureaucracy is not tolerated, where failure is not rewarded, where money is not wasted, where decisions are based on the good of the customer, and where underperforming employees are fired, it's a government!
... yes, you do sense sarcasm (I hope).Seriously.
If people really believe that a money/greed/capitalist based system functions worse than a system where those same people are in charge, only no longer can go bankrupt until the entire country is bankrupt, they have a serious worldview problem.
Somehow, people in government are automatically more efficient and less greedy than anyone else...At least private businesses have to rely - presumably - on their product to make money.
They can't just tax their non-customers.It's interesting that those same Hollywood people tend to adhere to liberal ideologies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974982</id>
	<title>More info plz?</title>
	<author>rakslice</author>
	<datestamp>1256979600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there any leaked documents around on this? I appreciate Mr. Geist's work, but this is still just a blog post citing unnamed "sources" at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any leaked documents around on this ?
I appreciate Mr. Geist 's work , but this is still just a blog post citing unnamed " sources " at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any leaked documents around on this?
I appreciate Mr. Geist's work, but this is still just a blog post citing unnamed "sources" at this point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967672</id>
	<title>Ahem...</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1257240480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing prevents the next president from revoking\backing out of a treaty.</p><p>Noting prevents the next congressional session from re-writing\repealing\altering existing law.</p><p>Nothing prevents a SCOTUS member from being removed from their position via an impeachment. Their life time tenure is contingent on "good behavior" and as such any high crime should apply including Treason, Sedition, Perjury, etc.</p><p>Anyone could levy a charge that signing secret Treaties with foreign powers is Treason, but that is a long shot at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing prevents the next president from revoking \ backing out of a treaty.Noting prevents the next congressional session from re-writing \ repealing \ altering existing law.Nothing prevents a SCOTUS member from being removed from their position via an impeachment .
Their life time tenure is contingent on " good behavior " and as such any high crime should apply including Treason , Sedition , Perjury , etc.Anyone could levy a charge that signing secret Treaties with foreign powers is Treason , but that is a long shot at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing prevents the next president from revoking\backing out of a treaty.Noting prevents the next congressional session from re-writing\repealing\altering existing law.Nothing prevents a SCOTUS member from being removed from their position via an impeachment.
Their life time tenure is contingent on "good behavior" and as such any high crime should apply including Treason, Sedition, Perjury, etc.Anyone could levy a charge that signing secret Treaties with foreign powers is Treason, but that is a long shot at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969472</id>
	<title>Re:Return to sneakernet, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that place I put that thing that time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that place I put that thing that time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that place I put that thing that time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968976</id>
	<title>Re:Secret meetings.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>in case possible plans fell into enemy hands</p></div></blockquote><p>This is the case, too. Only this time it's the war between haves and have-nots. They may speak the same language and walk the same streets, but there can be no peace between them. Thank you for the comment - can't believe I lived to see somebody else realise it. (Secessio, secessio.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in case possible plans fell into enemy handsThis is the case , too .
Only this time it 's the war between haves and have-nots .
They may speak the same language and walk the same streets , but there can be no peace between them .
Thank you for the comment - ca n't believe I lived to see somebody else realise it .
( Secessio , secessio .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in case possible plans fell into enemy handsThis is the case, too.
Only this time it's the war between haves and have-nots.
They may speak the same language and walk the same streets, but there can be no peace between them.
Thank you for the comment - can't believe I lived to see somebody else realise it.
(Secessio, secessio.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970152</id>
	<title>Re:This is so open to abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257249660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you might be on to something here.<br>1. Such a thing could be used in a targeted fashion to cause loss of internet (3-strikes) both to businesses and persons.<br>2. If half the country suddenly had their connection removed by their ISP (3-strikes) imagine the uproar. Not just from the people but from the ISPs who are losing money.<br>3. Such a thing might be a defense - gee, it wasn't me but that nasty virus doing all that downloading. (see#1 - can't imagine BigCorp Inc being taken offline without some loop hole)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you might be on to something here.1 .
Such a thing could be used in a targeted fashion to cause loss of internet ( 3-strikes ) both to businesses and persons.2 .
If half the country suddenly had their connection removed by their ISP ( 3-strikes ) imagine the uproar .
Not just from the people but from the ISPs who are losing money.3 .
Such a thing might be a defense - gee , it was n't me but that nasty virus doing all that downloading .
( see # 1 - ca n't imagine BigCorp Inc being taken offline without some loop hole )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you might be on to something here.1.
Such a thing could be used in a targeted fashion to cause loss of internet (3-strikes) both to businesses and persons.2.
If half the country suddenly had their connection removed by their ISP (3-strikes) imagine the uproar.
Not just from the people but from the ISPs who are losing money.3.
Such a thing might be a defense - gee, it wasn't me but that nasty virus doing all that downloading.
(see#1 - can't imagine BigCorp Inc being taken offline without some loop hole)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29972714</id>
	<title>Re:One way to solve this</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1257262680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all the cross ownership on Wall Street, you may find you'll have to quit buying toilet paper and maxi pads and laundry soap and toothpaste and clothes and some foods... and don't forget to cut off the cable, telephone, internet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the cross ownership on Wall Street , you may find you 'll have to quit buying toilet paper and maxi pads and laundry soap and toothpaste and clothes and some foods... and do n't forget to cut off the cable , telephone , internet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the cross ownership on Wall Street, you may find you'll have to quit buying toilet paper and maxi pads and laundry soap and toothpaste and clothes and some foods... and don't forget to cut off the cable, telephone, internet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971192</id>
	<title>Re:who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Want to put a stake through the RIAA/MPAA/Big content's heart?</p><p>Write software allowing commoners to make their own music/movie (movie's not for today). Serve them what's killing newspapers right now.</p><p>The day 1\% of the population can write and put on the web music that's about as good as what the industry can put out is the day it's gone.</p><p>It would have to be *much* easier to use than what's currently available, tho. Get coding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to put a stake through the RIAA/MPAA/Big content 's heart ? Write software allowing commoners to make their own music/movie ( movie 's not for today ) .
Serve them what 's killing newspapers right now.The day 1 \ % of the population can write and put on the web music that 's about as good as what the industry can put out is the day it 's gone.It would have to be * much * easier to use than what 's currently available , tho .
Get coding : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to put a stake through the RIAA/MPAA/Big content's heart?Write software allowing commoners to make their own music/movie (movie's not for today).
Serve them what's killing newspapers right now.The day 1\% of the population can write and put on the web music that's about as good as what the industry can put out is the day it's gone.It would have to be *much* easier to use than what's currently available, tho.
Get coding :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971988</id>
	<title>time running out</title>
	<author>Jeek Elemental</author>
	<datestamp>1257257520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I havent seen any mention of this; since copyright is limited by time, media companies will increasingly be competing with their former selves.<br>Works from the 60s are starting to enter public domain, and as time passes it will add up to more media than anyone can possibly consume in a lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I havent seen any mention of this ; since copyright is limited by time , media companies will increasingly be competing with their former selves.Works from the 60s are starting to enter public domain , and as time passes it will add up to more media than anyone can possibly consume in a lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I havent seen any mention of this; since copyright is limited by time, media companies will increasingly be competing with their former selves.Works from the 60s are starting to enter public domain, and as time passes it will add up to more media than anyone can possibly consume in a lifetime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968034</id>
	<title>Y-M-C-A</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257242100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well good luck with European Parliament, you corporate assholes! We don't care if your precious IP goes through our ISP's or if you think that our government has no better business than disconnect citizens' homes from the internet. Too bad this is leaked and we are all about to write a letter to out parliament members. We will make you stick the DMCA into your ass (back where it came from anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well good luck with European Parliament , you corporate assholes !
We do n't care if your precious IP goes through our ISP 's or if you think that our government has no better business than disconnect citizens ' homes from the internet .
Too bad this is leaked and we are all about to write a letter to out parliament members .
We will make you stick the DMCA into your ass ( back where it came from anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well good luck with European Parliament, you corporate assholes!
We don't care if your precious IP goes through our ISP's or if you think that our government has no better business than disconnect citizens' homes from the internet.
Too bad this is leaked and we are all about to write a letter to out parliament members.
We will make you stick the DMCA into your ass (back where it came from anyway).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973682</id>
	<title>Re:Educating the public...</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1257270780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My iPod is 100\% pirated.</p><p>I would consider it socially irresponsible to fund criminal activity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My iPod is 100 \ % pirated.I would consider it socially irresponsible to fund criminal activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My iPod is 100\% pirated.I would consider it socially irresponsible to fund criminal activity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968082</id>
	<title>Global DMCA is Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257242280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>*Finally* some common sense has gotten into the rest of the world to counter illegal counterfeiting activities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Finally * some common sense has gotten into the rest of the world to counter illegal counterfeiting activities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Finally* some common sense has gotten into the rest of the world to counter illegal counterfeiting activities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967578</id>
	<title>This is so open to abuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257240000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine some malware which randomly downloads a dozen copyright mp3's - instantly making millions of unsuspecting users instant criminals - potentially with a 3-strikes liability.  Insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine some malware which randomly downloads a dozen copyright mp3 's - instantly making millions of unsuspecting users instant criminals - potentially with a 3-strikes liability .
Insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine some malware which randomly downloads a dozen copyright mp3's - instantly making millions of unsuspecting users instant criminals - potentially with a 3-strikes liability.
Insane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970580</id>
	<title>Re:Secret meetings.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257251100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These meetings are held in secret. Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands. But this isn't war against nations.</p></div><p> One could see this as first steps toward a war against China. It's a simple game of survival of the fittest. If you can't beat them in the game, start by circling around them isolating the from the supplies. Build up the catapults. Start throwing bags of ping-pong balls, then piles of sanction documents, then switch to missiles. The only way for Chinese to defend themselves from this attack is to build stronger brands and better designs of their own, starting by swallowing the fervent national pride.<br>Saddest thing is that the ACTA probably was supposed to be used against organized counterfeiting, which is something the European small and medium size businesses care a great deal about, but it probably will be used against individual citizens in the end. At least, it is a great excuse to build up some kind of global Panopticon for the great joy of the conspiracy theorists.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY "good in theory"</p></div><p> I guess, you haven't read the manifest. Mass murder and global war is the feeling I am getting from the thing. I think Marx was kidding, expressing a theoretical scenario or just angry from the lack of progress when he wrote that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These meetings are held in secret .
Now , one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war , in case possible plans fell into enemy hands .
But this is n't war against nations .
One could see this as first steps toward a war against China .
It 's a simple game of survival of the fittest .
If you ca n't beat them in the game , start by circling around them isolating the from the supplies .
Build up the catapults .
Start throwing bags of ping-pong balls , then piles of sanction documents , then switch to missiles .
The only way for Chinese to defend themselves from this attack is to build stronger brands and better designs of their own , starting by swallowing the fervent national pride.Saddest thing is that the ACTA probably was supposed to be used against organized counterfeiting , which is something the European small and medium size businesses care a great deal about , but it probably will be used against individual citizens in the end .
At least , it is a great excuse to build up some kind of global Panopticon for the great joy of the conspiracy theorists.Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY " good in theory " I guess , you have n't read the manifest .
Mass murder and global war is the feeling I am getting from the thing .
I think Marx was kidding , expressing a theoretical scenario or just angry from the lack of progress when he wrote that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These meetings are held in secret.
Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands.
But this isn't war against nations.
One could see this as first steps toward a war against China.
It's a simple game of survival of the fittest.
If you can't beat them in the game, start by circling around them isolating the from the supplies.
Build up the catapults.
Start throwing bags of ping-pong balls, then piles of sanction documents, then switch to missiles.
The only way for Chinese to defend themselves from this attack is to build stronger brands and better designs of their own, starting by swallowing the fervent national pride.Saddest thing is that the ACTA probably was supposed to be used against organized counterfeiting, which is something the European small and medium size businesses care a great deal about, but it probably will be used against individual citizens in the end.
At least, it is a great excuse to build up some kind of global Panopticon for the great joy of the conspiracy theorists.Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY "good in theory" I guess, you haven't read the manifest.
Mass murder and global war is the feeling I am getting from the thing.
I think Marx was kidding, expressing a theoretical scenario or just angry from the lack of progress when he wrote that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970160</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257249660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?</p><p>Finance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded ? Finance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what other business realm is failure so grandiosely rewarded?Finance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968572</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The auto industry? A few years ago Ford missed their budgets by a good bit, and lost a few million (can't rememer the exact figure), but the CEO still received something like 8-million dollar bonus.</p><p>People wonder why companies fail, the government is in debt, etc. They all act the same, they make dumb decisions financially and re-enforce them by providing an incentive.  That's no different than having a kid act up in a store and break stuff, only to give them candy... do you think they are really going to care how they act the next time around? No, because it doesn't matter, they'll get candy again.</p><p>I really wish we could somehow get an average Joe voted into office. Someone who didn't grow up with rich parents, ran some company, or otherwise think they are privileged. Maybe we could somehow get someone who's had to deal with the bullshit laws and regulations that have been passed in recent years, or had their livelihood stripped away by some screwed up corporation managed to run their family into bankruptcy and they lost their house. I honestly feel then, and only then, would you have someone who really knows how screwed up this country has become, as have others, and stand up to represent the majority of the people and have a sane head on their shoulders.</p><p>Granted we'd still have to somehow get term limits in place, so they aren't in for an excessive period of time and become complacent and lulled in by big business/MPAA/RIAA/etc. Then again, I think that's something that should be done now, maybe like the President with 2 terms in and then you HAVE to sit one out before you can run again.. or something of the sort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The auto industry ?
A few years ago Ford missed their budgets by a good bit , and lost a few million ( ca n't rememer the exact figure ) , but the CEO still received something like 8-million dollar bonus.People wonder why companies fail , the government is in debt , etc .
They all act the same , they make dumb decisions financially and re-enforce them by providing an incentive .
That 's no different than having a kid act up in a store and break stuff , only to give them candy... do you think they are really going to care how they act the next time around ?
No , because it does n't matter , they 'll get candy again.I really wish we could somehow get an average Joe voted into office .
Someone who did n't grow up with rich parents , ran some company , or otherwise think they are privileged .
Maybe we could somehow get someone who 's had to deal with the bullshit laws and regulations that have been passed in recent years , or had their livelihood stripped away by some screwed up corporation managed to run their family into bankruptcy and they lost their house .
I honestly feel then , and only then , would you have someone who really knows how screwed up this country has become , as have others , and stand up to represent the majority of the people and have a sane head on their shoulders.Granted we 'd still have to somehow get term limits in place , so they are n't in for an excessive period of time and become complacent and lulled in by big business/MPAA/RIAA/etc .
Then again , I think that 's something that should be done now , maybe like the President with 2 terms in and then you HAVE to sit one out before you can run again.. or something of the sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The auto industry?
A few years ago Ford missed their budgets by a good bit, and lost a few million (can't rememer the exact figure), but the CEO still received something like 8-million dollar bonus.People wonder why companies fail, the government is in debt, etc.
They all act the same, they make dumb decisions financially and re-enforce them by providing an incentive.
That's no different than having a kid act up in a store and break stuff, only to give them candy... do you think they are really going to care how they act the next time around?
No, because it doesn't matter, they'll get candy again.I really wish we could somehow get an average Joe voted into office.
Someone who didn't grow up with rich parents, ran some company, or otherwise think they are privileged.
Maybe we could somehow get someone who's had to deal with the bullshit laws and regulations that have been passed in recent years, or had their livelihood stripped away by some screwed up corporation managed to run their family into bankruptcy and they lost their house.
I honestly feel then, and only then, would you have someone who really knows how screwed up this country has become, as have others, and stand up to represent the majority of the people and have a sane head on their shoulders.Granted we'd still have to somehow get term limits in place, so they aren't in for an excessive period of time and become complacent and lulled in by big business/MPAA/RIAA/etc.
Then again, I think that's something that should be done now, maybe like the President with 2 terms in and then you HAVE to sit one out before you can run again.. or something of the sort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969004</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1257245820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some auto making.</p><p>Ford is turning a profit and has reliability numbers higher than Toyota and Honda in some areas.</p><p>The other two companies are complete shit though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some auto making.Ford is turning a profit and has reliability numbers higher than Toyota and Honda in some areas.The other two companies are complete shit though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some auto making.Ford is turning a profit and has reliability numbers higher than Toyota and Honda in some areas.The other two companies are complete shit though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968316</id>
	<title>We shall never surrender</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257243300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have, ourselves, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Internets, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.
<br> <br>
Even though large parts of Internets and many old and famous trackers have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Ifpi and all the odious apparatus of MPAA rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the ef-nets and darknets, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Internets, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the baywords.org, we shall fight on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and on the digg, we shall fight in the courts; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, the Internets or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the Anon Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in Cerf&rsquo;s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
<br> <br>
Signed
<br>
The Pirate Bay Crew &ndash; Now until needed.
<br> <br> <br>
<i>Blatantly pirated from thepiratebay</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have , ourselves , full confidence that if all do their duty , if nothing is neglected , and if the best arrangements are made , as they are being made , we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Internets , to ride out the storm of war , and to outlive the menace of tyranny , if necessary for years , if necessary alone .
Even though large parts of Internets and many old and famous trackers have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Ifpi and all the odious apparatus of MPAA rule , we shall not flag or fail .
We shall go on to the end , we shall fight in France , we shall fight on the ef-nets and darknets , we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air , we shall defend our Internets , whatever the cost may be , we shall fight on the beaches , we shall fight on the baywords.org , we shall fight on the / .
and on the digg , we shall fight in the courts ; we shall never surrender , and if , which I do not for a moment believe , the Internets or a large part of it were subjugated and starving , then our Empire beyond the seas , armed and guarded by the Anon Fleet , would carry on the struggle , until , in Cerf    s good time , the New World , with all its power and might , steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old .
Signed The Pirate Bay Crew    Now until needed .
Blatantly pirated from thepiratebay</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have, ourselves, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Internets, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.
Even though large parts of Internets and many old and famous trackers have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Ifpi and all the odious apparatus of MPAA rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the ef-nets and darknets, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Internets, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the baywords.org, we shall fight on the /.
and on the digg, we shall fight in the courts; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, the Internets or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the Anon Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in Cerf’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
Signed

The Pirate Bay Crew – Now until needed.
Blatantly pirated from thepiratebay</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968252</id>
	<title>Re:As far as Hollywood goes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257243060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Harvard</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Harvard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Harvard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29977412</id>
	<title>Eastern Standard Tribe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257001200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&lt;your entire post, basically&gt;</p></div><p>AC, go read Eastern Standard Tribe. Go on, I'll wait.<br><a href="http://craphound.com/est/Cory\_Doctorow\_-\_Eastern\_Standard\_Tribe.txt" title="craphound.com">http://craphound.com/est/Cory\_Doctorow\_-\_Eastern\_Standard\_Tribe.txt</a> [craphound.com]<br>Done? Good. Nice read, isn't it? Anyway, note how your post is exactly what they did 'at the pike'. And yet, Big Media was still involved. Like nature, I'm afraid capitalism "will always find a way" (hoping I won't get sued by Spielberg for that).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AC , go read Eastern Standard Tribe .
Go on , I 'll wait.http : //craphound.com/est/Cory \ _Doctorow \ _- \ _Eastern \ _Standard \ _Tribe.txt [ craphound.com ] Done ?
Good. Nice read , is n't it ?
Anyway , note how your post is exactly what they did 'at the pike' .
And yet , Big Media was still involved .
Like nature , I 'm afraid capitalism " will always find a way " ( hoping I wo n't get sued by Spielberg for that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AC, go read Eastern Standard Tribe.
Go on, I'll wait.http://craphound.com/est/Cory\_Doctorow\_-\_Eastern\_Standard\_Tribe.txt [craphound.com]Done?
Good. Nice read, isn't it?
Anyway, note how your post is exactly what they did 'at the pike'.
And yet, Big Media was still involved.
Like nature, I'm afraid capitalism "will always find a way" (hoping I won't get sued by Spielberg for that).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310</id>
	<title>I Wonder...</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1257281940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how much the RIAA/MPAA and their international brethren had to pay to buy that many countries... I mean, seriously - not a single one of the delegates sitting at the tables is willing to speak up and point out how these concepts are not good for the populace of their country? You know, the people our politicians supposedly represent. <br> <br>
I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests. It's even worse, as a Canadian, when I see my government bend over and take it for FOREIGN corporate interests. Were it at least for the betterment of Canadian corporations, I'd at least be able to justify it as "they're doing what they can to keep our businesses profitable" but when they sell out the people of my country so some corporation in another country can pad their bottom line, it simply infuriates me.<br> <br>
I keep holding out hope that somebody will eventually develop some morals and put a stop to this madness but I know that the money has spoken and thus change is coming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how much the RIAA/MPAA and their international brethren had to pay to buy that many countries... I mean , seriously - not a single one of the delegates sitting at the tables is willing to speak up and point out how these concepts are not good for the populace of their country ?
You know , the people our politicians supposedly represent .
I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests .
It 's even worse , as a Canadian , when I see my government bend over and take it for FOREIGN corporate interests .
Were it at least for the betterment of Canadian corporations , I 'd at least be able to justify it as " they 're doing what they can to keep our businesses profitable " but when they sell out the people of my country so some corporation in another country can pad their bottom line , it simply infuriates me .
I keep holding out hope that somebody will eventually develop some morals and put a stop to this madness but I know that the money has spoken and thus change is coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how much the RIAA/MPAA and their international brethren had to pay to buy that many countries... I mean, seriously - not a single one of the delegates sitting at the tables is willing to speak up and point out how these concepts are not good for the populace of their country?
You know, the people our politicians supposedly represent.
I am so utterly sick and tired of politicians turning their backs on the people they represent and bending low before corporate interests.
It's even worse, as a Canadian, when I see my government bend over and take it for FOREIGN corporate interests.
Were it at least for the betterment of Canadian corporations, I'd at least be able to justify it as "they're doing what they can to keep our businesses profitable" but when they sell out the people of my country so some corporation in another country can pad their bottom line, it simply infuriates me.
I keep holding out hope that somebody will eventually develop some morals and put a stop to this madness but I know that the money has spoken and thus change is coming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967428</id>
	<title>who cares?</title>
	<author>boristdog</author>
	<datestamp>1257239280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every great new movement in any art (cinema, music, painting, etc.) is done by people who just do these things because they want to, not because they are looking for millions of dollars.</p><p>So the paid, restricted content will continue to suck donkey balls, as it has for years.  And the next big thing will be given away or shared for free or for donations.</p><p>Sure, it will eventually be co-opted and sanitized by the corporate culture, but by then it will be time for the next new big thing.</p><p>So this is a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every great new movement in any art ( cinema , music , painting , etc .
) is done by people who just do these things because they want to , not because they are looking for millions of dollars.So the paid , restricted content will continue to suck donkey balls , as it has for years .
And the next big thing will be given away or shared for free or for donations.Sure , it will eventually be co-opted and sanitized by the corporate culture , but by then it will be time for the next new big thing.So this is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every great new movement in any art (cinema, music, painting, etc.
) is done by people who just do these things because they want to, not because they are looking for millions of dollars.So the paid, restricted content will continue to suck donkey balls, as it has for years.
And the next big thing will be given away or shared for free or for donations.Sure, it will eventually be co-opted and sanitized by the corporate culture, but by then it will be time for the next new big thing.So this is a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967464</id>
	<title>Re:also have to be made law?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1257239400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would think so but remember that the US government as well as many other governments have grown beyond being bound by their original restrictions...  That and I doubt the copyright lobby would fail to get their own legislation passed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would think so but remember that the US government as well as many other governments have grown beyond being bound by their original restrictions... That and I doubt the copyright lobby would fail to get their own legislation passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would think so but remember that the US government as well as many other governments have grown beyond being bound by their original restrictions...  That and I doubt the copyright lobby would fail to get their own legislation passed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418</id>
	<title>Return to sneakernet, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257239220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess this means a return to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet" title="wikipedia.org">sneakernet</a> [wikipedia.org]? That might improve local communities, not a bad thing in itself...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this means a return to sneakernet [ wikipedia.org ] ?
That might improve local communities , not a bad thing in itself.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this means a return to sneakernet [wikipedia.org]?
That might improve local communities, not a bad thing in itself...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967562</id>
	<title>Approved by the Senate in the US</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1257239940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it does go through the legislature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it does go through the legislature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it does go through the legislature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29987052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29975320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29972714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29975442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29978336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29979614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29977412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29972372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_1943237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29972372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29987052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29975442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29977412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29971486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29979614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29970194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29973682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29976314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29967832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29978336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_1943237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29968478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29972714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29969258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29975320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_1943237.29974636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
