<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_04_144240</id>
	<title>Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks. It's Bad. Very Bad.</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1257345060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer.  It says <i>"The <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html">internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement</a>, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to 'national security' concerns, has leaked. It's bad."</i>  You can read the <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/">original leaked document</a> or the summary.  If passed, the internet will never be the same.  Thank goodness it's hidden from public scrutiny for National Security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer .
It says " The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement , a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama 's administration refused to disclose due to 'national security ' concerns , has leaked .
It 's bad .
" You can read the original leaked document or the summary .
If passed , the internet will never be the same .
Thank goodness it 's hidden from public scrutiny for National Security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer.
It says "The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to 'national security' concerns, has leaked.
It's bad.
"  You can read the original leaked document or the summary.
If passed, the internet will never be the same.
Thank goodness it's hidden from public scrutiny for National Security.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978710</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>eiMichael</author>
	<datestamp>1257006420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I appreciate your candor, but my $DIETY the selfishness you just expressed has just jaded the rest of my day.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I'm not particularly interesting in having them used in school work, I don't think they should be.</p></div><p>Then don't distribute your works.  If you want complete control over what people do with things available to them, then move to a country with a dictator.  I agree that copyright infingement is unlawful, but it obviously happens.  You knew that when you started producing copywritten material.  If you didn't, then you didn't research your business plan.</p><p>Assuming you have <b>evidence</b> of an infringement, you are welcome to sue the persons responsible.  Until then, stop assuming that everyone is out to ruin your business by stealing all your IP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I appreciate your candor , but my $ DIETY the selfishness you just expressed has just jaded the rest of my day.If I 'm not particularly interesting in having them used in school work , I do n't think they should be.Then do n't distribute your works .
If you want complete control over what people do with things available to them , then move to a country with a dictator .
I agree that copyright infingement is unlawful , but it obviously happens .
You knew that when you started producing copywritten material .
If you did n't , then you did n't research your business plan.Assuming you have evidence of an infringement , you are welcome to sue the persons responsible .
Until then , stop assuming that everyone is out to ruin your business by stealing all your IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I appreciate your candor, but my $DIETY the selfishness you just expressed has just jaded the rest of my day.If I'm not particularly interesting in having them used in school work, I don't think they should be.Then don't distribute your works.
If you want complete control over what people do with things available to them, then move to a country with a dictator.
I agree that copyright infingement is unlawful, but it obviously happens.
You knew that when you started producing copywritten material.
If you didn't, then you didn't research your business plan.Assuming you have evidence of an infringement, you are welcome to sue the persons responsible.
Until then, stop assuming that everyone is out to ruin your business by stealing all your IP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983846</id>
	<title>Copyright as a revenue source</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1257021480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem that I think a lot of people are missing is quite simple.  Distribution of copyright materials - books, movies, music, software, everything - became a source of revenue before 1900 in US and Europe.  The "publisher model" where the publisher fronts all the costs and takes the lion's share of the revenue became quite common.  This model allowed for considerable growth of book and music publishing over more than 100 years.</p><p>Today, for the people on one side of the Digital Divide, the publisher doesn't seem to be all that necessary.  There may be smaller role in the area of promotion, but the driver of the promotion was the big revenue that was possible from the combination of mass distribution and mass promotion, usually at significant cost.  One problem with the idea of the publisher being obsolete is the people on the "other" side of the Digital Divide.  Without publishers, and without broadband Internet, they are going to be left out of all media in the future.</p><p>But even without publishers, creative people that are producing copyright materials deserve something for their efforts.  Sure, hundreds of years ago their compensation was in the form of patronage.  They produced works that their patrons wanted and got a living from it.  This produced a particularly stilted kind of works for quite a while.  It would be a shame to think that only the likely jaded tastes of the rich and powerful would be represented by future creative works under a reincarnation of a patronage system.</p><p>But how else are creative works going to be produced?  It is apparent from where I sit that people that grew up with the Internet simply will not pay.  If free materials of their liking aren't available, pirated works will be and they will be used.  User-generated and most free content has shown it to be worth precisely what is being charged for it.  While some is good, most isn't.  As are most things that the owner is willing to part with for free.</p><p>The answer for the masses isn't going to be that everything is free, because this will leave the masses without much new materials.  The "oldies" will always be with us - e.g., 1970s music and Project Gutenberg - but to get new works of "value" something has to be exchanged.  And most people find it difficult to live off fame and reputation.</p><p>So how do creative people replace the revenue that controlling the distribution of their work gave them?  It doesn't matter if this distribution was direct or through a publisher, there was some revenue there.  The answer isn't that this revenue just disappears, because if it does just evaporate some (probably large) fraction of these creative people will end up doing something else that does pay.  Failing to come up with a real answer for this leaves the whole system in limbo, as it is today - everything is free to the Internet generation leaving the oldsters to pay.  This arrangement isn't going to last forever, and may not last very much longer.</p><p>So what is a reasonable answer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem that I think a lot of people are missing is quite simple .
Distribution of copyright materials - books , movies , music , software , everything - became a source of revenue before 1900 in US and Europe .
The " publisher model " where the publisher fronts all the costs and takes the lion 's share of the revenue became quite common .
This model allowed for considerable growth of book and music publishing over more than 100 years.Today , for the people on one side of the Digital Divide , the publisher does n't seem to be all that necessary .
There may be smaller role in the area of promotion , but the driver of the promotion was the big revenue that was possible from the combination of mass distribution and mass promotion , usually at significant cost .
One problem with the idea of the publisher being obsolete is the people on the " other " side of the Digital Divide .
Without publishers , and without broadband Internet , they are going to be left out of all media in the future.But even without publishers , creative people that are producing copyright materials deserve something for their efforts .
Sure , hundreds of years ago their compensation was in the form of patronage .
They produced works that their patrons wanted and got a living from it .
This produced a particularly stilted kind of works for quite a while .
It would be a shame to think that only the likely jaded tastes of the rich and powerful would be represented by future creative works under a reincarnation of a patronage system.But how else are creative works going to be produced ?
It is apparent from where I sit that people that grew up with the Internet simply will not pay .
If free materials of their liking are n't available , pirated works will be and they will be used .
User-generated and most free content has shown it to be worth precisely what is being charged for it .
While some is good , most is n't .
As are most things that the owner is willing to part with for free.The answer for the masses is n't going to be that everything is free , because this will leave the masses without much new materials .
The " oldies " will always be with us - e.g. , 1970s music and Project Gutenberg - but to get new works of " value " something has to be exchanged .
And most people find it difficult to live off fame and reputation.So how do creative people replace the revenue that controlling the distribution of their work gave them ?
It does n't matter if this distribution was direct or through a publisher , there was some revenue there .
The answer is n't that this revenue just disappears , because if it does just evaporate some ( probably large ) fraction of these creative people will end up doing something else that does pay .
Failing to come up with a real answer for this leaves the whole system in limbo , as it is today - everything is free to the Internet generation leaving the oldsters to pay .
This arrangement is n't going to last forever , and may not last very much longer.So what is a reasonable answer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem that I think a lot of people are missing is quite simple.
Distribution of copyright materials - books, movies, music, software, everything - became a source of revenue before 1900 in US and Europe.
The "publisher model" where the publisher fronts all the costs and takes the lion's share of the revenue became quite common.
This model allowed for considerable growth of book and music publishing over more than 100 years.Today, for the people on one side of the Digital Divide, the publisher doesn't seem to be all that necessary.
There may be smaller role in the area of promotion, but the driver of the promotion was the big revenue that was possible from the combination of mass distribution and mass promotion, usually at significant cost.
One problem with the idea of the publisher being obsolete is the people on the "other" side of the Digital Divide.
Without publishers, and without broadband Internet, they are going to be left out of all media in the future.But even without publishers, creative people that are producing copyright materials deserve something for their efforts.
Sure, hundreds of years ago their compensation was in the form of patronage.
They produced works that their patrons wanted and got a living from it.
This produced a particularly stilted kind of works for quite a while.
It would be a shame to think that only the likely jaded tastes of the rich and powerful would be represented by future creative works under a reincarnation of a patronage system.But how else are creative works going to be produced?
It is apparent from where I sit that people that grew up with the Internet simply will not pay.
If free materials of their liking aren't available, pirated works will be and they will be used.
User-generated and most free content has shown it to be worth precisely what is being charged for it.
While some is good, most isn't.
As are most things that the owner is willing to part with for free.The answer for the masses isn't going to be that everything is free, because this will leave the masses without much new materials.
The "oldies" will always be with us - e.g., 1970s music and Project Gutenberg - but to get new works of "value" something has to be exchanged.
And most people find it difficult to live off fame and reputation.So how do creative people replace the revenue that controlling the distribution of their work gave them?
It doesn't matter if this distribution was direct or through a publisher, there was some revenue there.
The answer isn't that this revenue just disappears, because if it does just evaporate some (probably large) fraction of these creative people will end up doing something else that does pay.
Failing to come up with a real answer for this leaves the whole system in limbo, as it is today - everything is free to the Internet generation leaving the oldsters to pay.
This arrangement isn't going to last forever, and may not last very much longer.So what is a reasonable answer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979408</id>
	<title>National Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the national security issue will be the riots on our streets when they realise what they are up to...no wonder they wanted to keep it quiet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the national security issue will be the riots on our streets when they realise what they are up to...no wonder they wanted to keep it quiet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the national security issue will be the riots on our streets when they realise what they are up to...no wonder they wanted to keep it quiet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978514</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an attitude thing.</p><p>There are people like yourself who feel you should be able to produce something and continue to profit off freely/easily replicated copies of that effectively meaning you can over time make a fair bit of money for relatively little work.</p><p>Then there are those who realise that strong copyright isn't needed, they are the ones who accept that people should work for a living, they're the ones who produce IP as a service- musicians who perform, programmers who write bespoke software and so on.</p><p>Really, this is what the copyright battle comes down to- those who want to do very little work for a decent payoff against those who think that's a rather lazy viewpoint and so work for a living, whilst copying material of those who are too lazy to do so.</p><p>Effectively if you want an easy life, don't be suprised if those who accept that nothing is free disagree with you and pirate your stuff. If you haven't done much work to produce your IP other than the original work involved to create it, why should anyone pay you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an attitude thing.There are people like yourself who feel you should be able to produce something and continue to profit off freely/easily replicated copies of that effectively meaning you can over time make a fair bit of money for relatively little work.Then there are those who realise that strong copyright is n't needed , they are the ones who accept that people should work for a living , they 're the ones who produce IP as a service- musicians who perform , programmers who write bespoke software and so on.Really , this is what the copyright battle comes down to- those who want to do very little work for a decent payoff against those who think that 's a rather lazy viewpoint and so work for a living , whilst copying material of those who are too lazy to do so.Effectively if you want an easy life , do n't be suprised if those who accept that nothing is free disagree with you and pirate your stuff .
If you have n't done much work to produce your IP other than the original work involved to create it , why should anyone pay you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an attitude thing.There are people like yourself who feel you should be able to produce something and continue to profit off freely/easily replicated copies of that effectively meaning you can over time make a fair bit of money for relatively little work.Then there are those who realise that strong copyright isn't needed, they are the ones who accept that people should work for a living, they're the ones who produce IP as a service- musicians who perform, programmers who write bespoke software and so on.Really, this is what the copyright battle comes down to- those who want to do very little work for a decent payoff against those who think that's a rather lazy viewpoint and so work for a living, whilst copying material of those who are too lazy to do so.Effectively if you want an easy life, don't be suprised if those who accept that nothing is free disagree with you and pirate your stuff.
If you haven't done much work to produce your IP other than the original work involved to create it, why should anyone pay you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1257003480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point is that there are precious few details about any of ACTA because nobody outside of the governments involved, their lawyers and a few high-paying lobby groups have been allowed to see any of its contents.</p><p>*Everything* about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it's too late to do anything about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point is that there are precious few details about any of ACTA because nobody outside of the governments involved , their lawyers and a few high-paying lobby groups have been allowed to see any of its contents .
* Everything * about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it 's too late to do anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point is that there are precious few details about any of ACTA because nobody outside of the governments involved, their lawyers and a few high-paying lobby groups have been allowed to see any of its contents.
*Everything* about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it's too late to do anything about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29991242</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257013620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama reads 10 letters every day from americans.</p><p>Maybe if all us techies started a campaign some of them would get through?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama reads 10 letters every day from americans.Maybe if all us techies started a campaign some of them would get through ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama reads 10 letters every day from americans.Maybe if all us techies started a campaign some of them would get through?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978754</id>
	<title>Re:Devils avocate...</title>
	<author>Apatharch</author>
	<datestamp>1257006540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If ownership of intellectual property would ever be undermined other kinds of property are next in line.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nonsense.  Intellectual "property" is a legal fiction which does not conform to the same principles as physical property, most significantly that of scarcity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If ownership of intellectual property would ever be undermined other kinds of property are next in line.Nonsense .
Intellectual " property " is a legal fiction which does not conform to the same principles as physical property , most significantly that of scarcity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ownership of intellectual property would ever be undermined other kinds of property are next in line.Nonsense.
Intellectual "property" is a legal fiction which does not conform to the same principles as physical property, most significantly that of scarcity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978990</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1257007260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one am eager to invite the government to judge and enforce net neutrality and look forward to the legislature giving bureaucrats the control needed to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one am eager to invite the government to judge and enforce net neutrality and look forward to the legislature giving bureaucrats the control needed to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one am eager to invite the government to judge and enforce net neutrality and look forward to the legislature giving bureaucrats the control needed to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981574</id>
	<title>Some info on EC site</title>
	<author>fritsd</author>
	<datestamp>1257015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is some supplemental info straight from one of the horses' mouths:
<br>
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/trade-topics/intellectual-property/anti-counterfeiting/" title="europa.eu">Anti-counterfeiting</a> [europa.eu]
<br>
It's a bit heavy on the misleading term "intellectual property".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is some supplemental info straight from one of the horses ' mouths : Anti-counterfeiting [ europa.eu ] It 's a bit heavy on the misleading term " intellectual property " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is some supplemental info straight from one of the horses' mouths:

Anti-counterfeiting [europa.eu]

It's a bit heavy on the misleading term "intellectual property".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820</id>
	<title>So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer.</p></div><p>Well maybe <a href="https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/03/1943237/Anti-Counterfeiting-Deal-Aims-For-Global-DMCA" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Jamie should read yesterday's Slashdot</a> [slashdot.org].  <br> <br>

I would just like to point out that everyone is getting their information from a single point: Michael Geist's blog.  Granted, he's rarely wrong but blogs are blogs.  So where is this "leaked document" that the summary alludes to?  Every source I find online points back to Geist.  Even the articles Geist cites at the bottom of his blog point back to him.  Even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting\_Trade\_Agreement#Secrecy\_of\_negotiations" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia points back to him</a> [wikipedia.org].  I'm not saying that he's wrong nor am I trying to deflate the severity of this but Geist is even relying on other sources:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sources say that the draft text, modeled on the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement, focuses on following five issues...</p></div><p>Then following that even he says:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If accurate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>Doesn't leave me a whole lot of confidence that we're getting all the unadulterated facts here.  I would seek information better than third or fourth hand accounts of something before I went around screaming about the sky falling (trust me, I <a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/08/1754219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">speak from experience</a> [slashdot.org] of being fooled by a single blog post).</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks. It's Bad. Very Bad.</p></div><p>So where is the leaked document so that I may judge for myself?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer.Well maybe Jamie should read yesterday 's Slashdot [ slashdot.org ] .
I would just like to point out that everyone is getting their information from a single point : Michael Geist 's blog .
Granted , he 's rarely wrong but blogs are blogs .
So where is this " leaked document " that the summary alludes to ?
Every source I find online points back to Geist .
Even the articles Geist cites at the bottom of his blog point back to him .
Even Wikipedia points back to him [ wikipedia.org ] .
I 'm not saying that he 's wrong nor am I trying to deflate the severity of this but Geist is even relying on other sources : Sources say that the draft text , modeled on the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement , focuses on following five issues...Then following that even he says : If accurate ... Does n't leave me a whole lot of confidence that we 're getting all the unadulterated facts here .
I would seek information better than third or fourth hand accounts of something before I went around screaming about the sky falling ( trust me , I speak from experience [ slashdot.org ] of being fooled by a single blog post ) .
Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks .
It 's Bad .
Very Bad.So where is the leaked document so that I may judge for myself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jamie found a Boing Boing story that will probably get your blood to at least a simmer.Well maybe Jamie should read yesterday's Slashdot [slashdot.org].
I would just like to point out that everyone is getting their information from a single point: Michael Geist's blog.
Granted, he's rarely wrong but blogs are blogs.
So where is this "leaked document" that the summary alludes to?
Every source I find online points back to Geist.
Even the articles Geist cites at the bottom of his blog point back to him.
Even Wikipedia points back to him [wikipedia.org].
I'm not saying that he's wrong nor am I trying to deflate the severity of this but Geist is even relying on other sources:Sources say that the draft text, modeled on the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement, focuses on following five issues...Then following that even he says:If accurate ... Doesn't leave me a whole lot of confidence that we're getting all the unadulterated facts here.
I would seek information better than third or fourth hand accounts of something before I went around screaming about the sky falling (trust me, I speak from experience [slashdot.org] of being fooled by a single blog post).
Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks.
It's Bad.
Very Bad.So where is the leaked document so that I may judge for myself?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978430</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1257005520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is really funny that you separate Hollywood from big business.  Hollywood/media companies in general are big business.  I will admit that I am extremely disappointed in this. I didn't vote for Obama but I kept telling people to give him a chance.  Well using national security as a reason to keep a copyright treaty secerate is just wrong.  I really don't have a problem with going after file sharers since I think pirateing is wrong. What I will not be willing to over look is the destruction of due process.</p><p>Obama I am willing to give Obama a bit of pass on some national security policies.  I would like to think that he is wise enough that when he got into office and found the world wasn't what he thought it was that he adapted.  BTW I voted for McCain. I honestly think he was the better candidate picking Palin was stupid and I was hopping he would have picked Rudy for the VP but that is history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is really funny that you separate Hollywood from big business .
Hollywood/media companies in general are big business .
I will admit that I am extremely disappointed in this .
I did n't vote for Obama but I kept telling people to give him a chance .
Well using national security as a reason to keep a copyright treaty secerate is just wrong .
I really do n't have a problem with going after file sharers since I think pirateing is wrong .
What I will not be willing to over look is the destruction of due process.Obama I am willing to give Obama a bit of pass on some national security policies .
I would like to think that he is wise enough that when he got into office and found the world was n't what he thought it was that he adapted .
BTW I voted for McCain .
I honestly think he was the better candidate picking Palin was stupid and I was hopping he would have picked Rudy for the VP but that is history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is really funny that you separate Hollywood from big business.
Hollywood/media companies in general are big business.
I will admit that I am extremely disappointed in this.
I didn't vote for Obama but I kept telling people to give him a chance.
Well using national security as a reason to keep a copyright treaty secerate is just wrong.
I really don't have a problem with going after file sharers since I think pirateing is wrong.
What I will not be willing to over look is the destruction of due process.Obama I am willing to give Obama a bit of pass on some national security policies.
I would like to think that he is wise enough that when he got into office and found the world wasn't what he thought it was that he adapted.
BTW I voted for McCain.
I honestly think he was the better candidate picking Palin was stupid and I was hopping he would have picked Rudy for the VP but that is history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980292</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1257011220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Above all, will it even work?</p></div><p>May be it will work out fine. Suppose that the treaty will pass and that the law enforcement and the courts will
start enforcing these laws in earnest. I suspect that it will make all proprietary material simply too expensive to
handle. Copying digital data is very, very cheap. If the laws become effective, copying proprietary content will
become risky, and therefore expensive. But copying properly licensed content (e.g. CC-SA) will not be risky or expensive.
Guess what will happen next.

</p><p>Again: imagine that you are in a world where joining an illegal torrent will likely result in you being banned from
the Internet, fined, or thrown in jail. The most obvious prediction I can make about art is that CC-SA content will be all over
the Internet, while the proprietary content will become a tiny niche. Since the "goodness" of art is subjective,
this transition is painless for us as a society.

</p><p>The picture is even better in the commodity software department. We all know that that running
proprietary software brings about licensing problems. But, even more importantly, people begin to recognize that non-free software
is utterly untrustworthy, i.e. no one knows what it really does. There is only one way left to prop up the proprietary
commodity software, and that is to <i>outlaw</i> free-as-in-freedom computing. But that will not happen, since copyleft is already
entrenched in the industry which is orders of magnitude bigger (read: has more cash) than the content industry.
Jokes aside, we all know this is the year of GNU/Linux on desktop, folks. If you disagree, I suggest you start short-selling Dell asap.

</p><p>The government is actually pretty slick, if you think about it. They are taking the lobbyists' cash and making copyright stronger, just as they are
transitioning away from the proprietary software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Above all , will it even work ? May be it will work out fine .
Suppose that the treaty will pass and that the law enforcement and the courts will start enforcing these laws in earnest .
I suspect that it will make all proprietary material simply too expensive to handle .
Copying digital data is very , very cheap .
If the laws become effective , copying proprietary content will become risky , and therefore expensive .
But copying properly licensed content ( e.g .
CC-SA ) will not be risky or expensive .
Guess what will happen next .
Again : imagine that you are in a world where joining an illegal torrent will likely result in you being banned from the Internet , fined , or thrown in jail .
The most obvious prediction I can make about art is that CC-SA content will be all over the Internet , while the proprietary content will become a tiny niche .
Since the " goodness " of art is subjective , this transition is painless for us as a society .
The picture is even better in the commodity software department .
We all know that that running proprietary software brings about licensing problems .
But , even more importantly , people begin to recognize that non-free software is utterly untrustworthy , i.e .
no one knows what it really does .
There is only one way left to prop up the proprietary commodity software , and that is to outlaw free-as-in-freedom computing .
But that will not happen , since copyleft is already entrenched in the industry which is orders of magnitude bigger ( read : has more cash ) than the content industry .
Jokes aside , we all know this is the year of GNU/Linux on desktop , folks .
If you disagree , I suggest you start short-selling Dell asap .
The government is actually pretty slick , if you think about it .
They are taking the lobbyists ' cash and making copyright stronger , just as they are transitioning away from the proprietary software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Above all, will it even work?May be it will work out fine.
Suppose that the treaty will pass and that the law enforcement and the courts will
start enforcing these laws in earnest.
I suspect that it will make all proprietary material simply too expensive to
handle.
Copying digital data is very, very cheap.
If the laws become effective, copying proprietary content will
become risky, and therefore expensive.
But copying properly licensed content (e.g.
CC-SA) will not be risky or expensive.
Guess what will happen next.
Again: imagine that you are in a world where joining an illegal torrent will likely result in you being banned from
the Internet, fined, or thrown in jail.
The most obvious prediction I can make about art is that CC-SA content will be all over
the Internet, while the proprietary content will become a tiny niche.
Since the "goodness" of art is subjective,
this transition is painless for us as a society.
The picture is even better in the commodity software department.
We all know that that running
proprietary software brings about licensing problems.
But, even more importantly, people begin to recognize that non-free software
is utterly untrustworthy, i.e.
no one knows what it really does.
There is only one way left to prop up the proprietary
commodity software, and that is to outlaw free-as-in-freedom computing.
But that will not happen, since copyleft is already
entrenched in the industry which is orders of magnitude bigger (read: has more cash) than the content industry.
Jokes aside, we all know this is the year of GNU/Linux on desktop, folks.
If you disagree, I suggest you start short-selling Dell asap.
The government is actually pretty slick, if you think about it.
They are taking the lobbyists' cash and making copyright stronger, just as they are
transitioning away from the proprietary software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</id>
	<title>How can you be convicted of breaking a secret law?</title>
	<author>hol</author>
	<datestamp>1257006660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds tongue-in-cheek, but is really a serious question. On one hand, you have the notion of <i>ignorance is no excuse</i> although there are precedents now stating if you're famous, that's okay. There are precedents for secret treatises for national security, like the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But how would the mechanics of enforcement work?</p><p>Will the FBI kick in your door, shoot your dog, and haul you off for breaking a secret law?</p><p>Would they need a secret warrant?</p><p>If you ever got your day in court, would that court be secret too, to protect that law?</p><p>----</p><p>Now for Canada: A judge last year tossed out a RIAA style copyright suit because the defendant had made CDs. As everyone knows, Canada has a special tax on blank media to reimburse the copyright holders for piracy that may or may not happen. Kind of like paying a partial speeding ticket before you get into your car each day. Since this implies guilt, the defendant was deemed to have been punished already, and was so exempt from being convicted again.</p><p>How would the secret treaty work in Canada? Change the laws secretly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds tongue-in-cheek , but is really a serious question .
On one hand , you have the notion of ignorance is no excuse although there are precedents now stating if you 're famous , that 's okay .
There are precedents for secret treatises for national security , like the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis .
But how would the mechanics of enforcement work ? Will the FBI kick in your door , shoot your dog , and haul you off for breaking a secret law ? Would they need a secret warrant ? If you ever got your day in court , would that court be secret too , to protect that law ? ----Now for Canada : A judge last year tossed out a RIAA style copyright suit because the defendant had made CDs .
As everyone knows , Canada has a special tax on blank media to reimburse the copyright holders for piracy that may or may not happen .
Kind of like paying a partial speeding ticket before you get into your car each day .
Since this implies guilt , the defendant was deemed to have been punished already , and was so exempt from being convicted again.How would the secret treaty work in Canada ?
Change the laws secretly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds tongue-in-cheek, but is really a serious question.
On one hand, you have the notion of ignorance is no excuse although there are precedents now stating if you're famous, that's okay.
There are precedents for secret treatises for national security, like the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
But how would the mechanics of enforcement work?Will the FBI kick in your door, shoot your dog, and haul you off for breaking a secret law?Would they need a secret warrant?If you ever got your day in court, would that court be secret too, to protect that law?----Now for Canada: A judge last year tossed out a RIAA style copyright suit because the defendant had made CDs.
As everyone knows, Canada has a special tax on blank media to reimburse the copyright holders for piracy that may or may not happen.
Kind of like paying a partial speeding ticket before you get into your car each day.
Since this implies guilt, the defendant was deemed to have been punished already, and was so exempt from being convicted again.How would the secret treaty work in Canada?
Change the laws secretly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980620</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1257012300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own.</p></div><p>No, that's not true.</p><p>The section you mentioned allows them to confiscate all your possessions if they suspect there <i>might have been</i> a single infringing item on any <i>electronic device</i> you own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own.No , that 's not true.The section you mentioned allows them to confiscate all your possessions if they suspect there might have been a single infringing item on any electronic device you own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own.No, that's not true.The section you mentioned allows them to confiscate all your possessions if they suspect there might have been a single infringing item on any electronic device you own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978852</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]<br>Following is a quote from the book; 'Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time', By; the late Prof. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown Univ. and a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations,</p><p>Referring to the elite's control and manupulation of the political parties and the political process:</p><p>"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and politics...of the Right and...Left, is a foolish idea...the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can &lsquo;throw the rascals out&rsquo; without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy...It should be possible, to replace one party with the other party which will pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policy."<br>[/quote]</p><p>For many, many more juicy quotes:</p><p>Topic:  "Quotes from Elites"<br>https://www.kitcomm.com/showthread.php?t=17095</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] Following is a quote from the book ; 'Tragedy And Hope : A History Of The World In Our Time ' , By ; the late Prof. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown Univ .
and a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations,Referring to the elite 's control and manupulation of the political parties and the political process : " The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and politics...of the Right and...Left , is a foolish idea...the two parties should be almost identical , so that the American people can    throw the rascals out    without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy...It should be possible , to replace one party with the other party which will pursue , with new vigor , approximately the same basic policy .
" [ /quote ] For many , many more juicy quotes : Topic : " Quotes from Elites " https : //www.kitcomm.com/showthread.php ? t = 17095</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]Following is a quote from the book; 'Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time', By; the late Prof. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown Univ.
and a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations,Referring to the elite's control and manupulation of the political parties and the political process:"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and politics...of the Right and...Left, is a foolish idea...the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy...It should be possible, to replace one party with the other party which will pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policy.
"[/quote]For many, many more juicy quotes:Topic:  "Quotes from Elites"https://www.kitcomm.com/showthread.php?t=17095
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</id>
	<title>So what's new?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1257003240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still don't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and "national security" policies of the previous one. Democrats are just as much in the pockets of Hollywood as conservatives are in the pockets of big business (meaning BOTH support oppressive IP legislation). And Obama loves his presidential power just as much as Cheney did. So why anyone ever expected things to somehow be different with this administration, I don't understand. Cheney may not have been right about many things, but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush's national security policies in place (the same ones he criticized during the campaign) once he got a taste of that power for himself.
</p><p>
It also doesn't surprise me that they're using a treaty to quietly push this crap through. They did the exact same thing with the DMCA. A lot of people don't realize that the DMCA was just the formal ratification of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Intellectual\_Property\_Organization\_Copyright\_Treaty" title="wikipedia.org">WIPO treaty</a> [wikipedia.org] that had been debated and agreed to in secret. The powers that be know this shit would never stand the light of day with the electorate, so they quietly push it through with the kind of obscure international treaties that they know CNN, NBC, et. al. are never going to cover. By the time it actually makes it into Congress, it's already a fait accompli. The mainstream media only notices it when someone's already being prosecuted for violating it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still do n't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and " national security " policies of the previous one .
Democrats are just as much in the pockets of Hollywood as conservatives are in the pockets of big business ( meaning BOTH support oppressive IP legislation ) .
And Obama loves his presidential power just as much as Cheney did .
So why anyone ever expected things to somehow be different with this administration , I do n't understand .
Cheney may not have been right about many things , but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush 's national security policies in place ( the same ones he criticized during the campaign ) once he got a taste of that power for himself .
It also does n't surprise me that they 're using a treaty to quietly push this crap through .
They did the exact same thing with the DMCA .
A lot of people do n't realize that the DMCA was just the formal ratification of a WIPO treaty [ wikipedia.org ] that had been debated and agreed to in secret .
The powers that be know this shit would never stand the light of day with the electorate , so they quietly push it through with the kind of obscure international treaties that they know CNN , NBC , et .
al. are never going to cover .
By the time it actually makes it into Congress , it 's already a fait accompli .
The mainstream media only notices it when someone 's already being prosecuted for violating it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still don't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and "national security" policies of the previous one.
Democrats are just as much in the pockets of Hollywood as conservatives are in the pockets of big business (meaning BOTH support oppressive IP legislation).
And Obama loves his presidential power just as much as Cheney did.
So why anyone ever expected things to somehow be different with this administration, I don't understand.
Cheney may not have been right about many things, but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush's national security policies in place (the same ones he criticized during the campaign) once he got a taste of that power for himself.
It also doesn't surprise me that they're using a treaty to quietly push this crap through.
They did the exact same thing with the DMCA.
A lot of people don't realize that the DMCA was just the formal ratification of a WIPO treaty [wikipedia.org] that had been debated and agreed to in secret.
The powers that be know this shit would never stand the light of day with the electorate, so they quietly push it through with the kind of obscure international treaties that they know CNN, NBC, et.
al. are never going to cover.
By the time it actually makes it into Congress, it's already a fait accompli.
The mainstream media only notices it when someone's already being prosecuted for violating it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979390</id>
	<title>dont want to say it, but...</title>
	<author>night\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1257008520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How's that "hope and change" working out for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that " hope and change " working out for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that "hope and change" working out for you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29989096</id>
	<title>You don't have to take it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crowd source death threats</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crowd source death threats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crowd source death threats</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990734</id>
	<title>Oppose the ACTA Treaty</title>
	<author>deananderson</author>
	<datestamp>1257009120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose that the treaty is only secret while its being negotiated, since if people knew about there would be a tremendous opposition developed.   When the treaty is finalized, it will be made public, well after its too late to change, and contains too many other things to refuse entirely.  This is how unsavory deals are made. There is no "national security" involved.</p><p>But refuse is precisely what we must do. Write to your congressman (via snail mail), and tell them to refuse the provisions this treaty. And tell them to get public input on the treaty terms, rather than hiding behind false claims of "national security".  They aren't negotiating a nuclear agreement, they are negotiating OUR rights, and we have a right to have a say in that.</p><p>Sometimes these things can be turned into a positive. Sometimes they can't. But we absolutely have to know about them to have any fair, democratic input.</p><p>Send a written, signed letter to your congressman, to your senator, and to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.</p><p>Send a copy of the letter to the LPF at<br>League for Programming Freedom<br>60 Thoreau Street #299<br>Concord MA 01742-2411</p><p>Dean Anderson<br>President<br>League for Programming Freedom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose that the treaty is only secret while its being negotiated , since if people knew about there would be a tremendous opposition developed .
When the treaty is finalized , it will be made public , well after its too late to change , and contains too many other things to refuse entirely .
This is how unsavory deals are made .
There is no " national security " involved.But refuse is precisely what we must do .
Write to your congressman ( via snail mail ) , and tell them to refuse the provisions this treaty .
And tell them to get public input on the treaty terms , rather than hiding behind false claims of " national security " .
They are n't negotiating a nuclear agreement , they are negotiating OUR rights , and we have a right to have a say in that.Sometimes these things can be turned into a positive .
Sometimes they ca n't .
But we absolutely have to know about them to have any fair , democratic input.Send a written , signed letter to your congressman , to your senator , and to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.Send a copy of the letter to the LPF atLeague for Programming Freedom60 Thoreau Street # 299Concord MA 01742-2411Dean AndersonPresidentLeague for Programming Freedom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose that the treaty is only secret while its being negotiated, since if people knew about there would be a tremendous opposition developed.
When the treaty is finalized, it will be made public, well after its too late to change, and contains too many other things to refuse entirely.
This is how unsavory deals are made.
There is no "national security" involved.But refuse is precisely what we must do.
Write to your congressman (via snail mail), and tell them to refuse the provisions this treaty.
And tell them to get public input on the treaty terms, rather than hiding behind false claims of "national security".
They aren't negotiating a nuclear agreement, they are negotiating OUR rights, and we have a right to have a say in that.Sometimes these things can be turned into a positive.
Sometimes they can't.
But we absolutely have to know about them to have any fair, democratic input.Send a written, signed letter to your congressman, to your senator, and to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.Send a copy of the letter to the LPF atLeague for Programming Freedom60 Thoreau Street #299Concord MA 01742-2411Dean AndersonPresidentLeague for Programming Freedom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980586</id>
	<title>Re:What do ISP's have to do with anything?</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1257012120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if the law is written to make the ISP responsible, the only way to challenge the constitutionality of the law would be for an ISP itself to stand up to it.  An individual wouldn't be prosecuted under it, they would be cut off from their ISP, which is perfectly legal.  The person cut off can't sue the US, and the ISP won't stand up for their customer's rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if the law is written to make the ISP responsible , the only way to challenge the constitutionality of the law would be for an ISP itself to stand up to it .
An individual would n't be prosecuted under it , they would be cut off from their ISP , which is perfectly legal .
The person cut off ca n't sue the US , and the ISP wo n't stand up for their customer 's rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if the law is written to make the ISP responsible, the only way to challenge the constitutionality of the law would be for an ISP itself to stand up to it.
An individual wouldn't be prosecuted under it, they would be cut off from their ISP, which is perfectly legal.
The person cut off can't sue the US, and the ISP won't stand up for their customer's rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981702</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>c</author>
	<datestamp>1257015540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; But Obama was to have the most open government<br>&gt; in the history of humanity. WTF happened??</p><p>The obvious happened. The "WTF" part is people believing a promise made be a politician during an election campaign. A politician, I might add, operating at the national level of a major world power.</p><p>c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But Obama was to have the most open government &gt; in the history of humanity .
WTF happened ?
? The obvious happened .
The " WTF " part is people believing a promise made be a politician during an election campaign .
A politician , I might add , operating at the national level of a major world power.c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; But Obama was to have the most open government&gt; in the history of humanity.
WTF happened?
?The obvious happened.
The "WTF" part is people believing a promise made be a politician during an election campaign.
A politician, I might add, operating at the national level of a major world power.c.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978464</id>
	<title>Re:OH NOES</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257005640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I do think that the current president should do something to kill this, ACTA started with the Bush II administration.</p><p>Call your senators folks.  They are our last line of defense against this.  Let them know unconditionally that they will not have a job next election cycle if they vote yes on this.</p><p>Take the time to explain the far reaching consequences of this treaty to your less tech oriented friends.  Tell them that if this treaty passes they will eventually  be under 24/7 internet surveillance &amp; eventually they *will* come after their iPods.</p><p>Give them worst case scenarios.  Scare them.  Fear is a great motivator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do think that the current president should do something to kill this , ACTA started with the Bush II administration.Call your senators folks .
They are our last line of defense against this .
Let them know unconditionally that they will not have a job next election cycle if they vote yes on this.Take the time to explain the far reaching consequences of this treaty to your less tech oriented friends .
Tell them that if this treaty passes they will eventually be under 24/7 internet surveillance &amp; eventually they * will * come after their iPods.Give them worst case scenarios .
Scare them .
Fear is a great motivator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I do think that the current president should do something to kill this, ACTA started with the Bush II administration.Call your senators folks.
They are our last line of defense against this.
Let them know unconditionally that they will not have a job next election cycle if they vote yes on this.Take the time to explain the far reaching consequences of this treaty to your less tech oriented friends.
Tell them that if this treaty passes they will eventually  be under 24/7 internet surveillance &amp; eventually they *will* come after their iPods.Give them worst case scenarios.
Scare them.
Fear is a great motivator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977854</id>
	<title>I warned you all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was the one who warned that Italians would use their "copyrights" to steal our freedom and our manhood from us real Americans and enforce their devil-worship that they practice down there in Mexico. You all laughed at me and now look what is happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was the one who warned that Italians would use their " copyrights " to steal our freedom and our manhood from us real Americans and enforce their devil-worship that they practice down there in Mexico .
You all laughed at me and now look what is happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was the one who warned that Italians would use their "copyrights" to steal our freedom and our manhood from us real Americans and enforce their devil-worship that they practice down there in Mexico.
You all laughed at me and now look what is happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980928</id>
	<title>USA Corporations Still Rule  -- Hoorah</title>
	<author>SloWave</author>
	<datestamp>1257013260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This treaty shows that the USA still has the best lawyers, legislators, and corporations in the world.  Everyone else needs to jump on the USA bandwagon and support this treaty.  You all should be thankful that the USA, MPAA, RIAA, Sony, Disney, and the other sponsors of this treaty are looking out for you.  Large corporations need to protect their rightful customary income streams so that everyone can enjoy all the benefits of corporate oversight of your lives.  So quit whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This treaty shows that the USA still has the best lawyers , legislators , and corporations in the world .
Everyone else needs to jump on the USA bandwagon and support this treaty .
You all should be thankful that the USA , MPAA , RIAA , Sony , Disney , and the other sponsors of this treaty are looking out for you .
Large corporations need to protect their rightful customary income streams so that everyone can enjoy all the benefits of corporate oversight of your lives .
So quit whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This treaty shows that the USA still has the best lawyers, legislators, and corporations in the world.
Everyone else needs to jump on the USA bandwagon and support this treaty.
You all should be thankful that the USA, MPAA, RIAA, Sony, Disney, and the other sponsors of this treaty are looking out for you.
Large corporations need to protect their rightful customary income streams so that everyone can enjoy all the benefits of corporate oversight of your lives.
So quit whining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982496</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1257017760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is irony that you hear this same line after the election of every new President with the only variation being to replace the part about what they promised to get elected and didn't deliver once they were elected.</p><p>After extensive research I've established that four years is beyond the outer limit of the human brain's ability to retain political history, so we keep getting screwed exactly the same way over and over, and then we just do the same thing again in four years and throw away our votes on the same two completely worthless parties.</p><p>If you actually want "change" you will need to have the elections approximately once a year while we still remember how much we screwed up in the last two when we put in a Republican and then a Democrat, in which case a true maverick, third party/independent will start winning every time and completely trash Washington.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is irony that you hear this same line after the election of every new President with the only variation being to replace the part about what they promised to get elected and did n't deliver once they were elected.After extensive research I 've established that four years is beyond the outer limit of the human brain 's ability to retain political history , so we keep getting screwed exactly the same way over and over , and then we just do the same thing again in four years and throw away our votes on the same two completely worthless parties.If you actually want " change " you will need to have the elections approximately once a year while we still remember how much we screwed up in the last two when we put in a Republican and then a Democrat , in which case a true maverick , third party/independent will start winning every time and completely trash Washington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is irony that you hear this same line after the election of every new President with the only variation being to replace the part about what they promised to get elected and didn't deliver once they were elected.After extensive research I've established that four years is beyond the outer limit of the human brain's ability to retain political history, so we keep getting screwed exactly the same way over and over, and then we just do the same thing again in four years and throw away our votes on the same two completely worthless parties.If you actually want "change" you will need to have the elections approximately once a year while we still remember how much we screwed up in the last two when we put in a Republican and then a Democrat, in which case a true maverick, third party/independent will start winning every time and completely trash Washington.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979356</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've said the right thing but meant the wrong thing.  I'm of the mind that I need to keep working to better my product because it's never finished.  But I'm of the understanding that starting a project and getting it to the workable point is the most difficult part.  I've spent years in engineering to get my product to pass safety tests and to actually stand up.  Now I have to add the features that make it sellable.  That's the easy part.  Anyone could do that.</p><p>To have someone take my product from me now, they'd be able to do it just as easily -- and they haven't wasted two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.  So they actually have the advantage.</p><p>You've got to give me the chance to finish my work, or I'll never be willing to start it.  I'm not asking for 75 years.  I am asking for 5.</p><p>What is it that you have to protect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've said the right thing but meant the wrong thing .
I 'm of the mind that I need to keep working to better my product because it 's never finished .
But I 'm of the understanding that starting a project and getting it to the workable point is the most difficult part .
I 've spent years in engineering to get my product to pass safety tests and to actually stand up .
Now I have to add the features that make it sellable .
That 's the easy part .
Anyone could do that.To have someone take my product from me now , they 'd be able to do it just as easily -- and they have n't wasted two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars .
So they actually have the advantage.You 've got to give me the chance to finish my work , or I 'll never be willing to start it .
I 'm not asking for 75 years .
I am asking for 5.What is it that you have to protect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've said the right thing but meant the wrong thing.
I'm of the mind that I need to keep working to better my product because it's never finished.
But I'm of the understanding that starting a project and getting it to the workable point is the most difficult part.
I've spent years in engineering to get my product to pass safety tests and to actually stand up.
Now I have to add the features that make it sellable.
That's the easy part.
Anyone could do that.To have someone take my product from me now, they'd be able to do it just as easily -- and they haven't wasted two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So they actually have the advantage.You've got to give me the chance to finish my work, or I'll never be willing to start it.
I'm not asking for 75 years.
I am asking for 5.What is it that you have to protect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Obama was to have the most open government in the history of humanity.  WTF happened??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Obama was to have the most open government in the history of humanity .
WTF happened ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Obama was to have the most open government in the history of humanity.
WTF happened?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978780</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any other corporate owners around here to debate this from another perspective? Someone who actually has intellectual property to protect?</i></p><p>I am very liberal in the manner in which my work is distributed.  I've discovered that the community which values me will find non-specific ways in which to support me.  I've been living this way for many years.  --The trick is to trust this non-specific, non-linear system even when it doesn't make immediate rational sense.  It's always there, but you can't see it, you can't tag and document it and you can't slap it down on a desk to prove its viability to others.  It also won't make you a millionaire, but amazingly, if you ever need any kind of resource, bang, it's always there.  --And if I ever genuinely <i>needed</i> to be a millionaire in order to fulfill some required service, then I'd be a millionaire.  That opportunity has in fact come up a couple of times, but I got a bit freaked out by the responsibilities which would have been attached and backed off.</p><p>But this system requires a strong faith (there's a dirty word for the average Slashdotter!) in the mechanics of a <i>conscious</i> universe.  If you don't have that, then sure, increasingly draconian attempts to control the natural behavior of reality are required to force the various flows of energy to conform to our highly limited human perception of reality.  Think of it this way; if everybody is on some deep level, in unconscious communication with everybody else, even you and me right now, then we would be capable of setting up some astonishing coincidences, feeding each other's needs as required by mutual consent, all the while being mindful to not over-step the boundaries of our conscious awareness.  --That is, we try not to break the illusion of being separate because that is where we learn the most basic human values.  (Or that's my theory behind why my system apparently works so well).</p><p>I know this is waaaay beyond most people, and fear usually wins the day, but since you asked, this is indeed how I manage my life and it works very well.  And interestingly, even Slashdotters are taking tentative steps toward recognizing the true nature of reality.  But the terminology has to be wrapped up just right.  Heck, there's a story in today's feed about the Placebo Effect.  --Which is essentially recognizing the validity of "Mind over Matter", (to use a dippy phrase from the sixties), albeit in a very limited form.  But that's a big step for a lot of people around here.</p><p>When they feel safe enough to recognize that the brain does indeed do most of its work on the quantum level, and then connects the placebo effect with the idea of "spooky communication" at a distance, then they'll be another couple of steps closer to where I am.  But that's a bit much to ask at the moment.  Doesn't change the way reality works, though.</p><p>I'll conclude with a silly phrase which I'm sure somebody else must have thought up before. . . "Freedom of thought?  Not if THEY can prevent it!"</p><p>This is <i>the</i> real fight today.  The fight for our own minds.  It's time to pick sides.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any other corporate owners around here to debate this from another perspective ?
Someone who actually has intellectual property to protect ? I am very liberal in the manner in which my work is distributed .
I 've discovered that the community which values me will find non-specific ways in which to support me .
I 've been living this way for many years .
--The trick is to trust this non-specific , non-linear system even when it does n't make immediate rational sense .
It 's always there , but you ca n't see it , you ca n't tag and document it and you ca n't slap it down on a desk to prove its viability to others .
It also wo n't make you a millionaire , but amazingly , if you ever need any kind of resource , bang , it 's always there .
--And if I ever genuinely needed to be a millionaire in order to fulfill some required service , then I 'd be a millionaire .
That opportunity has in fact come up a couple of times , but I got a bit freaked out by the responsibilities which would have been attached and backed off.But this system requires a strong faith ( there 's a dirty word for the average Slashdotter !
) in the mechanics of a conscious universe .
If you do n't have that , then sure , increasingly draconian attempts to control the natural behavior of reality are required to force the various flows of energy to conform to our highly limited human perception of reality .
Think of it this way ; if everybody is on some deep level , in unconscious communication with everybody else , even you and me right now , then we would be capable of setting up some astonishing coincidences , feeding each other 's needs as required by mutual consent , all the while being mindful to not over-step the boundaries of our conscious awareness .
--That is , we try not to break the illusion of being separate because that is where we learn the most basic human values .
( Or that 's my theory behind why my system apparently works so well ) .I know this is waaaay beyond most people , and fear usually wins the day , but since you asked , this is indeed how I manage my life and it works very well .
And interestingly , even Slashdotters are taking tentative steps toward recognizing the true nature of reality .
But the terminology has to be wrapped up just right .
Heck , there 's a story in today 's feed about the Placebo Effect .
--Which is essentially recognizing the validity of " Mind over Matter " , ( to use a dippy phrase from the sixties ) , albeit in a very limited form .
But that 's a big step for a lot of people around here.When they feel safe enough to recognize that the brain does indeed do most of its work on the quantum level , and then connects the placebo effect with the idea of " spooky communication " at a distance , then they 'll be another couple of steps closer to where I am .
But that 's a bit much to ask at the moment .
Does n't change the way reality works , though.I 'll conclude with a silly phrase which I 'm sure somebody else must have thought up before .
. .
" Freedom of thought ?
Not if THEY can prevent it !
" This is the real fight today .
The fight for our own minds .
It 's time to pick sides.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any other corporate owners around here to debate this from another perspective?
Someone who actually has intellectual property to protect?I am very liberal in the manner in which my work is distributed.
I've discovered that the community which values me will find non-specific ways in which to support me.
I've been living this way for many years.
--The trick is to trust this non-specific, non-linear system even when it doesn't make immediate rational sense.
It's always there, but you can't see it, you can't tag and document it and you can't slap it down on a desk to prove its viability to others.
It also won't make you a millionaire, but amazingly, if you ever need any kind of resource, bang, it's always there.
--And if I ever genuinely needed to be a millionaire in order to fulfill some required service, then I'd be a millionaire.
That opportunity has in fact come up a couple of times, but I got a bit freaked out by the responsibilities which would have been attached and backed off.But this system requires a strong faith (there's a dirty word for the average Slashdotter!
) in the mechanics of a conscious universe.
If you don't have that, then sure, increasingly draconian attempts to control the natural behavior of reality are required to force the various flows of energy to conform to our highly limited human perception of reality.
Think of it this way; if everybody is on some deep level, in unconscious communication with everybody else, even you and me right now, then we would be capable of setting up some astonishing coincidences, feeding each other's needs as required by mutual consent, all the while being mindful to not over-step the boundaries of our conscious awareness.
--That is, we try not to break the illusion of being separate because that is where we learn the most basic human values.
(Or that's my theory behind why my system apparently works so well).I know this is waaaay beyond most people, and fear usually wins the day, but since you asked, this is indeed how I manage my life and it works very well.
And interestingly, even Slashdotters are taking tentative steps toward recognizing the true nature of reality.
But the terminology has to be wrapped up just right.
Heck, there's a story in today's feed about the Placebo Effect.
--Which is essentially recognizing the validity of "Mind over Matter", (to use a dippy phrase from the sixties), albeit in a very limited form.
But that's a big step for a lot of people around here.When they feel safe enough to recognize that the brain does indeed do most of its work on the quantum level, and then connects the placebo effect with the idea of "spooky communication" at a distance, then they'll be another couple of steps closer to where I am.
But that's a bit much to ask at the moment.
Doesn't change the way reality works, though.I'll conclude with a silly phrase which I'm sure somebody else must have thought up before.
. .
"Freedom of thought?
Not if THEY can prevent it!
"This is the real fight today.
The fight for our own minds.
It's time to pick sides.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978418</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>uh, he was obviously lying? If you bought it, that's your problem. He's a politician, that's what they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>uh , he was obviously lying ?
If you bought it , that 's your problem .
He 's a politician , that 's what they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uh, he was obviously lying?
If you bought it, that's your problem.
He's a politician, that's what they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981262</id>
	<title>Re:How can you be convicted of breaking a secret l</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257014280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>ignorance is no excuse </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>There's a distinction in the English system between "mala prohibita" and "mala in se". The first is laws like 'smoking a joint is wrong'. The second is 'killing your neighbor is wrong'. The second were the laws that made Common Law.</p><p>When the phrase "ignorance of the law is no defence" was coined it referred to "in se" crime, and I can't find the original quote at the moment (somebody give me a link here), but it went on to explain that nobody could possibly be expected to know all of the prohibita law (which is several orders of magnitude more difficult today).</p><p>Of course, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/criminalizing-everyone/" title="washingtontimes.com">criminalizing everyone</a> [washingtontimes.com] is a very useful tool for the tyrant, which may be the real appeal of this treaty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ignorance is no excuse There 's a distinction in the English system between " mala prohibita " and " mala in se " .
The first is laws like 'smoking a joint is wrong' .
The second is 'killing your neighbor is wrong' .
The second were the laws that made Common Law.When the phrase " ignorance of the law is no defence " was coined it referred to " in se " crime , and I ca n't find the original quote at the moment ( somebody give me a link here ) , but it went on to explain that nobody could possibly be expected to know all of the prohibita law ( which is several orders of magnitude more difficult today ) .Of course , criminalizing everyone [ washingtontimes.com ] is a very useful tool for the tyrant , which may be the real appeal of this treaty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ignorance is no excuse  There's a distinction in the English system between "mala prohibita" and "mala in se".
The first is laws like 'smoking a joint is wrong'.
The second is 'killing your neighbor is wrong'.
The second were the laws that made Common Law.When the phrase "ignorance of the law is no defence" was coined it referred to "in se" crime, and I can't find the original quote at the moment (somebody give me a link here), but it went on to explain that nobody could possibly be expected to know all of the prohibita law (which is several orders of magnitude more difficult today).Of course, criminalizing everyone [washingtontimes.com] is a very useful tool for the tyrant, which may be the real appeal of this treaty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29986294</id>
	<title>Re:OH NOES</title>
	<author>Khan</author>
	<datestamp>1256985660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy smokes! You have put into a perfect post my exact thoughts from the last couple of months. Especially since I work for one of those multinational corporations that I haven't been able to leave due to our BS jobless economic recovery. Talk about an oxymoron phrase that I could NOT believe was actually being used by the media. I mean, seriously, how the fuck do you expect the economy to recover if new jobs aren't being created?!</p><p>Excellent Casino quote too. Very accurate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy smokes !
You have put into a perfect post my exact thoughts from the last couple of months .
Especially since I work for one of those multinational corporations that I have n't been able to leave due to our BS jobless economic recovery .
Talk about an oxymoron phrase that I could NOT believe was actually being used by the media .
I mean , seriously , how the fuck do you expect the economy to recover if new jobs are n't being created ?
! Excellent Casino quote too .
Very accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy smokes!
You have put into a perfect post my exact thoughts from the last couple of months.
Especially since I work for one of those multinational corporations that I haven't been able to leave due to our BS jobless economic recovery.
Talk about an oxymoron phrase that I could NOT believe was actually being used by the media.
I mean, seriously, how the fuck do you expect the economy to recover if new jobs aren't being created?
!Excellent Casino quote too.
Very accurate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978472</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1257005700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a popular and wrong sentiment that Republicans are connected with "big business" and Democrats are connected with Hollywood.  Clearly both parties are in bed with big business (see Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama).  Democrats just have the advantage of support from prominent figures in Hollywood and the old media, but that doesn't at all means that they somehow have no inclination to cater to big business any less than do Republicans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a popular and wrong sentiment that Republicans are connected with " big business " and Democrats are connected with Hollywood .
Clearly both parties are in bed with big business ( see Barney Frank , Chris Dodd , Barack Obama ) .
Democrats just have the advantage of support from prominent figures in Hollywood and the old media , but that does n't at all means that they somehow have no inclination to cater to big business any less than do Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a popular and wrong sentiment that Republicans are connected with "big business" and Democrats are connected with Hollywood.
Clearly both parties are in bed with big business (see Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama).
Democrats just have the advantage of support from prominent figures in Hollywood and the old media, but that doesn't at all means that they somehow have no inclination to cater to big business any less than do Republicans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979682</id>
	<title>I have two words for how this will turn out....</title>
	<author>\_0rm\_</author>
	<datestamp>1257009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Massive Backlash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Massive Backlash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Massive Backlash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1257005520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is: do we let this sort of secrecy become a precedent? If this thing passes, no matter what it actually says, it <i>will</i> be used to justify the next attempt.</p><p>Informed public is the cornerstone to maintaining democracy, don't let it slip away. (By public I don't mean the redneck sitting in front of the TV drinking beer, but the experts who can at least comment on the proposal and its effects before it's too late.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is : do we let this sort of secrecy become a precedent ?
If this thing passes , no matter what it actually says , it will be used to justify the next attempt.Informed public is the cornerstone to maintaining democracy , do n't let it slip away .
( By public I do n't mean the redneck sitting in front of the TV drinking beer , but the experts who can at least comment on the proposal and its effects before it 's too late .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is: do we let this sort of secrecy become a precedent?
If this thing passes, no matter what it actually says, it will be used to justify the next attempt.Informed public is the cornerstone to maintaining democracy, don't let it slip away.
(By public I don't mean the redneck sitting in front of the TV drinking beer, but the experts who can at least comment on the proposal and its effects before it's too late.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29989066</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Pete Venkman</author>
	<datestamp>1256997780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because of things like "the interstate commerce clause", the goverment thinks it has the right to make laws that regulate these things without our consent.</p><p>Now, whether they do or not is up to us--but how many people do you see that are holding politicians accountable for not looking out for the interests of the people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of things like " the interstate commerce clause " , the goverment thinks it has the right to make laws that regulate these things without our consent.Now , whether they do or not is up to us--but how many people do you see that are holding politicians accountable for not looking out for the interests of the people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of things like "the interstate commerce clause", the goverment thinks it has the right to make laws that regulate these things without our consent.Now, whether they do or not is up to us--but how many people do you see that are holding politicians accountable for not looking out for the interests of the people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872</id>
	<title>Devils avocate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257003360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet will never be the same...</p><p>You mean you no longer can download your copy of Photoshop from wares.</p><p>For the most part it is an attempt to curve software piracy globally.  And it will basicly keep the internet running as it should just curve some deviant behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet will never be the same...You mean you no longer can download your copy of Photoshop from wares.For the most part it is an attempt to curve software piracy globally .
And it will basicly keep the internet running as it should just curve some deviant behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet will never be the same...You mean you no longer can download your copy of Photoshop from wares.For the most part it is an attempt to curve software piracy globally.
And it will basicly keep the internet running as it should just curve some deviant behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983154</id>
	<title>Animal Farm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257019560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The writing is on the wall, it says " Work Harder!" "Napoleon is always right!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The writing is on the wall , it says " Work Harder !
" " Napoleon is always right !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The writing is on the wall, it says " Work Harder!
" "Napoleon is always right!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978496</id>
	<title>Re:Devils avocate...</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257005760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. Because blocking all communication between edge nodes, and moving it to a TV-style distribution network is not going to fundamentally change how the Internet works. Right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Because blocking all communication between edge nodes , and moving it to a TV-style distribution network is not going to fundamentally change how the Internet works .
Right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Because blocking all communication between edge nodes, and moving it to a TV-style distribution network is not going to fundamentally change how the Internet works.
Right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981530</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257015060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Obama is a politician. This is what professional politicians do.</i> <br> <br>Thing is that even an "honest" professional politician will soon end up out of touch withe the public.<br> <br> <i>As Douglas Adams wisely told us, no one who wants to be president should ever be allowed to become the president.</i> <br> <br>He also said that even though people hate the lizards they keep voting for them so the "wrong lizard" dosn't get in...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is a politician .
This is what professional politicians do .
Thing is that even an " honest " professional politician will soon end up out of touch withe the public .
As Douglas Adams wisely told us , no one who wants to be president should ever be allowed to become the president .
He also said that even though people hate the lizards they keep voting for them so the " wrong lizard " dos n't get in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is a politician.
This is what professional politicians do.
Thing is that even an "honest" professional politician will soon end up out of touch withe the public.
As Douglas Adams wisely told us, no one who wants to be president should ever be allowed to become the president.
He also said that even though people hate the lizards they keep voting for them so the "wrong lizard" dosn't get in...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978928</id>
	<title>Sorry but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You mean we have to abide by the rules! Oh the humanity!"  This isn't 2012 and they aren't adding anything other than enforcement. If you aren't breaking the rules you're fine. If abuse is threatening your ISP then blame the abusers. Signed Dead Messenger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You mean we have to abide by the rules !
Oh the humanity !
" This is n't 2012 and they are n't adding anything other than enforcement .
If you are n't breaking the rules you 're fine .
If abuse is threatening your ISP then blame the abusers .
Signed Dead Messenger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You mean we have to abide by the rules!
Oh the humanity!
"  This isn't 2012 and they aren't adding anything other than enforcement.
If you aren't breaking the rules you're fine.
If abuse is threatening your ISP then blame the abusers.
Signed Dead Messenger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978448</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257005580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WIPO should be WIPOed out. Its members are all traitors to their respective counties and should be lined up against a wall somewhere ane shot. In the groin. Before spending the rest of their lives in prison.</p><p>WIPO is pure unadulterated evil, the spawn of Satan.</p><p>Why is this meeting secret? Or rather, why do the respective citizens of its member states allow it to be secret? The world has returned to feudalism, it seems. Personally, I will continue to respect copyright -- under the old pre-20th century, constitutionally legal copyright laws. I won't download new music, but I have no qualms about downloading twenty year old music. Lessig was right and SCOTUS was wrong. When SCOTUS said that "limited time" meant whatever Congress says it means, they effectively said the Constitution is meaningless.</p><p><i>I still don't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and "national security" policies of the previous one.</i></p><p>The Governor of California stated on "This Week" that "there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats". Refreshingly honest, for a politician.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WIPO should be WIPOed out .
Its members are all traitors to their respective counties and should be lined up against a wall somewhere ane shot .
In the groin .
Before spending the rest of their lives in prison.WIPO is pure unadulterated evil , the spawn of Satan.Why is this meeting secret ?
Or rather , why do the respective citizens of its member states allow it to be secret ?
The world has returned to feudalism , it seems .
Personally , I will continue to respect copyright -- under the old pre-20th century , constitutionally legal copyright laws .
I wo n't download new music , but I have no qualms about downloading twenty year old music .
Lessig was right and SCOTUS was wrong .
When SCOTUS said that " limited time " meant whatever Congress says it means , they effectively said the Constitution is meaningless.I still do n't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and " national security " policies of the previous one.The Governor of California stated on " This Week " that " there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats " .
Refreshingly honest , for a politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WIPO should be WIPOed out.
Its members are all traitors to their respective counties and should be lined up against a wall somewhere ane shot.
In the groin.
Before spending the rest of their lives in prison.WIPO is pure unadulterated evil, the spawn of Satan.Why is this meeting secret?
Or rather, why do the respective citizens of its member states allow it to be secret?
The world has returned to feudalism, it seems.
Personally, I will continue to respect copyright -- under the old pre-20th century, constitutionally legal copyright laws.
I won't download new music, but I have no qualms about downloading twenty year old music.
Lessig was right and SCOTUS was wrong.
When SCOTUS said that "limited time" meant whatever Congress says it means, they effectively said the Constitution is meaningless.I still don't know why everyone acts so surprised that this administration has carried on with the exact same Intellectual property and "national security" policies of the previous one.The Governor of California stated on "This Week" that "there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats".
Refreshingly honest, for a politician.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982762</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257018480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encryption doesn't solve problems.  All an ISP would need to do is have an SPI filter that locates connections that are unspecified using encryption and throttle or outright block.</p><p>Encrypted traffic is pretty obvious.  Lots of data being transmitted, usually over a UDP interface.  So, it wouldn't be hard to look for anything that can't be explained by ordinary ssl or ssh traffic, throttle it if it is bigger than a "normal" baseline, then kill it, and block subsequent connections between the hosts, especially if one of the hosts is on a VPN or "just plain dodgy" list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encryption does n't solve problems .
All an ISP would need to do is have an SPI filter that locates connections that are unspecified using encryption and throttle or outright block.Encrypted traffic is pretty obvious .
Lots of data being transmitted , usually over a UDP interface .
So , it would n't be hard to look for anything that ca n't be explained by ordinary ssl or ssh traffic , throttle it if it is bigger than a " normal " baseline , then kill it , and block subsequent connections between the hosts , especially if one of the hosts is on a VPN or " just plain dodgy " list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encryption doesn't solve problems.
All an ISP would need to do is have an SPI filter that locates connections that are unspecified using encryption and throttle or outright block.Encrypted traffic is pretty obvious.
Lots of data being transmitted, usually over a UDP interface.
So, it wouldn't be hard to look for anything that can't be explained by ordinary ssl or ssh traffic, throttle it if it is bigger than a "normal" baseline, then kill it, and block subsequent connections between the hosts, especially if one of the hosts is on a VPN or "just plain dodgy" list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980842</id>
	<title>Re:How can you be convicted of breaking a secret l</title>
	<author>Persol</author>
	<datestamp>1257013020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's unfortunate, but semi-secret laws are the norm.

Read through the US Government's Code of Federal Regulations. Just about any technical area will tell you to abide behind some document that is behind a paywall. ANSI/IEEE/ASME and some industry organizations all charge (often exorbitant) fees to read a copy of what has been made 'law'.

The government looking to industry to self-govern is an EXCELLENT idea... but it often puts people at risk because (outside of companies) they can't afford to purchase every spec they are legally obliged to follow. Hell, people have 'broken the law' by using an old/outdated version of a paywalled specification.

(Yes this is called 'code' and now 'law', but it still leads to fines and jailtime).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's unfortunate , but semi-secret laws are the norm .
Read through the US Government 's Code of Federal Regulations .
Just about any technical area will tell you to abide behind some document that is behind a paywall .
ANSI/IEEE/ASME and some industry organizations all charge ( often exorbitant ) fees to read a copy of what has been made 'law' .
The government looking to industry to self-govern is an EXCELLENT idea... but it often puts people at risk because ( outside of companies ) they ca n't afford to purchase every spec they are legally obliged to follow .
Hell , people have 'broken the law ' by using an old/outdated version of a paywalled specification .
( Yes this is called 'code ' and now 'law ' , but it still leads to fines and jailtime ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's unfortunate, but semi-secret laws are the norm.
Read through the US Government's Code of Federal Regulations.
Just about any technical area will tell you to abide behind some document that is behind a paywall.
ANSI/IEEE/ASME and some industry organizations all charge (often exorbitant) fees to read a copy of what has been made 'law'.
The government looking to industry to self-govern is an EXCELLENT idea... but it often puts people at risk because (outside of companies) they can't afford to purchase every spec they are legally obliged to follow.
Hell, people have 'broken the law' by using an old/outdated version of a paywalled specification.
(Yes this is called 'code' and now 'law', but it still leads to fines and jailtime).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982932</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>jack2000</author>
	<datestamp>1257018960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See THIS is the problem with the American way of laws,
you use precedents, why don't you decide on per case basis is beyond me.
<br> You're so lazy and easy on the "thinking" quota that you offload all of your decisions to the clueless hap who did the first decision about a certain topic?<p>

The government in my country (Bulgaria) tried a sinister trick such as this they were heavily penalized for it by the people...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See THIS is the problem with the American way of laws , you use precedents , why do n't you decide on per case basis is beyond me .
You 're so lazy and easy on the " thinking " quota that you offload all of your decisions to the clueless hap who did the first decision about a certain topic ?
The government in my country ( Bulgaria ) tried a sinister trick such as this they were heavily penalized for it by the people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See THIS is the problem with the American way of laws,
you use precedents, why don't you decide on per case basis is beyond me.
You're so lazy and easy on the "thinking" quota that you offload all of your decisions to the clueless hap who did the first decision about a certain topic?
The government in my country (Bulgaria) tried a sinister trick such as this they were heavily penalized for it by the people...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988304</id>
	<title>How can you participate in a secret debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256994000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law is only a secret before it becomes a law.  It won't be a secret after then. They just don't want anyone talking about it and telling their senator to vote against it. Democracy must not be allowed to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law is only a secret before it becomes a law .
It wo n't be a secret after then .
They just do n't want anyone talking about it and telling their senator to vote against it .
Democracy must not be allowed to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law is only a secret before it becomes a law.
It won't be a secret after then.
They just don't want anyone talking about it and telling their senator to vote against it.
Democracy must not be allowed to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982852</id>
	<title>Re:What do ISP's have to do with anything?</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1257018720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Short answer:  leverage</p><p>A $200K or $300K judgment is essentially a billion dollar judgment.  The median household income in the US is 50K, the take home is how much lower?  You're never going to pay off a 200K judgment.  It's a nonsensical amount of money.  There's no leverage since you can't loose what you don't have.</p><p>The RIAA suing people is just not a threat.  Why do you think they always try for the settle.  They know it's all they're going to get.  Going to court is very expensive.  Winning huge settlements is really bad press, especially since they're never going to see the settlement.</p><p>The RIAA/Music Industry may lack innovation but they're not stupid.</p><p>Deep pockets pays.  The ISPs have a lot to loose.  So by shifting the punishment to them you gain leverage.  By giving them a 100\% iron clad immunity they're going to take it every time.  It's basic game theory.  Pick your cost:  Huge judgment, lots of legal fees, or one customer?</p><p>Plus it neatly bypasses due process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Short answer : leverageA $ 200K or $ 300K judgment is essentially a billion dollar judgment .
The median household income in the US is 50K , the take home is how much lower ?
You 're never going to pay off a 200K judgment .
It 's a nonsensical amount of money .
There 's no leverage since you ca n't loose what you do n't have.The RIAA suing people is just not a threat .
Why do you think they always try for the settle .
They know it 's all they 're going to get .
Going to court is very expensive .
Winning huge settlements is really bad press , especially since they 're never going to see the settlement.The RIAA/Music Industry may lack innovation but they 're not stupid.Deep pockets pays .
The ISPs have a lot to loose .
So by shifting the punishment to them you gain leverage .
By giving them a 100 \ % iron clad immunity they 're going to take it every time .
It 's basic game theory .
Pick your cost : Huge judgment , lots of legal fees , or one customer ? Plus it neatly bypasses due process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short answer:  leverageA $200K or $300K judgment is essentially a billion dollar judgment.
The median household income in the US is 50K, the take home is how much lower?
You're never going to pay off a 200K judgment.
It's a nonsensical amount of money.
There's no leverage since you can't loose what you don't have.The RIAA suing people is just not a threat.
Why do you think they always try for the settle.
They know it's all they're going to get.
Going to court is very expensive.
Winning huge settlements is really bad press, especially since they're never going to see the settlement.The RIAA/Music Industry may lack innovation but they're not stupid.Deep pockets pays.
The ISPs have a lot to loose.
So by shifting the punishment to them you gain leverage.
By giving them a 100\% iron clad immunity they're going to take it every time.
It's basic game theory.
Pick your cost:  Huge judgment, lots of legal fees, or one customer?Plus it neatly bypasses due process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29986166</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Thuktun</author>
	<datestamp>1256985360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>America is only a subset of humanity.</p></div><p>That's charitable of you.  Some might instead say that the sets of America and Humanity have non-null intersection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>America is only a subset of humanity.That 's charitable of you .
Some might instead say that the sets of America and Humanity have non-null intersection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is only a subset of humanity.That's charitable of you.
Some might instead say that the sets of America and Humanity have non-null intersection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980568</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1257012060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own. If you don't believe me, just ask the government to show it to you and prove me wrong. Tell all your friends.</p></div><p>Secrecy cuts two ways.  If they want to keep it a secret because it benefits their agenda to do so, then I don't have a problem with rumours like that being passed around because it benefits everybody else's agenda.  A couple of good rumours like that may be what it takes to make this treaty dead on arrival.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own .
If you do n't believe me , just ask the government to show it to you and prove me wrong .
Tell all your friends.Secrecy cuts two ways .
If they want to keep it a secret because it benefits their agenda to do so , then I do n't have a problem with rumours like that being passed around because it benefits everybody else 's agenda .
A couple of good rumours like that may be what it takes to make this treaty dead on arrival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own.
If you don't believe me, just ask the government to show it to you and prove me wrong.
Tell all your friends.Secrecy cuts two ways.
If they want to keep it a secret because it benefits their agenda to do so, then I don't have a problem with rumours like that being passed around because it benefits everybody else's agenda.
A couple of good rumours like that may be what it takes to make this treaty dead on arrival.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980866</id>
	<title>Re:How can you be convicted of breaking a secret l</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1257013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can't be secret in Canada if it's going to be a law. The federal government will have to ratify it (and maybe the provinces too, if the substance of the bill encroaches on provincial powers).</p><p>Of course, being "not secret" in Canada means being published in the Canada Gazette. Most Canadians haven't even heard of the Canada Gazette.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It ca n't be secret in Canada if it 's going to be a law .
The federal government will have to ratify it ( and maybe the provinces too , if the substance of the bill encroaches on provincial powers ) .Of course , being " not secret " in Canada means being published in the Canada Gazette .
Most Canadians have n't even heard of the Canada Gazette .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can't be secret in Canada if it's going to be a law.
The federal government will have to ratify it (and maybe the provinces too, if the substance of the bill encroaches on provincial powers).Of course, being "not secret" in Canada means being published in the Canada Gazette.
Most Canadians haven't even heard of the Canada Gazette.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979506</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1257008880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If any of this could happen without individual citizens not losing rights, then I bet there would be less opposition. <br>
Unfortunately, that's not the way it is working. Corporate entities (which may be made up of groups of individual citizens, but are not - and should not be - the same as individual citizens) should not be treated the same under law as citizens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If any of this could happen without individual citizens not losing rights , then I bet there would be less opposition .
Unfortunately , that 's not the way it is working .
Corporate entities ( which may be made up of groups of individual citizens , but are not - and should not be - the same as individual citizens ) should not be treated the same under law as citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If any of this could happen without individual citizens not losing rights, then I bet there would be less opposition.
Unfortunately, that's not the way it is working.
Corporate entities (which may be made up of groups of individual citizens, but are not - and should not be - the same as individual citizens) should not be treated the same under law as citizens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29984358</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256979900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Informed public is the cornerstone to maintaining democracy, don't let it slip away. (By public I don't mean the redneck sitting in front of the TV drinking beer, but the experts who can at least comment on the proposal and its effects before it's too late.)</p></div><p>Why can't the redneck have a say in it? Does his opinion not count simply because he's not as snooty as you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Informed public is the cornerstone to maintaining democracy , do n't let it slip away .
( By public I do n't mean the redneck sitting in front of the TV drinking beer , but the experts who can at least comment on the proposal and its effects before it 's too late .
) Why ca n't the redneck have a say in it ?
Does his opinion not count simply because he 's not as snooty as you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Informed public is the cornerstone to maintaining democracy, don't let it slip away.
(By public I don't mean the redneck sitting in front of the TV drinking beer, but the experts who can at least comment on the proposal and its effects before it's too late.
)Why can't the redneck have a say in it?
Does his opinion not count simply because he's not as snooty as you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979004</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1257007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only power the US president has is to destory the world. In everything else he is powerless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only power the US president has is to destory the world .
In everything else he is powerless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only power the US president has is to destory the world.
In everything else he is powerless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978532</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1257005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government + a few high paid lobby groups?</p><p>Really. ANYONE should be able to put 2 and 2 together here.</p><p>This stuff should be a surprise to NO ONE.</p><p>Really, what did you think they were doing? Of course this is why they were hiding from public view.</p><p>The "national security" consideration is that there are some countries (France) that still riot in the streets over this sort of stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government + a few high paid lobby groups ? Really .
ANYONE should be able to put 2 and 2 together here.This stuff should be a surprise to NO ONE.Really , what did you think they were doing ?
Of course this is why they were hiding from public view.The " national security " consideration is that there are some countries ( France ) that still riot in the streets over this sort of stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government + a few high paid lobby groups?Really.
ANYONE should be able to put 2 and 2 together here.This stuff should be a surprise to NO ONE.Really, what did you think they were doing?
Of course this is why they were hiding from public view.The "national security" consideration is that there are some countries (France) that still riot in the streets over this sort of stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988220</id>
	<title>It is a good thing that</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1256993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama is nothing like Bush. This is a transparent government that doesn't hide anything or plan on passing any bills that would take away rights and freedoms like Net Neutrality or a Secret Copyright Treaty that would screw over consumers and competitors.</p><p>We would hope for change that BushObama, er ah George W. Obama, er ah Barrack W. Bush, er ah President Obama is not becoming a <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1191507/president\_us\_black\_bush/" title="metacafe.com">Black Bush</a> [metacafe.com] and finish off George W. Bush's third term as a Closet Republican Neocon in a Liberal Democrat suit.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Health Care will be universal, and we can ignore that 30\% hidden tax in the bill to pay for it, as your employer would get a 30\% tax on your salary as well, as that would never happen in the USA as it did in <a href="http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/larson.pdf" title="jpands.org">Sweden</a> [jpands.org]. Oh now Obama is going to do it with Congress for free, with more TARP and stimulus money for banks, GM, and other organizations that lobbied money to Congress and his administration, but ignore that, as it is the cost of Free Health Care, just Free as in Speech not as in Beer.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is nothing like Bush .
This is a transparent government that does n't hide anything or plan on passing any bills that would take away rights and freedoms like Net Neutrality or a Secret Copyright Treaty that would screw over consumers and competitors.We would hope for change that BushObama , er ah George W. Obama , er ah Barrack W. Bush , er ah President Obama is not becoming a Black Bush [ metacafe.com ] and finish off George W. Bush 's third term as a Closet Republican Neocon in a Liberal Democrat suit .
: ) Health Care will be universal , and we can ignore that 30 \ % hidden tax in the bill to pay for it , as your employer would get a 30 \ % tax on your salary as well , as that would never happen in the USA as it did in Sweden [ jpands.org ] .
Oh now Obama is going to do it with Congress for free , with more TARP and stimulus money for banks , GM , and other organizations that lobbied money to Congress and his administration , but ignore that , as it is the cost of Free Health Care , just Free as in Speech not as in Beer .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is nothing like Bush.
This is a transparent government that doesn't hide anything or plan on passing any bills that would take away rights and freedoms like Net Neutrality or a Secret Copyright Treaty that would screw over consumers and competitors.We would hope for change that BushObama, er ah George W. Obama, er ah Barrack W. Bush, er ah President Obama is not becoming a Black Bush [metacafe.com] and finish off George W. Bush's third term as a Closet Republican Neocon in a Liberal Democrat suit.
:)Health Care will be universal, and we can ignore that 30\% hidden tax in the bill to pay for it, as your employer would get a 30\% tax on your salary as well, as that would never happen in the USA as it did in Sweden [jpands.org].
Oh now Obama is going to do it with Congress for free, with more TARP and stimulus money for banks, GM, and other organizations that lobbied money to Congress and his administration, but ignore that, as it is the cost of Free Health Care, just Free as in Speech not as in Beer.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980300</id>
	<title>Re:How can you be convicted of breaking a secret l</title>
	<author>misterooga</author>
	<datestamp>1257011280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you be convicted of breaking a secret law? With incompetence.</p><p>Think of all the trouble people faced at the air port.</p><p>And believe me, just putting you in the system (lawsuit, court dates, etc) would have achieved what **AA wants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you be convicted of breaking a secret law ?
With incompetence.Think of all the trouble people faced at the air port.And believe me , just putting you in the system ( lawsuit , court dates , etc ) would have achieved what * * AA wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you be convicted of breaking a secret law?
With incompetence.Think of all the trouble people faced at the air port.And believe me, just putting you in the system (lawsuit, court dates, etc) would have achieved what **AA wants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985732</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1256984040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I doubt we'll ever see another Cincinnatus."</p><p>This guy?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>A dictatorial war-leader with absolute power, and a persistent opponent of the middle and lower class citizens, who invades and conquers a neighbouring state, and later puts down a citizens revolt? And for those acts is rewarded with near-worship, not from the citizens or the world generally, but from the aristocracy, who see him as a good ol' boy? Oh, I think we'll see plenty of those. If we're unlucky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I doubt we 'll ever see another Cincinnatus .
" This guy ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus [ wikipedia.org ] A dictatorial war-leader with absolute power , and a persistent opponent of the middle and lower class citizens , who invades and conquers a neighbouring state , and later puts down a citizens revolt ?
And for those acts is rewarded with near-worship , not from the citizens or the world generally , but from the aristocracy , who see him as a good ol ' boy ?
Oh , I think we 'll see plenty of those .
If we 're unlucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I doubt we'll ever see another Cincinnatus.
"This guy?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus [wikipedia.org]A dictatorial war-leader with absolute power, and a persistent opponent of the middle and lower class citizens, who invades and conquers a neighbouring state, and later puts down a citizens revolt?
And for those acts is rewarded with near-worship, not from the citizens or the world generally, but from the aristocracy, who see him as a good ol' boy?
Oh, I think we'll see plenty of those.
If we're unlucky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978694</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>ProzacPatient</author>
	<datestamp>1257006420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need more third party participation in the federal legislative and executive branches.<br>
I saw somebody once that said Democrats and Republicans are just two halves of the same evil, and that we will always be under the thumb of this duopoly.<br>
<br>
We The People need to give a third party attention en mass so the media will cover it.. but then again if Ralph Nader or Ross Perot couldn't make it then I guess all hope is lost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need more third party participation in the federal legislative and executive branches .
I saw somebody once that said Democrats and Republicans are just two halves of the same evil , and that we will always be under the thumb of this duopoly .
We The People need to give a third party attention en mass so the media will cover it.. but then again if Ralph Nader or Ross Perot could n't make it then I guess all hope is lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need more third party participation in the federal legislative and executive branches.
I saw somebody once that said Democrats and Republicans are just two halves of the same evil, and that we will always be under the thumb of this duopoly.
We The People need to give a third party attention en mass so the media will cover it.. but then again if Ralph Nader or Ross Perot couldn't make it then I guess all hope is lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978000</id>
	<title>Re:Devils avocate...</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1257003780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BS post.  All it will do is cause people who try to follow the law problems like every other attempt to regulate the Internet.</p><p>Trying to place regs on the Internet is like trying to get a drink of water with a fishnet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BS post .
All it will do is cause people who try to follow the law problems like every other attempt to regulate the Internet.Trying to place regs on the Internet is like trying to get a drink of water with a fishnet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BS post.
All it will do is cause people who try to follow the law problems like every other attempt to regulate the Internet.Trying to place regs on the Internet is like trying to get a drink of water with a fishnet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979750</id>
	<title>I have only one thing to say upon this ...</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1257009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yefwoEIhW4o" title="youtube.com">message</a> [youtube.com] is clear<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Time to guard and stand up for our own art or loose it forever!<br>Rights are diminishing by the minute<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it's alarming!<br>Do something or all this will be controlled by only a few on this planet, making up <b>your</b> menu which you will hear, see, buy and smell!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My message [ youtube.com ] is clear ...Time to guard and stand up for our own art or loose it forever ! Rights are diminishing by the minute .. it 's alarming ! Do something or all this will be controlled by only a few on this planet , making up your menu which you will hear , see , buy and smell !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My message [youtube.com] is clear ...Time to guard and stand up for our own art or loose it forever!Rights are diminishing by the minute .. it's alarming!Do something or all this will be controlled by only a few on this planet, making up your menu which you will hear, see, buy and smell!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979230</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1257008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd certainly say you're supporting software patents by holding some.  The alternative is obviously to fight them having not protected yourself.  But I'm no corporate drone, I own the corporations.  They run my way.</p><p>I'm not worried about someone pirating my software -- that just won't happen.  I'm worried about someone benefitting from my work, and to a lesser extent, my being liable for what they do with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd certainly say you 're supporting software patents by holding some .
The alternative is obviously to fight them having not protected yourself .
But I 'm no corporate drone , I own the corporations .
They run my way.I 'm not worried about someone pirating my software -- that just wo n't happen .
I 'm worried about someone benefitting from my work , and to a lesser extent , my being liable for what they do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd certainly say you're supporting software patents by holding some.
The alternative is obviously to fight them having not protected yourself.
But I'm no corporate drone, I own the corporations.
They run my way.I'm not worried about someone pirating my software -- that just won't happen.
I'm worried about someone benefitting from my work, and to a lesser extent, my being liable for what they do with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982550</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1257017880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew it was all a lie when he voted to cover AT&amp;T's law-breaking ass.  "same as the old boss"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew it was all a lie when he voted to cover AT&amp;T 's law-breaking ass .
" same as the old boss "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew it was all a lie when he voted to cover AT&amp;T's law-breaking ass.
"same as the old boss"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980380</id>
	<title>Re:Devils avocate...</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1257011460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can *NOT* own an idea.  Copyright isn't about property, it's about a limited term exclusive control over a creative work.  Said limits have been extended to a point beyond credibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can * NOT * own an idea .
Copyright is n't about property , it 's about a limited term exclusive control over a creative work .
Said limits have been extended to a point beyond credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can *NOT* own an idea.
Copyright isn't about property, it's about a limited term exclusive control over a creative work.
Said limits have been extended to a point beyond credibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979254</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't want people to get the things you do, just don't do it. If content exists, it has the right to mine, and I wont pay you if I don't want to. We're not talking about hardware, we're talking about content, and if content exists, anyone has the right to get it.</p><p>If you we're competent on what you do, you would not need to worry about people getting your stuff for free.</p><p>Again, if you don't want people to get your stuff for free, just don't do anything. If it exists, it has the right to be everyone's, and you can fight this, but you won't win.</p><p>I actually think is great to see the effort companies and government do to protect copyrighted content - they always loose the war, loose money and loose respect. I love it. Is like watching roaches drinking poison by themselfs just to defy me. Keep wasting your money on this war, the people you are fighting are fighting for free, are a larger number, are on the right side and will laugh on your face after you loose - again - like we always did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want people to get the things you do , just do n't do it .
If content exists , it has the right to mine , and I wont pay you if I do n't want to .
We 're not talking about hardware , we 're talking about content , and if content exists , anyone has the right to get it.If you we 're competent on what you do , you would not need to worry about people getting your stuff for free.Again , if you do n't want people to get your stuff for free , just do n't do anything .
If it exists , it has the right to be everyone 's , and you can fight this , but you wo n't win.I actually think is great to see the effort companies and government do to protect copyrighted content - they always loose the war , loose money and loose respect .
I love it .
Is like watching roaches drinking poison by themselfs just to defy me .
Keep wasting your money on this war , the people you are fighting are fighting for free , are a larger number , are on the right side and will laugh on your face after you loose - again - like we always did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want people to get the things you do, just don't do it.
If content exists, it has the right to mine, and I wont pay you if I don't want to.
We're not talking about hardware, we're talking about content, and if content exists, anyone has the right to get it.If you we're competent on what you do, you would not need to worry about people getting your stuff for free.Again, if you don't want people to get your stuff for free, just don't do anything.
If it exists, it has the right to be everyone's, and you can fight this, but you won't win.I actually think is great to see the effort companies and government do to protect copyrighted content - they always loose the war, loose money and loose respect.
I love it.
Is like watching roaches drinking poison by themselfs just to defy me.
Keep wasting your money on this war, the people you are fighting are fighting for free, are a larger number, are on the right side and will laugh on your face after you loose - again - like we always did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979674</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I create intellectual property as well. Every day. Furthermore, I work in a small enough company that copyright is a critical issue. And you know what we found? We can't afford to pay every single idiot who thinks that what they created is so special and unique it cannot be put into the public for 75 years after they die. What do we do? We use stuff licensed under BSD, GPL or CC terms. And we're able to create far more stuff than if we'd have to pay someone like you because it just so happens that what we create might be close to what you created.</p><p>What you're doing is nothing more than locking up existing content and ideas. Because if you think that what you create is unique - you're deluding yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I create intellectual property as well .
Every day .
Furthermore , I work in a small enough company that copyright is a critical issue .
And you know what we found ?
We ca n't afford to pay every single idiot who thinks that what they created is so special and unique it can not be put into the public for 75 years after they die .
What do we do ?
We use stuff licensed under BSD , GPL or CC terms .
And we 're able to create far more stuff than if we 'd have to pay someone like you because it just so happens that what we create might be close to what you created.What you 're doing is nothing more than locking up existing content and ideas .
Because if you think that what you create is unique - you 're deluding yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I create intellectual property as well.
Every day.
Furthermore, I work in a small enough company that copyright is a critical issue.
And you know what we found?
We can't afford to pay every single idiot who thinks that what they created is so special and unique it cannot be put into the public for 75 years after they die.
What do we do?
We use stuff licensed under BSD, GPL or CC terms.
And we're able to create far more stuff than if we'd have to pay someone like you because it just so happens that what we create might be close to what you created.What you're doing is nothing more than locking up existing content and ideas.
Because if you think that what you create is unique - you're deluding yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29998064</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1257451920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Begin Sarcasm:
Sounds like it's missing something. No doubt the death penalty also gets applied if they suspect you may have or have had an infringing item.
End Sarcasm: Damn - the Obamanet sure is going to suck!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Begin Sarcasm : Sounds like it 's missing something .
No doubt the death penalty also gets applied if they suspect you may have or have had an infringing item .
End Sarcasm : Damn - the Obamanet sure is going to suck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Begin Sarcasm:
Sounds like it's missing something.
No doubt the death penalty also gets applied if they suspect you may have or have had an infringing item.
End Sarcasm: Damn - the Obamanet sure is going to suck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cheney may not have been right about many things, but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush's national security policies in place</p></div><p>USA doesn't have presidents. They have president-like spokespersons.</p><p>Maybe Obama wanted genuinely to change some things, maybe he didn't, or maybe both. It's irrelevant, since his power is only on paper. You can't make a different choice, when you're given only the same options.</p><p>It's a really nice PR stunt, though, works fine for most people. It'll work again in 3 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheney may not have been right about many things , but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush 's national security policies in placeUSA does n't have presidents .
They have president-like spokespersons.Maybe Obama wanted genuinely to change some things , maybe he did n't , or maybe both .
It 's irrelevant , since his power is only on paper .
You ca n't make a different choice , when you 're given only the same options.It 's a really nice PR stunt , though , works fine for most people .
It 'll work again in 3 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheney may not have been right about many things, but he was pretty much dead on when he predicted that Obama would keep most of Bush's national security policies in placeUSA doesn't have presidents.
They have president-like spokespersons.Maybe Obama wanted genuinely to change some things, maybe he didn't, or maybe both.
It's irrelevant, since his power is only on paper.
You can't make a different choice, when you're given only the same options.It's a really nice PR stunt, though, works fine for most people.
It'll work again in 3 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978898</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>the.aham</author>
	<datestamp>1257006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Entities that want to ensure controversial legislation (or controversial anything) gets enacted will surely do everything they can to keep it quiet and will encourage this behavior with their child entities.

A question: where did you hear that the specific major news companies you mentioned supported this legislation? From reading the article, it seems plausible that these news companies would like to keep their content from being illegally distributed by others, but there's no mention of who actually supports it (aside from the countries).

Though, your post further reinforces the impression that our 'real' news appears even more pre-packaged to the respective entity's benefit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Entities that want to ensure controversial legislation ( or controversial anything ) gets enacted will surely do everything they can to keep it quiet and will encourage this behavior with their child entities .
A question : where did you hear that the specific major news companies you mentioned supported this legislation ?
From reading the article , it seems plausible that these news companies would like to keep their content from being illegally distributed by others , but there 's no mention of who actually supports it ( aside from the countries ) .
Though , your post further reinforces the impression that our 'real ' news appears even more pre-packaged to the respective entity 's benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entities that want to ensure controversial legislation (or controversial anything) gets enacted will surely do everything they can to keep it quiet and will encourage this behavior with their child entities.
A question: where did you hear that the specific major news companies you mentioned supported this legislation?
From reading the article, it seems plausible that these news companies would like to keep their content from being illegally distributed by others, but there's no mention of who actually supports it (aside from the countries).
Though, your post further reinforces the impression that our 'real' news appears even more pre-packaged to the respective entity's benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981250</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1257014280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>USA doesn't have presidents. They have president-like spokespersons.</p></div><p>Obama isn't the president, his teleprompters are. Without them, he cannot talk. Watch his speaches, and play the teleprompter ping-pong game. From the way he tracks the teleprompters, figure out which side earns a point. I wouldn't make a drinking game out of it, because alcohol poisoning is a very bad thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>USA does n't have presidents .
They have president-like spokespersons.Obama is n't the president , his teleprompters are .
Without them , he can not talk .
Watch his speaches , and play the teleprompter ping-pong game .
From the way he tracks the teleprompters , figure out which side earns a point .
I would n't make a drinking game out of it , because alcohol poisoning is a very bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USA doesn't have presidents.
They have president-like spokespersons.Obama isn't the president, his teleprompters are.
Without them, he cannot talk.
Watch his speaches, and play the teleprompter ping-pong game.
From the way he tracks the teleprompters, figure out which side earns a point.
I wouldn't make a drinking game out of it, because alcohol poisoning is a very bad thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978312</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The mainstream media only notices it when someone's already being prosecuted for violating it.</p></div><p>
I agreed completely until this statement. Mainstream media isn't that oblivious- they simply don't have YOUR best interests at heart.<br>
<br>
I'm sure most news networks themselves do notice it, but their parent companies are the very entities lobbying/pushing for more legislation. CNN = Time Warner, NBC = Vivendi Universal, FoxNews = News Corp, ABC = Disney, etc... These news companies (either through affiliates or parent corps) own most of our music, movies, TV shows, and other media, so it's only natural for them to protect their interests by trying to distract us from the draconian laws they're currently pushing through the governments of the world.<br>
<br>
Sadly, it seems that blogs and independent news are our only hope.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The mainstream media only notices it when someone 's already being prosecuted for violating it .
I agreed completely until this statement .
Mainstream media is n't that oblivious- they simply do n't have YOUR best interests at heart .
I 'm sure most news networks themselves do notice it , but their parent companies are the very entities lobbying/pushing for more legislation .
CNN = Time Warner , NBC = Vivendi Universal , FoxNews = News Corp , ABC = Disney , etc... These news companies ( either through affiliates or parent corps ) own most of our music , movies , TV shows , and other media , so it 's only natural for them to protect their interests by trying to distract us from the draconian laws they 're currently pushing through the governments of the world .
Sadly , it seems that blogs and independent news are our only hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mainstream media only notices it when someone's already being prosecuted for violating it.
I agreed completely until this statement.
Mainstream media isn't that oblivious- they simply don't have YOUR best interests at heart.
I'm sure most news networks themselves do notice it, but their parent companies are the very entities lobbying/pushing for more legislation.
CNN = Time Warner, NBC = Vivendi Universal, FoxNews = News Corp, ABC = Disney, etc... These news companies (either through affiliates or parent corps) own most of our music, movies, TV shows, and other media, so it's only natural for them to protect their interests by trying to distract us from the draconian laws they're currently pushing through the governments of the world.
Sadly, it seems that blogs and independent news are our only hope.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942</id>
	<title>What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>InsertWittyNameHere</author>
	<datestamp>1257003600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are people (the decision makers) taking this seriously? It reads like something from The Onion...
<br>
<br>
Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?
<br>
<br>
Above all, will it even work? So instead of a handful of very popular torrent sites (and video, picture, file, etc sharing) we get millions of small secret for-friends-only sites.... or we go back to CD/DVD trading</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are people ( the decision makers ) taking this seriously ?
It reads like something from The Onion.. . Even if agreed upon as a treaty , will it hold up in any courts ?
Above all , will it even work ?
So instead of a handful of very popular torrent sites ( and video , picture , file , etc sharing ) we get millions of small secret for-friends-only sites.... or we go back to CD/DVD trading</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are people (the decision makers) taking this seriously?
It reads like something from The Onion...


Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?
Above all, will it even work?
So instead of a handful of very popular torrent sites (and video, picture, file, etc sharing) we get millions of small secret for-friends-only sites.... or we go back to CD/DVD trading</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29987776</id>
	<title>Expected.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256991480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it wasn't bad, why would it be secret?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was n't bad , why would it be secret ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it wasn't bad, why would it be secret?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985084</id>
	<title>Re:What Do We Know?</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1256982240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5. The Obama administration has appointed a number of high ranking RIAA lawyers to the DoJ. I think that they are prohibited from being involved in official court duties related to copyright issues for two years from leaving the industry.</p><p><b>6.  The US started the ACTA talks in <i>2007</i>, over a year before the "Obama administration" was a glint in the Democrats' eyes.</b></p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 .
The Obama administration has appointed a number of high ranking RIAA lawyers to the DoJ .
I think that they are prohibited from being involved in official court duties related to copyright issues for two years from leaving the industry.6 .
The US started the ACTA talks in 2007 , over a year before the " Obama administration " was a glint in the Democrats ' eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.
The Obama administration has appointed a number of high ranking RIAA lawyers to the DoJ.
I think that they are prohibited from being involved in official court duties related to copyright issues for two years from leaving the industry.6.
The US started the ACTA talks in 2007, over a year before the "Obama administration" was a glint in the Democrats' eyes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29987490</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1256990400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Governor of California stated on "This Week" that "there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats". Refreshingly honest, for a politician.</p></div><p>That's because the Governor is in his second term and California has term limits (one the many flaws of the state government). After attempting and failing to break the stranglehold that the unions (particularly the teachers unions) have over the poor quality of education in California, he knows that he's not going to be elected to higher office again... regardless of the predictions in Demolition Man.</p><p>A politician who doesn't have to run for re-election only has to worry about getting impeached.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Governor of California stated on " This Week " that " there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats " .
Refreshingly honest , for a politician.That 's because the Governor is in his second term and California has term limits ( one the many flaws of the state government ) .
After attempting and failing to break the stranglehold that the unions ( particularly the teachers unions ) have over the poor quality of education in California , he knows that he 's not going to be elected to higher office again... regardless of the predictions in Demolition Man.A politician who does n't have to run for re-election only has to worry about getting impeached .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Governor of California stated on "This Week" that "there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats".
Refreshingly honest, for a politician.That's because the Governor is in his second term and California has term limits (one the many flaws of the state government).
After attempting and failing to break the stranglehold that the unions (particularly the teachers unions) have over the poor quality of education in California, he knows that he's not going to be elected to higher office again... regardless of the predictions in Demolition Man.A politician who doesn't have to run for re-election only has to worry about getting impeached.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978982</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>LatencyKills</author>
	<datestamp>1257007260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US President has one of the greatest powers on earth - the power to say NO, and only a majority of the House and Senate can override him.  For the life of me I've never understood the turmoil swirling over the line item veto.  The President doesn't like a line in a bill, he can veto the entire bill and tell people in the House and Senate that he will keep vetoing it until that line disappears.  A President who is OK with gridlock can cause an unbelievable one by micromanaging bills with vetoes every step of the way, and it deeply saddens me that no President seems to take that option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US President has one of the greatest powers on earth - the power to say NO , and only a majority of the House and Senate can override him .
For the life of me I 've never understood the turmoil swirling over the line item veto .
The President does n't like a line in a bill , he can veto the entire bill and tell people in the House and Senate that he will keep vetoing it until that line disappears .
A President who is OK with gridlock can cause an unbelievable one by micromanaging bills with vetoes every step of the way , and it deeply saddens me that no President seems to take that option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US President has one of the greatest powers on earth - the power to say NO, and only a majority of the House and Senate can override him.
For the life of me I've never understood the turmoil swirling over the line item veto.
The President doesn't like a line in a bill, he can veto the entire bill and tell people in the House and Senate that he will keep vetoing it until that line disappears.
A President who is OK with gridlock can cause an unbelievable one by micromanaging bills with vetoes every step of the way, and it deeply saddens me that no President seems to take that option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979454</id>
	<title>then excuse me, but you are stupid and naive</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1257008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this shit isnt about copyright, or counterfeiting. these are all side perks and excuses.</p><p>its about preparing the grounds for mechanisms that would enable control of the internet. once mechanisms to prevent 'copyright abuses' are in place, the same mechanisms can also easily be used to prevent any 'undesirable' sources of opinion, information or activity. once gates and controls are in place, no upstart will be coming up politically or business wise and upsetting the power balance that is already established. or challenge it. internet will be much more easier to shape into a cable tv network.</p><p>they banked on copyright, because child porn thing and anti net neutrality stuff didnt fly. many countries in europe was too liberal for porn to be used as an excuse, and net neutrality was the de facto and logical reality in anywhere in the world BUT usa. and europeans were rather too conscious with the statistics that their governments couldnt push the nonexistent minority of child porn abuse as something to hamper internet for.</p><p>but copyright excuse seems to be working. however, some countries in europe are already treating internet access as a citizens' right, some are legislating it (like finland) and many are pushing government functions and services to the internet because its much more efficient and less costly to conduct these over the internet. it can only be stupid, way too insolent american corporate lobbyists' naivete to expect the '3 strikes' shit to work in other places. one lawsuit in european human rights court, and their 3 strikes and their ban gets shoved up their asses.</p><p>but i have one thing to say to you americans ; you have to wake up from that 'let corporations be' shit, and start regulating your business so that corporations wont BUY laws from your parliament. you have been tolerant of this shit for SO long that it has come to this point :</p><p><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts" title="thedailyshow.com">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts</a> [thedailyshow.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this shit isnt about copyright , or counterfeiting .
these are all side perks and excuses.its about preparing the grounds for mechanisms that would enable control of the internet .
once mechanisms to prevent 'copyright abuses ' are in place , the same mechanisms can also easily be used to prevent any 'undesirable ' sources of opinion , information or activity .
once gates and controls are in place , no upstart will be coming up politically or business wise and upsetting the power balance that is already established .
or challenge it .
internet will be much more easier to shape into a cable tv network.they banked on copyright , because child porn thing and anti net neutrality stuff didnt fly .
many countries in europe was too liberal for porn to be used as an excuse , and net neutrality was the de facto and logical reality in anywhere in the world BUT usa .
and europeans were rather too conscious with the statistics that their governments couldnt push the nonexistent minority of child porn abuse as something to hamper internet for.but copyright excuse seems to be working .
however , some countries in europe are already treating internet access as a citizens ' right , some are legislating it ( like finland ) and many are pushing government functions and services to the internet because its much more efficient and less costly to conduct these over the internet .
it can only be stupid , way too insolent american corporate lobbyists ' naivete to expect the '3 strikes ' shit to work in other places .
one lawsuit in european human rights court , and their 3 strikes and their ban gets shoved up their asses.but i have one thing to say to you americans ; you have to wake up from that 'let corporations be ' shit , and start regulating your business so that corporations wont BUY laws from your parliament .
you have been tolerant of this shit for SO long that it has come to this point : http : //www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts [ thedailyshow.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this shit isnt about copyright, or counterfeiting.
these are all side perks and excuses.its about preparing the grounds for mechanisms that would enable control of the internet.
once mechanisms to prevent 'copyright abuses' are in place, the same mechanisms can also easily be used to prevent any 'undesirable' sources of opinion, information or activity.
once gates and controls are in place, no upstart will be coming up politically or business wise and upsetting the power balance that is already established.
or challenge it.
internet will be much more easier to shape into a cable tv network.they banked on copyright, because child porn thing and anti net neutrality stuff didnt fly.
many countries in europe was too liberal for porn to be used as an excuse, and net neutrality was the de facto and logical reality in anywhere in the world BUT usa.
and europeans were rather too conscious with the statistics that their governments couldnt push the nonexistent minority of child porn abuse as something to hamper internet for.but copyright excuse seems to be working.
however, some countries in europe are already treating internet access as a citizens' right, some are legislating it (like finland) and many are pushing government functions and services to the internet because its much more efficient and less costly to conduct these over the internet.
it can only be stupid, way too insolent american corporate lobbyists' naivete to expect the '3 strikes' shit to work in other places.
one lawsuit in european human rights court, and their 3 strikes and their ban gets shoved up their asses.but i have one thing to say to you americans ; you have to wake up from that 'let corporations be' shit, and start regulating your business so that corporations wont BUY laws from your parliament.
you have been tolerant of this shit for SO long that it has come to this point :http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts [thedailyshow.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982432</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love it when the government actually realises (unlike slashdotetrs) that one of the countries major employers, exporters and generators of tax dollars is under threat from the complete devaluing of its product, that people just whine and bitch about the govt being in 'Hollywood's pocket'<br>Get a grip.</p><p>America doesn't produce jack shit in terms of physical goods any more. Devaluing IP just relegates the US to a 3rd world ex-superpower with an inexplicably large military.</p><p>Strong enforcement of IP is in everyone in the USA's interests. Some of you are too stupid to grasp this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love it when the government actually realises ( unlike slashdotetrs ) that one of the countries major employers , exporters and generators of tax dollars is under threat from the complete devaluing of its product , that people just whine and bitch about the govt being in 'Hollywood 's pocket'Get a grip.America does n't produce jack shit in terms of physical goods any more .
Devaluing IP just relegates the US to a 3rd world ex-superpower with an inexplicably large military.Strong enforcement of IP is in everyone in the USA 's interests .
Some of you are too stupid to grasp this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love it when the government actually realises (unlike slashdotetrs) that one of the countries major employers, exporters and generators of tax dollars is under threat from the complete devaluing of its product, that people just whine and bitch about the govt being in 'Hollywood's pocket'Get a grip.America doesn't produce jack shit in terms of physical goods any more.
Devaluing IP just relegates the US to a 3rd world ex-superpower with an inexplicably large military.Strong enforcement of IP is in everyone in the USA's interests.
Some of you are too stupid to grasp this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988628</id>
	<title>Goodbye Internet it was much lulz.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1256995620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The purpose of the ACTA treaty is actually to attack user-generated user-shared content, Youtube, Flickr, et al. Users, ISPs and content hosters will all shy away from such activity should such a treaty be ratified. The rise of crowd-sourced or independent content is the single biggest threat to the bottom line of Big Content, over and above any piracy or counterfeiting.
<br> <br>
Time I spend on youtube not watching TV is time they can't make money out of. This scares them.
<br> <br>
Witness the death of the Internet as we know it. Observe the demostrable impact of Koreas change in copyright law following the free trade agreement with the U.S. some years back. Increasingly draconian laws saw a down turn in user content generation, and providers shying away from serving koreans due to the liability and cost.
<br> <br>
I'm disturbed that big corporates can do a end run around our (surposedly) democratic legislative systems. Note the plural. Remember a international treaty dictates law in the signing countries, overiding democratic soverenity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The purpose of the ACTA treaty is actually to attack user-generated user-shared content , Youtube , Flickr , et al .
Users , ISPs and content hosters will all shy away from such activity should such a treaty be ratified .
The rise of crowd-sourced or independent content is the single biggest threat to the bottom line of Big Content , over and above any piracy or counterfeiting .
Time I spend on youtube not watching TV is time they ca n't make money out of .
This scares them .
Witness the death of the Internet as we know it .
Observe the demostrable impact of Koreas change in copyright law following the free trade agreement with the U.S. some years back .
Increasingly draconian laws saw a down turn in user content generation , and providers shying away from serving koreans due to the liability and cost .
I 'm disturbed that big corporates can do a end run around our ( surposedly ) democratic legislative systems .
Note the plural .
Remember a international treaty dictates law in the signing countries , overiding democratic soverenity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The purpose of the ACTA treaty is actually to attack user-generated user-shared content, Youtube, Flickr, et al.
Users, ISPs and content hosters will all shy away from such activity should such a treaty be ratified.
The rise of crowd-sourced or independent content is the single biggest threat to the bottom line of Big Content, over and above any piracy or counterfeiting.
Time I spend on youtube not watching TV is time they can't make money out of.
This scares them.
Witness the death of the Internet as we know it.
Observe the demostrable impact of Koreas change in copyright law following the free trade agreement with the U.S. some years back.
Increasingly draconian laws saw a down turn in user content generation, and providers shying away from serving koreans due to the liability and cost.
I'm disturbed that big corporates can do a end run around our (surposedly) democratic legislative systems.
Note the plural.
Remember a international treaty dictates law in the signing countries, overiding democratic soverenity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978516</id>
	<title>Re:OH NOES</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1257005820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. I thought it would be <em>worse</em>. So far I've been correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
I thought it would be worse .
So far I 've been correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
I thought it would be worse.
So far I've been correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981566</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>cmiller173</author>
	<datestamp>1257015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes Presidents want some of their own pet issues to be addressed by Congress.  If a President tries to run roughshod over Congress with the veto power he can count on never seeing anything he actually wants to be enacted ever coming across his desk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes Presidents want some of their own pet issues to be addressed by Congress .
If a President tries to run roughshod over Congress with the veto power he can count on never seeing anything he actually wants to be enacted ever coming across his desk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes Presidents want some of their own pet issues to be addressed by Congress.
If a President tries to run roughshod over Congress with the veto power he can count on never seeing anything he actually wants to be enacted ever coming across his desk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981142</id>
	<title>How do we PREVENT this?</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257013920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care about the reasons for keeping this from us, nor whether the current administration is the same as the old, or more (or less) truthful than the old one.</p><p>I care about <b>how to prevent this</b>.  What can I do? Are senators and representatives in on this? How can I make an argument about this, over the phone to some staffer, which doesn't make me sounds like a lunatic, or someone who's only upset that they can't torrent the latest movies?  What concerns can I highlight which will motivate OTHER people to contact their representatives?  How can I pitch this in such a way that my representative will be inclined to listen to my reasoning?</p><p>I don't mind calling my reps, I just have no idea what the hell to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care about the reasons for keeping this from us , nor whether the current administration is the same as the old , or more ( or less ) truthful than the old one.I care about how to prevent this .
What can I do ?
Are senators and representatives in on this ?
How can I make an argument about this , over the phone to some staffer , which does n't make me sounds like a lunatic , or someone who 's only upset that they ca n't torrent the latest movies ?
What concerns can I highlight which will motivate OTHER people to contact their representatives ?
How can I pitch this in such a way that my representative will be inclined to listen to my reasoning ? I do n't mind calling my reps , I just have no idea what the hell to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care about the reasons for keeping this from us, nor whether the current administration is the same as the old, or more (or less) truthful than the old one.I care about how to prevent this.
What can I do?
Are senators and representatives in on this?
How can I make an argument about this, over the phone to some staffer, which doesn't make me sounds like a lunatic, or someone who's only upset that they can't torrent the latest movies?
What concerns can I highlight which will motivate OTHER people to contact their representatives?
How can I pitch this in such a way that my representative will be inclined to listen to my reasoning?I don't mind calling my reps, I just have no idea what the hell to say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978846</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am under contract to give away my copyrights. They're my employer's, and his to do with as he pleases. He generally open-sources the works, and we're a reasonably prospering company. I have a clause in that same contract that leaves the copyright to my personal and out-of-domain work with me, not automatically with my employer (as is so often automatically the case). I fought hard for that, even passing up a very, very well paid job for it. We're both happy with the arrangement. This works because we have a business model to match, and we do what corporations are supposed to do: Bundle effort and make some money by giving back to society. Everybody gains.</p><p>I honestly have no objections to copyright, but I do have objections to the naked greed that makes copyright a commodity, makes large, deep-pocketed umbrella organizations sue their customers and potential customers, in lieu of innovating and adjusting business models to new opportunities. I have even more objections to those same deep-pocketed lobby groups succeeding in "cracking down on piracy" in a losing battle to stem the tide. They aren't doing what they are supposed to do and are abusing the power their deep pockets afford them.</p><p>Copyright was instituted to support creative work, not as a weapon for large corporations to wield against all use of copyrights, dammit. That's what fair use is for. You use some of my work in citing, as hommage, whatever, and it might even bring me some royalties in new sales. Baen books gives away CDs full of their books, and they keep on doing that because to them it's a "licence to print money" in follow-up sales. Creative works always had a rather indirect market model. Weighing in like a metric tonne gorrilla to, basically, levy private corporate taxes <i>ohne ende</i> and by international government fiat, on grounds of "IP" so nebulous that even the authors no longer know what is supposed to be intellectual about it is, I say, blatant abuse.</p><p>And to protect citizens from that sort of abuse was one of the reasons why we have governments. Exactly that is why ACTA being so riddled with secrecy is very, very ominous.</p><p>Copyright must go both ways to support creativity, but now the pendulum is threatening to swing entirely in the corporate favour. Meaning that long term the backlash will be most severe for the current abusers. They'll probably figure they'll be dead before that happens if they've realized it at all, but they'll taking large chunks of popular culture with them. Well, maybe the non-corporate people should go indie again, without the governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am under contract to give away my copyrights .
They 're my employer 's , and his to do with as he pleases .
He generally open-sources the works , and we 're a reasonably prospering company .
I have a clause in that same contract that leaves the copyright to my personal and out-of-domain work with me , not automatically with my employer ( as is so often automatically the case ) .
I fought hard for that , even passing up a very , very well paid job for it .
We 're both happy with the arrangement .
This works because we have a business model to match , and we do what corporations are supposed to do : Bundle effort and make some money by giving back to society .
Everybody gains.I honestly have no objections to copyright , but I do have objections to the naked greed that makes copyright a commodity , makes large , deep-pocketed umbrella organizations sue their customers and potential customers , in lieu of innovating and adjusting business models to new opportunities .
I have even more objections to those same deep-pocketed lobby groups succeeding in " cracking down on piracy " in a losing battle to stem the tide .
They are n't doing what they are supposed to do and are abusing the power their deep pockets afford them.Copyright was instituted to support creative work , not as a weapon for large corporations to wield against all use of copyrights , dammit .
That 's what fair use is for .
You use some of my work in citing , as hommage , whatever , and it might even bring me some royalties in new sales .
Baen books gives away CDs full of their books , and they keep on doing that because to them it 's a " licence to print money " in follow-up sales .
Creative works always had a rather indirect market model .
Weighing in like a metric tonne gorrilla to , basically , levy private corporate taxes ohne ende and by international government fiat , on grounds of " IP " so nebulous that even the authors no longer know what is supposed to be intellectual about it is , I say , blatant abuse.And to protect citizens from that sort of abuse was one of the reasons why we have governments .
Exactly that is why ACTA being so riddled with secrecy is very , very ominous.Copyright must go both ways to support creativity , but now the pendulum is threatening to swing entirely in the corporate favour .
Meaning that long term the backlash will be most severe for the current abusers .
They 'll probably figure they 'll be dead before that happens if they 've realized it at all , but they 'll taking large chunks of popular culture with them .
Well , maybe the non-corporate people should go indie again , without the governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am under contract to give away my copyrights.
They're my employer's, and his to do with as he pleases.
He generally open-sources the works, and we're a reasonably prospering company.
I have a clause in that same contract that leaves the copyright to my personal and out-of-domain work with me, not automatically with my employer (as is so often automatically the case).
I fought hard for that, even passing up a very, very well paid job for it.
We're both happy with the arrangement.
This works because we have a business model to match, and we do what corporations are supposed to do: Bundle effort and make some money by giving back to society.
Everybody gains.I honestly have no objections to copyright, but I do have objections to the naked greed that makes copyright a commodity, makes large, deep-pocketed umbrella organizations sue their customers and potential customers, in lieu of innovating and adjusting business models to new opportunities.
I have even more objections to those same deep-pocketed lobby groups succeeding in "cracking down on piracy" in a losing battle to stem the tide.
They aren't doing what they are supposed to do and are abusing the power their deep pockets afford them.Copyright was instituted to support creative work, not as a weapon for large corporations to wield against all use of copyrights, dammit.
That's what fair use is for.
You use some of my work in citing, as hommage, whatever, and it might even bring me some royalties in new sales.
Baen books gives away CDs full of their books, and they keep on doing that because to them it's a "licence to print money" in follow-up sales.
Creative works always had a rather indirect market model.
Weighing in like a metric tonne gorrilla to, basically, levy private corporate taxes ohne ende and by international government fiat, on grounds of "IP" so nebulous that even the authors no longer know what is supposed to be intellectual about it is, I say, blatant abuse.And to protect citizens from that sort of abuse was one of the reasons why we have governments.
Exactly that is why ACTA being so riddled with secrecy is very, very ominous.Copyright must go both ways to support creativity, but now the pendulum is threatening to swing entirely in the corporate favour.
Meaning that long term the backlash will be most severe for the current abusers.
They'll probably figure they'll be dead before that happens if they've realized it at all, but they'll taking large chunks of popular culture with them.
Well, maybe the non-corporate people should go indie again, without the governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979564</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1257009060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.</p></div><p>And that is exactly why such an insanely huge percentage of the population no longer cares about your copyright and IP, and pirating is seen as hurting no one that doesn't deserve it.</p><p>Tell me, as a citizen, why exactly should the people give you any protection at all what so ever?<br>What do we get in return?</p><p>Once you publish something, you no longer own it.  The public is the only owner.  This is in copyright law today.  All you get as an author is limited time but exclusive rights over distribution, but of OUR property.</p><p>Until YOU follow the law, there is no reason for us to follow it either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use , and I 'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.And that is exactly why such an insanely huge percentage of the population no longer cares about your copyright and IP , and pirating is seen as hurting no one that does n't deserve it.Tell me , as a citizen , why exactly should the people give you any protection at all what so ever ? What do we get in return ? Once you publish something , you no longer own it .
The public is the only owner .
This is in copyright law today .
All you get as an author is limited time but exclusive rights over distribution , but of OUR property.Until YOU follow the law , there is no reason for us to follow it either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.And that is exactly why such an insanely huge percentage of the population no longer cares about your copyright and IP, and pirating is seen as hurting no one that doesn't deserve it.Tell me, as a citizen, why exactly should the people give you any protection at all what so ever?What do we get in return?Once you publish something, you no longer own it.
The public is the only owner.
This is in copyright law today.
All you get as an author is limited time but exclusive rights over distribution, but of OUR property.Until YOU follow the law, there is no reason for us to follow it either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979292</id>
	<title>Re:How can you be convicted of breaking a secret l</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1257008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... for the treaty to actually be enforceable in Canada, they'd have to change our constitution. Specifically, section 1 of the Constitution, better known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's not likely to happen.</p><p>Section 8 of the Charter states that:</p><blockquote><div><p> 8.   Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And section 11 of the Charter states that:</p><blockquote><div><p> 11.   Any person charged with an offence has the right</p><p><b>(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;</b></p><p>(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;</p><p>(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;</p><p><b>(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;</b></p><p>(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;</p><p>(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;</p><p>(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;</p><p>(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and</p><p>(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.</p></div></blockquote><p>Note, that's not somebody paraphrasing the law, that's the actual text of the law. <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html" title="justice.gc.ca" rel="nofollow">Reference</a> [justice.gc.ca].</p><p>Now... if our government *did* sign off on the treaty, all it would take would be another <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes\_Trial" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">John Scopes</a> [wikipedia.org] to challenge it. They wouldn't even have to be previously convicted of the alleged "crime" at that, either... the day it gets signed into law, they could turn around and file a challenge in the Supreme Court and have it struck down. I know of a few lawyers in this country who would be champing at the bit for a chance to do something like that.</p><p>(other interesting reading in that law... section 13, I'm pretty sure, was written with the US 5th Ammendment in mind, and section 15 is always fun.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... for the treaty to actually be enforceable in Canada , they 'd have to change our constitution .
Specifically , section 1 of the Constitution , better known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms .
That 's not likely to happen.Section 8 of the Charter states that : 8 .
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure .
And section 11 of the Charter states that : 11 .
Any person charged with an offence has the right ( a ) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence ; ( b ) to be tried within a reasonable time ; ( c ) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence ; ( d ) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ; ( e ) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause ; ( f ) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal , to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment ; ( g ) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless , at the time of the act or omission , it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations ; ( h ) if finally acquitted of the offence , not to be tried for it again and , if finally found guilty and punished for the offence , not to be tried or punished for it again ; and ( i ) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing , to the benefit of the lesser punishment.Note , that 's not somebody paraphrasing the law , that 's the actual text of the law .
Reference [ justice.gc.ca ] .Now... if our government * did * sign off on the treaty , all it would take would be another John Scopes [ wikipedia.org ] to challenge it .
They would n't even have to be previously convicted of the alleged " crime " at that , either... the day it gets signed into law , they could turn around and file a challenge in the Supreme Court and have it struck down .
I know of a few lawyers in this country who would be champing at the bit for a chance to do something like that .
( other interesting reading in that law... section 13 , I 'm pretty sure , was written with the US 5th Ammendment in mind , and section 15 is always fun .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... for the treaty to actually be enforceable in Canada, they'd have to change our constitution.
Specifically, section 1 of the Constitution, better known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That's not likely to happen.Section 8 of the Charter states that: 8.
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
And section 11 of the Charter states that: 11.
Any person charged with an offence has the right(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.Note, that's not somebody paraphrasing the law, that's the actual text of the law.
Reference [justice.gc.ca].Now... if our government *did* sign off on the treaty, all it would take would be another John Scopes [wikipedia.org] to challenge it.
They wouldn't even have to be previously convicted of the alleged "crime" at that, either... the day it gets signed into law, they could turn around and file a challenge in the Supreme Court and have it struck down.
I know of a few lawyers in this country who would be champing at the bit for a chance to do something like that.
(other interesting reading in that law... section 13, I'm pretty sure, was written with the US 5th Ammendment in mind, and section 15 is always fun.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982</id>
	<title>OH NOES</title>
	<author>PHPNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1257003720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you thought this administration would be different from all the others? Silly you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you thought this administration would be different from all the others ?
Silly you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you thought this administration would be different from all the others?
Silly you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29992108</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright as a revenue source</title>
	<author>AA Wulf</author>
	<datestamp>1257412620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Performers will obviously still make their money as they have for decades, through advertising revenues, live performances, and merchandising.  Music artists currently make almost nil on album sales, it all goes to the publisher/label; internet radio, blogging, and word of mouth (which can today easily stir chatter worldwide in the blink of an eye) will negate the need for their promotional services.  Actors and movie producers may learn that the multi-million dollar blockbuster is giving way to cheaper, more creative forms of film, and thus they won't need to worry as much about billions of DVD sales, as they will earn plenty at the theater to cover their expenses and thensome, as well as profits from advertising revenues.  Artists will find revenues as they generally always have, through sale of their works and/or odd-jobs with marketing firms; not to mention with DeviantArt, Craigslist, and other online avenues, they are able to self-promote much easier, as are their agents.  Books are moving more and more toward pay-for-print and e-reader technologies.  I expect other media types will as well.  The costs become reduced drastically when you aren't pumping out a million copies of something and only selling 150K of them, but rather printing exactly 150K of them over a span of time as the demand exists.  Software programmers will likely start distributing through secure distribution methods similar to the Steam network, where copyright infringement is next-to-impossible, which are also more cost effective as there is no print costs for the digital copies, and customers are more satisfied because they have free access to as many backups as they need for the life of the network.  <br> <br>

The Digital Divide you speak of is shrinking exponentially daily.  There are WWII veterans using Facebook and other services, and virtually no one between the ages of 5 and 20 is incapable of using the internet these days.  Libraries offer free access to broadband services to the public, and WiFi hotspots are cropping up everywhere.  For those incapable of using the internet, publishers can find a new niche by working with these new technologies for their clients to get their share of the market.<br> <br>

If anything, the decline of the multi-million dollar bands and multi-billion dollar motion pictures will see the rise of better, more diverse competition that is more freely available and cheaper.  Creativity will flourish.  However, I expect we are still at least 10 years off from seeing this all come to fruition.  Your view is, however, far too pessimistic. The end of a 100 year old model doesn't necessitate gravitating back to older, less successful ones.  You apparently have failed to look forward at the inklings of new models already beginning to take shape along the landscape of tomorrow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Performers will obviously still make their money as they have for decades , through advertising revenues , live performances , and merchandising .
Music artists currently make almost nil on album sales , it all goes to the publisher/label ; internet radio , blogging , and word of mouth ( which can today easily stir chatter worldwide in the blink of an eye ) will negate the need for their promotional services .
Actors and movie producers may learn that the multi-million dollar blockbuster is giving way to cheaper , more creative forms of film , and thus they wo n't need to worry as much about billions of DVD sales , as they will earn plenty at the theater to cover their expenses and thensome , as well as profits from advertising revenues .
Artists will find revenues as they generally always have , through sale of their works and/or odd-jobs with marketing firms ; not to mention with DeviantArt , Craigslist , and other online avenues , they are able to self-promote much easier , as are their agents .
Books are moving more and more toward pay-for-print and e-reader technologies .
I expect other media types will as well .
The costs become reduced drastically when you are n't pumping out a million copies of something and only selling 150K of them , but rather printing exactly 150K of them over a span of time as the demand exists .
Software programmers will likely start distributing through secure distribution methods similar to the Steam network , where copyright infringement is next-to-impossible , which are also more cost effective as there is no print costs for the digital copies , and customers are more satisfied because they have free access to as many backups as they need for the life of the network .
The Digital Divide you speak of is shrinking exponentially daily .
There are WWII veterans using Facebook and other services , and virtually no one between the ages of 5 and 20 is incapable of using the internet these days .
Libraries offer free access to broadband services to the public , and WiFi hotspots are cropping up everywhere .
For those incapable of using the internet , publishers can find a new niche by working with these new technologies for their clients to get their share of the market .
If anything , the decline of the multi-million dollar bands and multi-billion dollar motion pictures will see the rise of better , more diverse competition that is more freely available and cheaper .
Creativity will flourish .
However , I expect we are still at least 10 years off from seeing this all come to fruition .
Your view is , however , far too pessimistic .
The end of a 100 year old model does n't necessitate gravitating back to older , less successful ones .
You apparently have failed to look forward at the inklings of new models already beginning to take shape along the landscape of tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Performers will obviously still make their money as they have for decades, through advertising revenues, live performances, and merchandising.
Music artists currently make almost nil on album sales, it all goes to the publisher/label; internet radio, blogging, and word of mouth (which can today easily stir chatter worldwide in the blink of an eye) will negate the need for their promotional services.
Actors and movie producers may learn that the multi-million dollar blockbuster is giving way to cheaper, more creative forms of film, and thus they won't need to worry as much about billions of DVD sales, as they will earn plenty at the theater to cover their expenses and thensome, as well as profits from advertising revenues.
Artists will find revenues as they generally always have, through sale of their works and/or odd-jobs with marketing firms; not to mention with DeviantArt, Craigslist, and other online avenues, they are able to self-promote much easier, as are their agents.
Books are moving more and more toward pay-for-print and e-reader technologies.
I expect other media types will as well.
The costs become reduced drastically when you aren't pumping out a million copies of something and only selling 150K of them, but rather printing exactly 150K of them over a span of time as the demand exists.
Software programmers will likely start distributing through secure distribution methods similar to the Steam network, where copyright infringement is next-to-impossible, which are also more cost effective as there is no print costs for the digital copies, and customers are more satisfied because they have free access to as many backups as they need for the life of the network.
The Digital Divide you speak of is shrinking exponentially daily.
There are WWII veterans using Facebook and other services, and virtually no one between the ages of 5 and 20 is incapable of using the internet these days.
Libraries offer free access to broadband services to the public, and WiFi hotspots are cropping up everywhere.
For those incapable of using the internet, publishers can find a new niche by working with these new technologies for their clients to get their share of the market.
If anything, the decline of the multi-million dollar bands and multi-billion dollar motion pictures will see the rise of better, more diverse competition that is more freely available and cheaper.
Creativity will flourish.
However, I expect we are still at least 10 years off from seeing this all come to fruition.
Your view is, however, far too pessimistic.
The end of a 100 year old model doesn't necessitate gravitating back to older, less successful ones.
You apparently have failed to look forward at the inklings of new models already beginning to take shape along the landscape of tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979176</id>
	<title>Re:Devils avocate...</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257007920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has got to be an officially approved MPAA troll. In three sentences, you made one horrible slippery slope argument, a non-sequitur, and an appeal to emotion based on american trigger terms.</p><p>Go away. I'm not subsidizing your mansion where you do no work, and are complacent enough to mooch off of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has got to be an officially approved MPAA troll .
In three sentences , you made one horrible slippery slope argument , a non-sequitur , and an appeal to emotion based on american trigger terms.Go away .
I 'm not subsidizing your mansion where you do no work , and are complacent enough to mooch off of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has got to be an officially approved MPAA troll.
In three sentences, you made one horrible slippery slope argument, a non-sequitur, and an appeal to emotion based on american trigger terms.Go away.
I'm not subsidizing your mansion where you do no work, and are complacent enough to mooch off of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978708</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>youngburnsy</author>
	<datestamp>1257006420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt it will be adopted and even if it does. One thing that will make the whole thing invalid is encryption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it will be adopted and even if it does .
One thing that will make the whole thing invalid is encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it will be adopted and even if it does.
One thing that will make the whole thing invalid is encryption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978206</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>Zantac69</author>
	<datestamp>1257004620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>To link a poster from the geniuses at Despair Inc: <a href="http://www.despair.com/government.html" title="despair.com">http://www.despair.com/government.html</a> [despair.com] <br> <br>Priceless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To link a poster from the geniuses at Despair Inc : http : //www.despair.com/government.html [ despair.com ] Priceless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To link a poster from the geniuses at Despair Inc: http://www.despair.com/government.html [despair.com]  Priceless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985182</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1256982480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) The Democrats are slighly MORE in the pocket of the media than the Republicans.  And the Republicans are slightly more in the pocket of the Arms-makers.</p><p>2) Some legislation analogous to the DMCA is required by the WIPO treaty, but the DMCA goes *far* beyond the minimum requirements.  Quite far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The Democrats are slighly MORE in the pocket of the media than the Republicans .
And the Republicans are slightly more in the pocket of the Arms-makers.2 ) Some legislation analogous to the DMCA is required by the WIPO treaty , but the DMCA goes * far * beyond the minimum requirements .
Quite far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The Democrats are slighly MORE in the pocket of the media than the Republicans.
And the Republicans are slightly more in the pocket of the Arms-makers.2) Some legislation analogous to the DMCA is required by the WIPO treaty, but the DMCA goes *far* beyond the minimum requirements.
Quite far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983808</id>
	<title>Re:then excuse me, but you are stupid and n MOD UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is among the best comments I've read one this site. Nice to see <i>somebody</i> gets it.</p><p>The ACTA will fuck us all, just you wait. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_they\_came" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_they\_came</a> [wikipedia.org]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is among the best comments I 've read one this site .
Nice to see somebody gets it.The ACTA will fuck us all , just you wait .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First \ _they \ _came [ wikipedia.org ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is among the best comments I've read one this site.
Nice to see somebody gets it.The ACTA will fuck us all, just you wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First\_they\_came [wikipedia.org]...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978772</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>urulokion</author>
	<datestamp>1257006600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are people (the decision makers) taking this seriously? It reads like something from The Onion...</p><p>Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?</p></div><p>Ratified treaties are the highest form of governance second only to the Constitution itself. In other words, if a treaty provisions don't violate the Constitution, we are stuck with them. The treaties can't be undone. The Congress and President are force to pass legislation to enable the terms of the treaty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are people ( the decision makers ) taking this seriously ?
It reads like something from The Onion...Even if agreed upon as a treaty , will it hold up in any courts ? Ratified treaties are the highest form of governance second only to the Constitution itself .
In other words , if a treaty provisions do n't violate the Constitution , we are stuck with them .
The treaties ca n't be undone .
The Congress and President are force to pass legislation to enable the terms of the treaty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are people (the decision makers) taking this seriously?
It reads like something from The Onion...Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?Ratified treaties are the highest form of governance second only to the Constitution itself.
In other words, if a treaty provisions don't violate the Constitution, we are stuck with them.
The treaties can't be undone.
The Congress and President are force to pass legislation to enable the terms of the treaty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978466</id>
	<title>Re:What do ISP's have to do with anything?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want the ISP's (the ones that are giving us the Internet connections) to block the content that we should not be seeing (whether it's for copyright or puritan reasons). Right now the liability lies with the content provider but the problem is that most of the content is hosted outside the jurisdiction of any of the lobbyist companies.</p><p>That's why it's such a bad treaty, because it would basically create an international agreement for copyright infringements and censorship with the RIAA, MPAA and it's friends (or whoever is the highest payer to the ruling class on either side of the pond) as the police, judge and jury. It's even worse than the DMCA because it doesn't allow for exemptions, it would allow surveillance, arrest and extradition for whoever goes against any copyright and 'intellectual' property law in any country signed to the treaty. It would also allow them to block you totally from the Internet if you infringe on their perceived property in any locale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want the ISP 's ( the ones that are giving us the Internet connections ) to block the content that we should not be seeing ( whether it 's for copyright or puritan reasons ) .
Right now the liability lies with the content provider but the problem is that most of the content is hosted outside the jurisdiction of any of the lobbyist companies.That 's why it 's such a bad treaty , because it would basically create an international agreement for copyright infringements and censorship with the RIAA , MPAA and it 's friends ( or whoever is the highest payer to the ruling class on either side of the pond ) as the police , judge and jury .
It 's even worse than the DMCA because it does n't allow for exemptions , it would allow surveillance , arrest and extradition for whoever goes against any copyright and 'intellectual ' property law in any country signed to the treaty .
It would also allow them to block you totally from the Internet if you infringe on their perceived property in any locale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want the ISP's (the ones that are giving us the Internet connections) to block the content that we should not be seeing (whether it's for copyright or puritan reasons).
Right now the liability lies with the content provider but the problem is that most of the content is hosted outside the jurisdiction of any of the lobbyist companies.That's why it's such a bad treaty, because it would basically create an international agreement for copyright infringements and censorship with the RIAA, MPAA and it's friends (or whoever is the highest payer to the ruling class on either side of the pond) as the police, judge and jury.
It's even worse than the DMCA because it doesn't allow for exemptions, it would allow surveillance, arrest and extradition for whoever goes against any copyright and 'intellectual' property law in any country signed to the treaty.
It would also allow them to block you totally from the Internet if you infringe on their perceived property in any locale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29984050</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>cLive ;-)</author>
	<datestamp>1257022140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you win (the U.S. Presidency), you go into this smoky room with the 12 industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the JFK assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously like the grassy knoll, and then the screen comes up and the lights go on, and they ask the new president "any questions?" &ndash; Bill Hicks</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you win ( the U.S. Presidency ) , you go into this smoky room with the 12 industrialist , capitalist scumfucks that got you in there , and this little screen comes down... and it 's a shot of the JFK assassination from an angle you 've never seen before , which looks suspiciously like the grassy knoll , and then the screen comes up and the lights go on , and they ask the new president " any questions ?
"    Bill Hicks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you win (the U.S. Presidency), you go into this smoky room with the 12 industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the JFK assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously like the grassy knoll, and then the screen comes up and the lights go on, and they ask the new president "any questions?
" – Bill Hicks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979494</id>
	<title>For you slashdot leftists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government regulation is ALWAYS the answer to EVERYTHING.</p><p>Don't forget that when your initial reaction to this news is revulsion.</p><p>Big Brother ALWAYS does the right thing.  You have zero room to complain, because this is exactly what you believe in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government regulation is ALWAYS the answer to EVERYTHING.Do n't forget that when your initial reaction to this news is revulsion.Big Brother ALWAYS does the right thing .
You have zero room to complain , because this is exactly what you believe in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government regulation is ALWAYS the answer to EVERYTHING.Don't forget that when your initial reaction to this news is revulsion.Big Brother ALWAYS does the right thing.
You have zero room to complain, because this is exactly what you believe in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980882</id>
	<title>Practical Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, here are some practical questions:<br>- Which countries are in line to sign this ?<br>- How can we really fight this ? (Besides bitching on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.)</p><p>The USA have been trying to push DMCA-like stuff on the whole world for a few years now, mostly unsuccessfully (except for England, maybe?). How scared should we be ?</p><p>I don't know, but I really can't see a lot of countries signing this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , here are some practical questions : - Which countries are in line to sign this ? - How can we really fight this ?
( Besides bitching on / .
) The USA have been trying to push DMCA-like stuff on the whole world for a few years now , mostly unsuccessfully ( except for England , maybe ? ) .
How scared should we be ? I do n't know , but I really ca n't see a lot of countries signing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, here are some practical questions:- Which countries are in line to sign this ?- How can we really fight this ?
(Besides bitching on /.
)The USA have been trying to push DMCA-like stuff on the whole world for a few years now, mostly unsuccessfully (except for England, maybe?).
How scared should we be ?I don't know, but I really can't see a lot of countries signing this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose. Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former."</p><p>Sorry. You are a minority. A corporate drone without creativity and/or life. Please, move along. Don't let the door hit you.</p><p>And yes, I'm a corporate owner with intellectual property to protect. No, I do not support neither software patents (even though I hold some), nor this treaty. My software is sold as a service and as a product, I do lose some sales due to pirates (not much, really). But I would rather lose more sales than lose more freedoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm agreeing with most of the intent , and certainly all of the purpose .
Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use , and I 'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former. " Sorry .
You are a minority .
A corporate drone without creativity and/or life .
Please , move along .
Do n't let the door hit you.And yes , I 'm a corporate owner with intellectual property to protect .
No , I do not support neither software patents ( even though I hold some ) , nor this treaty .
My software is sold as a service and as a product , I do lose some sales due to pirates ( not much , really ) .
But I would rather lose more sales than lose more freedoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose.
Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former."Sorry.
You are a minority.
A corporate drone without creativity and/or life.
Please, move along.
Don't let the door hit you.And yes, I'm a corporate owner with intellectual property to protect.
No, I do not support neither software patents (even though I hold some), nor this treaty.
My software is sold as a service and as a product, I do lose some sales due to pirates (not much, really).
But I would rather lose more sales than lose more freedoms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29994916</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257437100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhh, "he is who we thought he was"...from anybody that actually knew something factual about him and wasn't simply caught up in the hype.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh , " he is who we thought he was " ...from anybody that actually knew something factual about him and was n't simply caught up in the hype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh, "he is who we thought he was"...from anybody that actually knew something factual about him and wasn't simply caught up in the hype.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29992194</id>
	<title>Re:How can you be convicted of breaking a secret l</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257413700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are missing the point that the laws will be published when effective. When an agreement regarding ACTA has been reached, however, it will be to late for debate, and politicians all over the world will be passing laws simply to comply with the signed international treaty, that has not undergone public discussion and scrutiny.</p><p>Thus (non-secret) laws will be mandatory in order to be a part of the international community, and we will have legislation that has only nominally gone through the democratic process. In actuality the decisions were made before the public had even seen the ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing the point that the laws will be published when effective .
When an agreement regarding ACTA has been reached , however , it will be to late for debate , and politicians all over the world will be passing laws simply to comply with the signed international treaty , that has not undergone public discussion and scrutiny.Thus ( non-secret ) laws will be mandatory in order to be a part of the international community , and we will have legislation that has only nominally gone through the democratic process .
In actuality the decisions were made before the public had even seen the ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing the point that the laws will be published when effective.
When an agreement regarding ACTA has been reached, however, it will be to late for debate, and politicians all over the world will be passing laws simply to comply with the signed international treaty, that has not undergone public discussion and scrutiny.Thus (non-secret) laws will be mandatory in order to be a part of the international community, and we will have legislation that has only nominally gone through the democratic process.
In actuality the decisions were made before the public had even seen the ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978402</id>
	<title>Re:What do ISP's have to do with anything?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257005340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's cheaper for the entertainment industry than doing it themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's cheaper for the entertainment industry than doing it themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's cheaper for the entertainment industry than doing it themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981962</id>
	<title>There is more to politics than IP laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far, <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/" title="politifact.com" rel="nofollow">Obama has kept his promises pretty well</a> [politifact.com]. I can see why many voters would be happy with him.</p><p>Slashdot might not represent the opinions of the majority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , Obama has kept his promises pretty well [ politifact.com ] .
I can see why many voters would be happy with him.Slashdot might not represent the opinions of the majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, Obama has kept his promises pretty well [politifact.com].
I can see why many voters would be happy with him.Slashdot might not represent the opinions of the majority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29987628</id>
	<title>Divide the People</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1256990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government, when it conducts things like this, is divided from the people.  Sometimes this is necessary to protect the country, especially in matters relating to war.</p><p>This is not war.  The government has no 'good' reason to make this treaty secret.  Many inquiring minds want to know what's going on, so we know what to say to our senators, to approve or disapprove, to agree or disagree.  That leaves us with only one option, which is malice.  This is being done with malice.  A lot of money is changing hands, a lot of hands are being shaken, and thus a new era is launched, the government and the corporations.</p><p>The corporations are the new citizens.  The old citizens will merely be discounted in all but the most obvious of democratic process.  Hired thugs will kick in doors to seize 'counterfeit' music and 'counterfeiting' (aka devices or computers used in counterfeiting' machines.</p><p>So, this could be the straw that broke the camel's back.  We've known that the government has been in various pockets over the years, but now this?  What can anyone do once the controllers of resources and energy are set against them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government , when it conducts things like this , is divided from the people .
Sometimes this is necessary to protect the country , especially in matters relating to war.This is not war .
The government has no 'good ' reason to make this treaty secret .
Many inquiring minds want to know what 's going on , so we know what to say to our senators , to approve or disapprove , to agree or disagree .
That leaves us with only one option , which is malice .
This is being done with malice .
A lot of money is changing hands , a lot of hands are being shaken , and thus a new era is launched , the government and the corporations.The corporations are the new citizens .
The old citizens will merely be discounted in all but the most obvious of democratic process .
Hired thugs will kick in doors to seize 'counterfeit ' music and 'counterfeiting ' ( aka devices or computers used in counterfeiting ' machines.So , this could be the straw that broke the camel 's back .
We 've known that the government has been in various pockets over the years , but now this ?
What can anyone do once the controllers of resources and energy are set against them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government, when it conducts things like this, is divided from the people.
Sometimes this is necessary to protect the country, especially in matters relating to war.This is not war.
The government has no 'good' reason to make this treaty secret.
Many inquiring minds want to know what's going on, so we know what to say to our senators, to approve or disapprove, to agree or disagree.
That leaves us with only one option, which is malice.
This is being done with malice.
A lot of money is changing hands, a lot of hands are being shaken, and thus a new era is launched, the government and the corporations.The corporations are the new citizens.
The old citizens will merely be discounted in all but the most obvious of democratic process.
Hired thugs will kick in doors to seize 'counterfeit' music and 'counterfeiting' (aka devices or computers used in counterfeiting' machines.So, this could be the straw that broke the camel's back.
We've known that the government has been in various pockets over the years, but now this?
What can anyone do once the controllers of resources and energy are set against them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985222</id>
	<title>Unfunded Mandate?</title>
	<author>Kasar</author>
	<datestamp>1256982600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would expect the RIAA and MPAA to provide payments to every ISP and telecom company in the world to offset the labor and administrative cost of this requirement.<br> <br>
It would be the right thing to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would expect the RIAA and MPAA to provide payments to every ISP and telecom company in the world to offset the labor and administrative cost of this requirement .
It would be the right thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would expect the RIAA and MPAA to provide payments to every ISP and telecom company in the world to offset the labor and administrative cost of this requirement.
It would be the right thing to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29987106</id>
	<title>Re:OH NOES</title>
	<author>Nithendil</author>
	<datestamp>1256989080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people aren't any different. In this day and age, with all the history available to us, we still have people that joyfully vote out the rights of others. <a href="http://i.imgur.com/FDFx2.jpg" title="imgur.com" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/FDFx2.jpg</a> [imgur.com]

At one time I would have said is that all we have to do is wait for these people to die off. But now I believe that technology has gotten past a point where it is easily understand by people willing to learn, to the point where you have to be specialized just to understand the basics. The problem is that the government will use this to it's advantage to control and intimidate the population. This is an even bigger problem once you realize that the government is really conrolled by corporations, which will use both technology and politicians to get whatever they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people are n't any different .
In this day and age , with all the history available to us , we still have people that joyfully vote out the rights of others .
http : //i.imgur.com/FDFx2.jpg [ imgur.com ] At one time I would have said is that all we have to do is wait for these people to die off .
But now I believe that technology has gotten past a point where it is easily understand by people willing to learn , to the point where you have to be specialized just to understand the basics .
The problem is that the government will use this to it 's advantage to control and intimidate the population .
This is an even bigger problem once you realize that the government is really conrolled by corporations , which will use both technology and politicians to get whatever they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people aren't any different.
In this day and age, with all the history available to us, we still have people that joyfully vote out the rights of others.
http://i.imgur.com/FDFx2.jpg [imgur.com]

At one time I would have said is that all we have to do is wait for these people to die off.
But now I believe that technology has gotten past a point where it is easily understand by people willing to learn, to the point where you have to be specialized just to understand the basics.
The problem is that the government will use this to it's advantage to control and intimidate the population.
This is an even bigger problem once you realize that the government is really conrolled by corporations, which will use both technology and politicians to get whatever they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</id>
	<title>I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose.  Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.  But there's a good comment to the summary article saying that since corporations have been given citizen rights, citizens have lost them.</p><p>The thing is, I'm a corporation -- two of them actually.  I produce copyrighted material every day, and I spend my time trying to protect it.  Everything I use is from a supplier, and so I'm paying for things I use to begin with.</p><p>I certainly know many people in the opposite position.  Most of my friends go home from work, and enjoy all of the freedoms they have with other people's copyright.  They enjoy being able to create music mixes from other people's songs, or to use video clips in their school work.  I don't.  I don't have time for that sort of thing, and ultimately in that relationship I'd be the one creating those songs and those videos.  If I'm not particularly interested in having them used in school work, I don't think they should be.</p><p>Any other corporate owners around here to debate this from another perspective?  Someone who actually has intellectual property to protect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm agreeing with most of the intent , and certainly all of the purpose .
Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use , and I 'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former .
But there 's a good comment to the summary article saying that since corporations have been given citizen rights , citizens have lost them.The thing is , I 'm a corporation -- two of them actually .
I produce copyrighted material every day , and I spend my time trying to protect it .
Everything I use is from a supplier , and so I 'm paying for things I use to begin with.I certainly know many people in the opposite position .
Most of my friends go home from work , and enjoy all of the freedoms they have with other people 's copyright .
They enjoy being able to create music mixes from other people 's songs , or to use video clips in their school work .
I do n't .
I do n't have time for that sort of thing , and ultimately in that relationship I 'd be the one creating those songs and those videos .
If I 'm not particularly interested in having them used in school work , I do n't think they should be.Any other corporate owners around here to debate this from another perspective ?
Someone who actually has intellectual property to protect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose.
Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.
But there's a good comment to the summary article saying that since corporations have been given citizen rights, citizens have lost them.The thing is, I'm a corporation -- two of them actually.
I produce copyrighted material every day, and I spend my time trying to protect it.
Everything I use is from a supplier, and so I'm paying for things I use to begin with.I certainly know many people in the opposite position.
Most of my friends go home from work, and enjoy all of the freedoms they have with other people's copyright.
They enjoy being able to create music mixes from other people's songs, or to use video clips in their school work.
I don't.
I don't have time for that sort of thing, and ultimately in that relationship I'd be the one creating those songs and those videos.
If I'm not particularly interested in having them used in school work, I don't think they should be.Any other corporate owners around here to debate this from another perspective?
Someone who actually has intellectual property to protect?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980684</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257012480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well when the Constitution was being written, it was always expected that the president would, to a large extent, carry out the will of the people who put him in power.  It's just not clear that anyone expected "the people who put him in power" to be a handful of corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well when the Constitution was being written , it was always expected that the president would , to a large extent , carry out the will of the people who put him in power .
It 's just not clear that anyone expected " the people who put him in power " to be a handful of corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well when the Constitution was being written, it was always expected that the president would, to a large extent, carry out the will of the people who put him in power.
It's just not clear that anyone expected "the people who put him in power" to be a handful of corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977898</id>
	<title>It's bad</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1257003480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary that is. Was it really too difficult to put a little information about what it is and why it's bad in the summary so I don't have to follow the links?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary that is .
Was it really too difficult to put a little information about what it is and why it 's bad in the summary so I do n't have to follow the links ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary that is.
Was it really too difficult to put a little information about what it is and why it's bad in the summary so I don't have to follow the links?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990298</id>
	<title>Re:OH NOES</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"won't have a job next election cycle" is hardly a deterrent if they've collected enough bribes from corporate america to retire comfortably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" wo n't have a job next election cycle " is hardly a deterrent if they 've collected enough bribes from corporate america to retire comfortably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"won't have a job next election cycle" is hardly a deterrent if they've collected enough bribes from corporate america to retire comfortably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979144</id>
	<title>What Do We Know?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1257007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of what we have seen so far on this is second hand, conjecture, etc. The "leaked document" in this case doesn't seem to exist -- it looks like Michael Geist's blog entry is what is being referenced. I think it is reasonable to suppose that the blog entry may be accurate, but we don't really know that it is.</p><p>So what do we know? What conclusions can we draw from the information we have?</p><p>1. It is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The word "counterfeiting" in there seems like an important data point.<br>2. It has been quashed by citing national security. National security has certainly become an extraordinarily loose standard, but it still means something.<br>3. Lots of copyright bigwigs have signed the NDA.<br>4. Three Google representatives have signed the NDA. (not sure what that contributes to this post, but I think it is worth noting)<br>5. The Obama administration has appointed a number of high ranking RIAA lawyers to the DoJ. I think that they are prohibited from being involved in official court duties related to copyright issues for two years from leaving the industry.</p><p>Item 5 leads me to wonder what those lawyers would be up to if they can't participate in actual proceedings. It seems reasonable to hypothesize that they might be working on ACTA, and combined with item 3 above makes me tend to think that the conjecture that ACTA is related to copyright is true. Yet its title mentions "counterfeiting."</p><p>For years the government has referred to selling fake packaged copies of Windows 95 as counterfeit, which seems fair enough. They are an attempt to pass something off as the genuine article, to deceive the recipient into believing it is the real thing. This is a particularly dangerous thing with money, where the term "counterfeit" is most commonly used, because it devalues the currency. It is also a problem with things like software, in part because the person buying it cannot be confident that they are getting the real product.</p><p>In short, the reason "counterfeit" is worse than mere copyright infringement is because its misrepresentation as the genuine article has extra costs to society. It is on this basis that investigation and punishment of counterfeit products is a more serious issue than of copyright infringement alone.</p><p>So, that makes me wonder: Is the ACTA about what has traditionally been defined as counterfeit, or might it be about redefining all copyright infringement as counterfeiting? If so, it might make the national security issue make sense; counterfeiting is somewhat reasonably considered a national security issue. So if copyright infringement is redefined to be counterfeiting, then all copyright infringement would become, by a wave of a magic wand, a national security issue and would activate sections of the law created to deal with the more serious problem of traditional counterfeiting.</p><p>Heck, if you were sufficiently twisted, you could even think that because this will classify a whole new swath of people as counterfeiters, and because counterfeiting is a national security issue, that disclosing the reclassification of copyright infringement would "tip our hand" to the people who are soon to be defined as counterfeiters. And we wouldn't want to disrupt these enemies of the state before we get a chance to classify their actions as hostile to the state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of what we have seen so far on this is second hand , conjecture , etc .
The " leaked document " in this case does n't seem to exist -- it looks like Michael Geist 's blog entry is what is being referenced .
I think it is reasonable to suppose that the blog entry may be accurate , but we do n't really know that it is.So what do we know ?
What conclusions can we draw from the information we have ? 1 .
It is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement .
The word " counterfeiting " in there seems like an important data point.2 .
It has been quashed by citing national security .
National security has certainly become an extraordinarily loose standard , but it still means something.3 .
Lots of copyright bigwigs have signed the NDA.4 .
Three Google representatives have signed the NDA .
( not sure what that contributes to this post , but I think it is worth noting ) 5 .
The Obama administration has appointed a number of high ranking RIAA lawyers to the DoJ .
I think that they are prohibited from being involved in official court duties related to copyright issues for two years from leaving the industry.Item 5 leads me to wonder what those lawyers would be up to if they ca n't participate in actual proceedings .
It seems reasonable to hypothesize that they might be working on ACTA , and combined with item 3 above makes me tend to think that the conjecture that ACTA is related to copyright is true .
Yet its title mentions " counterfeiting .
" For years the government has referred to selling fake packaged copies of Windows 95 as counterfeit , which seems fair enough .
They are an attempt to pass something off as the genuine article , to deceive the recipient into believing it is the real thing .
This is a particularly dangerous thing with money , where the term " counterfeit " is most commonly used , because it devalues the currency .
It is also a problem with things like software , in part because the person buying it can not be confident that they are getting the real product.In short , the reason " counterfeit " is worse than mere copyright infringement is because its misrepresentation as the genuine article has extra costs to society .
It is on this basis that investigation and punishment of counterfeit products is a more serious issue than of copyright infringement alone.So , that makes me wonder : Is the ACTA about what has traditionally been defined as counterfeit , or might it be about redefining all copyright infringement as counterfeiting ?
If so , it might make the national security issue make sense ; counterfeiting is somewhat reasonably considered a national security issue .
So if copyright infringement is redefined to be counterfeiting , then all copyright infringement would become , by a wave of a magic wand , a national security issue and would activate sections of the law created to deal with the more serious problem of traditional counterfeiting.Heck , if you were sufficiently twisted , you could even think that because this will classify a whole new swath of people as counterfeiters , and because counterfeiting is a national security issue , that disclosing the reclassification of copyright infringement would " tip our hand " to the people who are soon to be defined as counterfeiters .
And we would n't want to disrupt these enemies of the state before we get a chance to classify their actions as hostile to the state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of what we have seen so far on this is second hand, conjecture, etc.
The "leaked document" in this case doesn't seem to exist -- it looks like Michael Geist's blog entry is what is being referenced.
I think it is reasonable to suppose that the blog entry may be accurate, but we don't really know that it is.So what do we know?
What conclusions can we draw from the information we have?1.
It is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.
The word "counterfeiting" in there seems like an important data point.2.
It has been quashed by citing national security.
National security has certainly become an extraordinarily loose standard, but it still means something.3.
Lots of copyright bigwigs have signed the NDA.4.
Three Google representatives have signed the NDA.
(not sure what that contributes to this post, but I think it is worth noting)5.
The Obama administration has appointed a number of high ranking RIAA lawyers to the DoJ.
I think that they are prohibited from being involved in official court duties related to copyright issues for two years from leaving the industry.Item 5 leads me to wonder what those lawyers would be up to if they can't participate in actual proceedings.
It seems reasonable to hypothesize that they might be working on ACTA, and combined with item 3 above makes me tend to think that the conjecture that ACTA is related to copyright is true.
Yet its title mentions "counterfeiting.
"For years the government has referred to selling fake packaged copies of Windows 95 as counterfeit, which seems fair enough.
They are an attempt to pass something off as the genuine article, to deceive the recipient into believing it is the real thing.
This is a particularly dangerous thing with money, where the term "counterfeit" is most commonly used, because it devalues the currency.
It is also a problem with things like software, in part because the person buying it cannot be confident that they are getting the real product.In short, the reason "counterfeit" is worse than mere copyright infringement is because its misrepresentation as the genuine article has extra costs to society.
It is on this basis that investigation and punishment of counterfeit products is a more serious issue than of copyright infringement alone.So, that makes me wonder: Is the ACTA about what has traditionally been defined as counterfeit, or might it be about redefining all copyright infringement as counterfeiting?
If so, it might make the national security issue make sense; counterfeiting is somewhat reasonably considered a national security issue.
So if copyright infringement is redefined to be counterfeiting, then all copyright infringement would become, by a wave of a magic wand, a national security issue and would activate sections of the law created to deal with the more serious problem of traditional counterfeiting.Heck, if you were sufficiently twisted, you could even think that because this will classify a whole new swath of people as counterfeiters, and because counterfeiting is a national security issue, that disclosing the reclassification of copyright infringement would "tip our hand" to the people who are soon to be defined as counterfeiters.
And we wouldn't want to disrupt these enemies of the state before we get a chance to classify their actions as hostile to the state.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990362</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright as a revenue source</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1257006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>But even without publishers, creative people that are producing copyright materials deserve something for their efforts.</i> </p><p>No, they don't.</p><p>Authors aren't entitled to copyrights. Copyrights are intended to serve the public interest; if the public would be best served by not granting them at all, then that would be the appropriate policy. If we do grant copyrights -- with the scope and length of the copyright again based upon what would best serve the public interest -- then it is appropriate to grant them to the authors of works, rather than some third party.</p><p>But even then, a copyright has no intrinsic value whatsoever. All a copyright does, really, is work like a lens; whatever the economic value of the work is, it merely focuses it for the convenience of the copyright holder. If a work has no economic value at all, then the copyright is worthless. Whether a work will have economic value depends on the market. No author can justifiably demand or force anyone to care about his work. This is part of the genius of copyright; rather than dispense money to authors directly, it only lets them take a larger piece of the pie than they otherwise might get, where the size of the pie is determined by the market.</p><p> <i>Sure, hundreds of years ago their compensation was in the form of patronage. </i> </p><p>Well, let's back up.</p><p>The purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science by 1) encouraging the creation and publication of works, and 2) having no restrictions, or at least restrictions that are minimal in scope and length, as to what the public can do with those works.</p><p>But since copyright didn't exist until 1710 (and even then, only in England), and since many works are known to have been created prior to then, there must be other incentives for authors to create things. Some authors create art for art's sake, or for fame, or to sell copies (as opposed to exploiting a copyright), or incidentally to selling their creative services as labor, etc.</p><p>Some of these involve economic gain, but not all of them. Plenty of people create works without concern for related economic gain. For example, all of us here write posts on Slashdot, but none of us expect to get paid for them.</p><p>Copyright is meant to encourage authors to create and publish works which they otherwise would not. It is one way of making money as an author, but it is not the only way, or the most important way. Even today, many professional authors do not exploit their copyrights, but make a living. I didn't need copyrights when I was working as an artist, and I supported myself comfortably.</p><p>Patronage is perfectly legitimate, and is quite popular even today. There's no need to disparage it. After all, copyright does not guarantee quality. It is solely interested in quantity. As I said, copyright leaves the economic value of a work's copyright up to the market. If a work is popular, it is worth a lot; if it is unpopular, it not worth much. Many popular works are absolute tripe, however. You might not like the works that sprang from patronage, such as Michelangelo's David, but the basis for how they were funded doesn't inherently make them worse than, say, 'Twilight.'</p><p>And just as copyright doesn't eliminate all the other incentives for creation and publication, so too is copyright not indispensible for art. There would be popular art, as opposed to commissioned art, even without copyright. Folk songs are a good example. Copyright might increase the number of songs out there, but there would always be some no matter what, suitable to all sorts of different tastes.</p><p> <i>While some is good, most isn't.</i> </p><p>That is also true of works for which a copyright is sought. Remember Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap. Expensive production standards don't change this one bit. IMDB tells me that almost 600 movies were made in the US in the year 1977. I remember Star Wars, Close Encounters, Annie Hall, and Sorcerer as being pretty good. Logan's Run wasn't too hot. And most of the rest probably</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But even without publishers , creative people that are producing copyright materials deserve something for their efforts .
No , they do n't.Authors are n't entitled to copyrights .
Copyrights are intended to serve the public interest ; if the public would be best served by not granting them at all , then that would be the appropriate policy .
If we do grant copyrights -- with the scope and length of the copyright again based upon what would best serve the public interest -- then it is appropriate to grant them to the authors of works , rather than some third party.But even then , a copyright has no intrinsic value whatsoever .
All a copyright does , really , is work like a lens ; whatever the economic value of the work is , it merely focuses it for the convenience of the copyright holder .
If a work has no economic value at all , then the copyright is worthless .
Whether a work will have economic value depends on the market .
No author can justifiably demand or force anyone to care about his work .
This is part of the genius of copyright ; rather than dispense money to authors directly , it only lets them take a larger piece of the pie than they otherwise might get , where the size of the pie is determined by the market .
Sure , hundreds of years ago their compensation was in the form of patronage .
Well , let 's back up.The purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science by 1 ) encouraging the creation and publication of works , and 2 ) having no restrictions , or at least restrictions that are minimal in scope and length , as to what the public can do with those works.But since copyright did n't exist until 1710 ( and even then , only in England ) , and since many works are known to have been created prior to then , there must be other incentives for authors to create things .
Some authors create art for art 's sake , or for fame , or to sell copies ( as opposed to exploiting a copyright ) , or incidentally to selling their creative services as labor , etc.Some of these involve economic gain , but not all of them .
Plenty of people create works without concern for related economic gain .
For example , all of us here write posts on Slashdot , but none of us expect to get paid for them.Copyright is meant to encourage authors to create and publish works which they otherwise would not .
It is one way of making money as an author , but it is not the only way , or the most important way .
Even today , many professional authors do not exploit their copyrights , but make a living .
I did n't need copyrights when I was working as an artist , and I supported myself comfortably.Patronage is perfectly legitimate , and is quite popular even today .
There 's no need to disparage it .
After all , copyright does not guarantee quality .
It is solely interested in quantity .
As I said , copyright leaves the economic value of a work 's copyright up to the market .
If a work is popular , it is worth a lot ; if it is unpopular , it not worth much .
Many popular works are absolute tripe , however .
You might not like the works that sprang from patronage , such as Michelangelo 's David , but the basis for how they were funded does n't inherently make them worse than , say , 'Twilight .
'And just as copyright does n't eliminate all the other incentives for creation and publication , so too is copyright not indispensible for art .
There would be popular art , as opposed to commissioned art , even without copyright .
Folk songs are a good example .
Copyright might increase the number of songs out there , but there would always be some no matter what , suitable to all sorts of different tastes .
While some is good , most is n't .
That is also true of works for which a copyright is sought .
Remember Sturgeon 's Law : Ninety percent of everything is crap .
Expensive production standards do n't change this one bit .
IMDB tells me that almost 600 movies were made in the US in the year 1977 .
I remember Star Wars , Close Encounters , Annie Hall , and Sorcerer as being pretty good .
Logan 's Run was n't too hot .
And most of the rest probably</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But even without publishers, creative people that are producing copyright materials deserve something for their efforts.
No, they don't.Authors aren't entitled to copyrights.
Copyrights are intended to serve the public interest; if the public would be best served by not granting them at all, then that would be the appropriate policy.
If we do grant copyrights -- with the scope and length of the copyright again based upon what would best serve the public interest -- then it is appropriate to grant them to the authors of works, rather than some third party.But even then, a copyright has no intrinsic value whatsoever.
All a copyright does, really, is work like a lens; whatever the economic value of the work is, it merely focuses it for the convenience of the copyright holder.
If a work has no economic value at all, then the copyright is worthless.
Whether a work will have economic value depends on the market.
No author can justifiably demand or force anyone to care about his work.
This is part of the genius of copyright; rather than dispense money to authors directly, it only lets them take a larger piece of the pie than they otherwise might get, where the size of the pie is determined by the market.
Sure, hundreds of years ago their compensation was in the form of patronage.
Well, let's back up.The purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science by 1) encouraging the creation and publication of works, and 2) having no restrictions, or at least restrictions that are minimal in scope and length, as to what the public can do with those works.But since copyright didn't exist until 1710 (and even then, only in England), and since many works are known to have been created prior to then, there must be other incentives for authors to create things.
Some authors create art for art's sake, or for fame, or to sell copies (as opposed to exploiting a copyright), or incidentally to selling their creative services as labor, etc.Some of these involve economic gain, but not all of them.
Plenty of people create works without concern for related economic gain.
For example, all of us here write posts on Slashdot, but none of us expect to get paid for them.Copyright is meant to encourage authors to create and publish works which they otherwise would not.
It is one way of making money as an author, but it is not the only way, or the most important way.
Even today, many professional authors do not exploit their copyrights, but make a living.
I didn't need copyrights when I was working as an artist, and I supported myself comfortably.Patronage is perfectly legitimate, and is quite popular even today.
There's no need to disparage it.
After all, copyright does not guarantee quality.
It is solely interested in quantity.
As I said, copyright leaves the economic value of a work's copyright up to the market.
If a work is popular, it is worth a lot; if it is unpopular, it not worth much.
Many popular works are absolute tripe, however.
You might not like the works that sprang from patronage, such as Michelangelo's David, but the basis for how they were funded doesn't inherently make them worse than, say, 'Twilight.
'And just as copyright doesn't eliminate all the other incentives for creation and publication, so too is copyright not indispensible for art.
There would be popular art, as opposed to commissioned art, even without copyright.
Folk songs are a good example.
Copyright might increase the number of songs out there, but there would always be some no matter what, suitable to all sorts of different tastes.
While some is good, most isn't.
That is also true of works for which a copyright is sought.
Remember Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.
Expensive production standards don't change this one bit.
IMDB tells me that almost 600 movies were made in the US in the year 1977.
I remember Star Wars, Close Encounters, Annie Hall, and Sorcerer as being pretty good.
Logan's Run wasn't too hot.
And most of the rest probably</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018</id>
	<title>What do ISP's have to do with anything?</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1257003900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is all of the responsibility coming down to the ISP? Why should they make sure none of their customers uploads illegal content to e.g. YouTube and why should they remove it if noticed?</p><p>Is Google in this case the "ISP" or do they actually mean to folks providing you with an internet connection?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is all of the responsibility coming down to the ISP ?
Why should they make sure none of their customers uploads illegal content to e.g .
YouTube and why should they remove it if noticed ? Is Google in this case the " ISP " or do they actually mean to folks providing you with an internet connection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is all of the responsibility coming down to the ISP?
Why should they make sure none of their customers uploads illegal content to e.g.
YouTube and why should they remove it if noticed?Is Google in this case the "ISP" or do they actually mean to folks providing you with an internet connection?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29991266</id>
	<title>Re:Go After Individual Lobbyists</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257013860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It baffles me that someone's tiny mind simply can not wrap itself around the idea that different humans might have different ways of looking at the world, and that everyone who disagrees with the correct view is a shill.  And why is it that vigilante justice is roundly condemned whenever it is mentioned, and yet here it's modded up to 5?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It baffles me that someone 's tiny mind simply can not wrap itself around the idea that different humans might have different ways of looking at the world , and that everyone who disagrees with the correct view is a shill .
And why is it that vigilante justice is roundly condemned whenever it is mentioned , and yet here it 's modded up to 5 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It baffles me that someone's tiny mind simply can not wrap itself around the idea that different humans might have different ways of looking at the world, and that everyone who disagrees with the correct view is a shill.
And why is it that vigilante justice is roundly condemned whenever it is mentioned, and yet here it's modded up to 5?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29989842</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>cpt kangarooski</author>
	<datestamp>1257002700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A line item veto means that the person with the authority to veto can delete specific parts of a bill without vetoing the entire thing. In any event, a federal line item veto was attempted over 10 years ago, and was struck down as being unconstitutional. The President can veto an entire bill, but not selected parts thereof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A line item veto means that the person with the authority to veto can delete specific parts of a bill without vetoing the entire thing .
In any event , a federal line item veto was attempted over 10 years ago , and was struck down as being unconstitutional .
The President can veto an entire bill , but not selected parts thereof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A line item veto means that the person with the authority to veto can delete specific parts of a bill without vetoing the entire thing.
In any event, a federal line item veto was attempted over 10 years ago, and was struck down as being unconstitutional.
The President can veto an entire bill, but not selected parts thereof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985424</id>
	<title>Ungh...</title>
	<author>kitsunewarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1256983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a graphic design student.  I'm in a drawing class.  This is one of the first years, but we are no longer allowed to use copyrighted material in our drawings.
<br> <br>
This is ridiculous.  We can no longer work off of another's work?  Imitate another's style to learn how to become better artists?  Or even use a piece of a photograph in a 20+ photo collage?  I understand that its important to give credit where its due lest someone have their hard work stolen from them, but I don't think a pencil sketch of a cropping of a 45 year old photograph found for free in my university library from a 25+ year old book is going to hurt the sales of that book.  But apparently its against school policy and an abhorrent procedure that can cause us to lose our jobs in the future.
<br> <br>
I can't wait until so much is copyrighted that there's only a handful of artists left who can still legally do their work.  "Your drawing looks just like my photo!  Lawsuit!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a graphic design student .
I 'm in a drawing class .
This is one of the first years , but we are no longer allowed to use copyrighted material in our drawings .
This is ridiculous .
We can no longer work off of another 's work ?
Imitate another 's style to learn how to become better artists ?
Or even use a piece of a photograph in a 20 + photo collage ?
I understand that its important to give credit where its due lest someone have their hard work stolen from them , but I do n't think a pencil sketch of a cropping of a 45 year old photograph found for free in my university library from a 25 + year old book is going to hurt the sales of that book .
But apparently its against school policy and an abhorrent procedure that can cause us to lose our jobs in the future .
I ca n't wait until so much is copyrighted that there 's only a handful of artists left who can still legally do their work .
" Your drawing looks just like my photo !
Lawsuit ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a graphic design student.
I'm in a drawing class.
This is one of the first years, but we are no longer allowed to use copyrighted material in our drawings.
This is ridiculous.
We can no longer work off of another's work?
Imitate another's style to learn how to become better artists?
Or even use a piece of a photograph in a 20+ photo collage?
I understand that its important to give credit where its due lest someone have their hard work stolen from them, but I don't think a pencil sketch of a cropping of a 45 year old photograph found for free in my university library from a 25+ year old book is going to hurt the sales of that book.
But apparently its against school policy and an abhorrent procedure that can cause us to lose our jobs in the future.
I can't wait until so much is copyrighted that there's only a handful of artists left who can still legally do their work.
"Your drawing looks just like my photo!
Lawsuit!"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980772</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you website go poopoo on me screen,,, get new server</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you website go poopoo on me screen,, , get new server</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you website go poopoo on me screen,,, get new server</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981486</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1257014940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excepting the VETO power of course. Unfortunately doing nothing (or preventing all alternate actions) is not always an option either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excepting the VETO power of course .
Unfortunately doing nothing ( or preventing all alternate actions ) is not always an option either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excepting the VETO power of course.
Unfortunately doing nothing (or preventing all alternate actions) is not always an option either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981844</id>
	<title>Re:OH NOES</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1257015960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good argument for running an open source OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good argument for running an open source OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good argument for running an open source OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979232</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I know Slash.dot is almost completely pro piracy, I am glad to see something finally being done about the rampant piracy which is ruining so many lives and helping to kill an already damaged economy. Stealing is stealing and it not only breaks the law, but it hurts others.

The problem has always been a lack of enforcement of the law and protection of people's rights. Of course people are going to continue to steal if there are no consequences for stealing. If we didn't arrest people who break into stores and steal merchandise stores would go out of business. Just like what is happening with media right now.

While most try to justify their stealing by pretending they are only stealing from rich corporations who are gouging everyone, the truth is that they are putting hundreds of thousands of people who just want to feed their families out of work. Most people here don't have to witness the outcome of the stealing. Some of us do. Some of us want to support music, not steal it. The vast majority of people in the music business are not millionaire and not rich. They are poor people. THEY are the ones hit the most by stealing, not the few rich people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I know Slash.dot is almost completely pro piracy , I am glad to see something finally being done about the rampant piracy which is ruining so many lives and helping to kill an already damaged economy .
Stealing is stealing and it not only breaks the law , but it hurts others .
The problem has always been a lack of enforcement of the law and protection of people 's rights .
Of course people are going to continue to steal if there are no consequences for stealing .
If we did n't arrest people who break into stores and steal merchandise stores would go out of business .
Just like what is happening with media right now .
While most try to justify their stealing by pretending they are only stealing from rich corporations who are gouging everyone , the truth is that they are putting hundreds of thousands of people who just want to feed their families out of work .
Most people here do n't have to witness the outcome of the stealing .
Some of us do .
Some of us want to support music , not steal it .
The vast majority of people in the music business are not millionaire and not rich .
They are poor people .
THEY are the ones hit the most by stealing , not the few rich people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I know Slash.dot is almost completely pro piracy, I am glad to see something finally being done about the rampant piracy which is ruining so many lives and helping to kill an already damaged economy.
Stealing is stealing and it not only breaks the law, but it hurts others.
The problem has always been a lack of enforcement of the law and protection of people's rights.
Of course people are going to continue to steal if there are no consequences for stealing.
If we didn't arrest people who break into stores and steal merchandise stores would go out of business.
Just like what is happening with media right now.
While most try to justify their stealing by pretending they are only stealing from rich corporations who are gouging everyone, the truth is that they are putting hundreds of thousands of people who just want to feed their families out of work.
Most people here don't have to witness the outcome of the stealing.
Some of us do.
Some of us want to support music, not steal it.
The vast majority of people in the music business are not millionaire and not rich.
They are poor people.
THEY are the ones hit the most by stealing, not the few rich people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29991022</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>this "everything must be free" mentality</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>your oh\_so\_much\_more\_evolved\_than\_the\_rest\_of\_you attitude</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>this idea that anyone who creates anything should be demonized for wanting to protect it from being stolen and from wanting to be able to recoup some of his/her expenses associated with the creation</p></div></blockquote><p>Grandparent never said anything that even begins to imply any of those things.  And you know it.<br>Your straw man arguments accomplish nothing save to prove beyond all possible doubt that you are a filthy liar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this " everything must be free " mentalityyour oh \ _so \ _much \ _more \ _evolved \ _than \ _the \ _rest \ _of \ _you attitudethis idea that anyone who creates anything should be demonized for wanting to protect it from being stolen and from wanting to be able to recoup some of his/her expenses associated with the creationGrandparent never said anything that even begins to imply any of those things .
And you know it.Your straw man arguments accomplish nothing save to prove beyond all possible doubt that you are a filthy liar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this "everything must be free" mentalityyour oh\_so\_much\_more\_evolved\_than\_the\_rest\_of\_you attitudethis idea that anyone who creates anything should be demonized for wanting to protect it from being stolen and from wanting to be able to recoup some of his/her expenses associated with the creationGrandparent never said anything that even begins to imply any of those things.
And you know it.Your straw man arguments accomplish nothing save to prove beyond all possible doubt that you are a filthy liar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978958</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1257007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you serious? You actually believed that shit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
You actually believed that shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
You actually believed that shit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978876</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1257006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like you are one of the Treaty's intended beneficiaries.

But in order for you to benefit, the whole way the internet works will be radically changed.

Since ISP's are responsible to prevent any upload of copyrighted content, they will only be able to allow traffic and protocols they can police.
Video cannot currently be content verified in a cost effective manner so it will be prohibited. And consider the problem of protocols.

In other words, I hope you didn't need to use BitTorrent to transfer or receive critcal business files. It will be gone until ISP's adopt monitoring software.
And of course this will give them an excuse to block any and all protocols that they "cannot adequately monitor".

I suppose the impact to business of losing protocols and sites dependent on user content will be minimal except for the affected sites. And Content Owners have never really be comfortable with individuals being able to upload their own content. So if it happens at all it will now be highly regulated.

All for a few Million a year for some rights holders. No wonder a Treaty is required to slam this down our throats!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you are one of the Treaty 's intended beneficiaries .
But in order for you to benefit , the whole way the internet works will be radically changed .
Since ISP 's are responsible to prevent any upload of copyrighted content , they will only be able to allow traffic and protocols they can police .
Video can not currently be content verified in a cost effective manner so it will be prohibited .
And consider the problem of protocols .
In other words , I hope you did n't need to use BitTorrent to transfer or receive critcal business files .
It will be gone until ISP 's adopt monitoring software .
And of course this will give them an excuse to block any and all protocols that they " can not adequately monitor " .
I suppose the impact to business of losing protocols and sites dependent on user content will be minimal except for the affected sites .
And Content Owners have never really be comfortable with individuals being able to upload their own content .
So if it happens at all it will now be highly regulated .
All for a few Million a year for some rights holders .
No wonder a Treaty is required to slam this down our throats !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you are one of the Treaty's intended beneficiaries.
But in order for you to benefit, the whole way the internet works will be radically changed.
Since ISP's are responsible to prevent any upload of copyrighted content, they will only be able to allow traffic and protocols they can police.
Video cannot currently be content verified in a cost effective manner so it will be prohibited.
And consider the problem of protocols.
In other words, I hope you didn't need to use BitTorrent to transfer or receive critcal business files.
It will be gone until ISP's adopt monitoring software.
And of course this will give them an excuse to block any and all protocols that they "cannot adequately monitor".
I suppose the impact to business of losing protocols and sites dependent on user content will be minimal except for the affected sites.
And Content Owners have never really be comfortable with individuals being able to upload their own content.
So if it happens at all it will now be highly regulated.
All for a few Million a year for some rights holders.
No wonder a Treaty is required to slam this down our throats!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29986250</id>
	<title>Corollary?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1256985600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one who wants to leave the socioethical confines of a small town should ever be allowed to leave it.</p><p>Isn't that how we got Bush II in the first place, because we allowed him to leave that "smothering" small town in Texas?  He did nothing but raise hell after that... college, military, politics.  We shoulda made him stay put and get a job in the feed store.  Hopefully the constant gaze of the other townfolk woulda kept him in line.  Obama's a different animal....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one who wants to leave the socioethical confines of a small town should ever be allowed to leave it.Is n't that how we got Bush II in the first place , because we allowed him to leave that " smothering " small town in Texas ?
He did nothing but raise hell after that... college , military , politics .
We shoulda made him stay put and get a job in the feed store .
Hopefully the constant gaze of the other townfolk woulda kept him in line .
Obama 's a different animal... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one who wants to leave the socioethical confines of a small town should ever be allowed to leave it.Isn't that how we got Bush II in the first place, because we allowed him to leave that "smothering" small town in Texas?
He did nothing but raise hell after that... college, military, politics.
We shoulda made him stay put and get a job in the feed store.
Hopefully the constant gaze of the other townfolk woulda kept him in line.
Obama's a different animal....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979776</id>
	<title>Can the pirates just stop and apologise now?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1257009720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm getting really sick of these ludicrous propositions becoming law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting really sick of these ludicrous propositions becoming law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting really sick of these ludicrous propositions becoming law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29987460</id>
	<title>The non-technological technological imperative</title>
	<author>flaptrap</author>
	<datestamp>1256990340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once upon a time there was a copyright registration requirement, and it was good.</p><p>Before you could enforce your copyright you had to register it.</p><p>It would be WAY TOO SIMPLE for there to be a digital registration archive and a wee little bottleneck where each ISP could query its national registry with &gt;.</p><p>Nope, this is the time raining down upon us of the RIAA default judgment, and it is way bad.</p><p>I'm going to send you a notice, and you'd better do what I say, and don't tell me I am lying because I pay off I mean contribute more than you and forget I said anything because it's a secret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time there was a copyright registration requirement , and it was good.Before you could enforce your copyright you had to register it.It would be WAY TOO SIMPLE for there to be a digital registration archive and a wee little bottleneck where each ISP could query its national registry with &gt; .Nope , this is the time raining down upon us of the RIAA default judgment , and it is way bad.I 'm going to send you a notice , and you 'd better do what I say , and do n't tell me I am lying because I pay off I mean contribute more than you and forget I said anything because it 's a secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time there was a copyright registration requirement, and it was good.Before you could enforce your copyright you had to register it.It would be WAY TOO SIMPLE for there to be a digital registration archive and a wee little bottleneck where each ISP could query its national registry with &gt;.Nope, this is the time raining down upon us of the RIAA default judgment, and it is way bad.I'm going to send you a notice, and you'd better do what I say, and don't tell me I am lying because I pay off I mean contribute more than you and forget I said anything because it's a secret.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980290</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's good that someone who actually has some so-called "intellectual property" (I hate that term) is weighing in on the side of fair use.</p><p>Supporting copyright is very important to me too.  That's why I ignore it altogether.</p><p>How does that make sense?  I'll tell you.</p><p>What we have is no longer copyright.  It's consumer control.  Copyright is about innovation.  It's about promoting the public domain, so that useful works can get into the hands of those who have the ability to build upon them to make more useful works.  Sacrifices have to be made in order to get those works created, so copyright was invented (yes, invented.  It is not and never has been an inherent right) to give creators temporary control over their works in order to try to earn a little money off of them, thereby encouraging the creators to create those works in the first place.</p><p>However, when the sacrifices become so big that the net result goes contrary to the original intent of copyright, such as by extending copyright lengths to the end of the universe minus one day, or legally enforcing technical limitations on copying something even after it officially becomes public domain, then the law is wrong.</p><p>Since I believe in the goal of copyright, I believe it's my responsibility not to uphold the laws that go against that goal.  Anarchy, in this case, is a better state than the regulations that we have right now.  It's gotten to the point where I actually feel guilty about paying for music, movies, or games instead of downloading them for free.</p><p>Let there be no mistake: this is not my choice.  I would rather have a world where copyright lasts only long enough for content creators to make a little money off of their works instead of resting on their laurels for 75 years, where books that are out of print for a while automatically become public domain, where money goes to musicians and authors rather than labels and publishers, where restrictions on copying something that I legally purchased are outlawed, where innovators can wade through a massive public domain to find something worth building upon.  But the law opposes such a world, and therefore, the fault lies clearly upon the law itself.</p><p>We don't have such a world, so the best I can do is to work around the pointless restrictions and promote such a world despite the law.</p><p>The law has declared war upon those who believe in the original goal of copyright.  My response? I accept.</p><p>And yes, I too am a content creator.  I have written some books and released them under a Creative Commons license, so I am, in fact, putting my money where my mouth is.</p><p>Posted anonymously because I admitted to copyright infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good that someone who actually has some so-called " intellectual property " ( I hate that term ) is weighing in on the side of fair use.Supporting copyright is very important to me too .
That 's why I ignore it altogether.How does that make sense ?
I 'll tell you.What we have is no longer copyright .
It 's consumer control .
Copyright is about innovation .
It 's about promoting the public domain , so that useful works can get into the hands of those who have the ability to build upon them to make more useful works .
Sacrifices have to be made in order to get those works created , so copyright was invented ( yes , invented .
It is not and never has been an inherent right ) to give creators temporary control over their works in order to try to earn a little money off of them , thereby encouraging the creators to create those works in the first place.However , when the sacrifices become so big that the net result goes contrary to the original intent of copyright , such as by extending copyright lengths to the end of the universe minus one day , or legally enforcing technical limitations on copying something even after it officially becomes public domain , then the law is wrong.Since I believe in the goal of copyright , I believe it 's my responsibility not to uphold the laws that go against that goal .
Anarchy , in this case , is a better state than the regulations that we have right now .
It 's gotten to the point where I actually feel guilty about paying for music , movies , or games instead of downloading them for free.Let there be no mistake : this is not my choice .
I would rather have a world where copyright lasts only long enough for content creators to make a little money off of their works instead of resting on their laurels for 75 years , where books that are out of print for a while automatically become public domain , where money goes to musicians and authors rather than labels and publishers , where restrictions on copying something that I legally purchased are outlawed , where innovators can wade through a massive public domain to find something worth building upon .
But the law opposes such a world , and therefore , the fault lies clearly upon the law itself.We do n't have such a world , so the best I can do is to work around the pointless restrictions and promote such a world despite the law.The law has declared war upon those who believe in the original goal of copyright .
My response ?
I accept.And yes , I too am a content creator .
I have written some books and released them under a Creative Commons license , so I am , in fact , putting my money where my mouth is.Posted anonymously because I admitted to copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's good that someone who actually has some so-called "intellectual property" (I hate that term) is weighing in on the side of fair use.Supporting copyright is very important to me too.
That's why I ignore it altogether.How does that make sense?
I'll tell you.What we have is no longer copyright.
It's consumer control.
Copyright is about innovation.
It's about promoting the public domain, so that useful works can get into the hands of those who have the ability to build upon them to make more useful works.
Sacrifices have to be made in order to get those works created, so copyright was invented (yes, invented.
It is not and never has been an inherent right) to give creators temporary control over their works in order to try to earn a little money off of them, thereby encouraging the creators to create those works in the first place.However, when the sacrifices become so big that the net result goes contrary to the original intent of copyright, such as by extending copyright lengths to the end of the universe minus one day, or legally enforcing technical limitations on copying something even after it officially becomes public domain, then the law is wrong.Since I believe in the goal of copyright, I believe it's my responsibility not to uphold the laws that go against that goal.
Anarchy, in this case, is a better state than the regulations that we have right now.
It's gotten to the point where I actually feel guilty about paying for music, movies, or games instead of downloading them for free.Let there be no mistake: this is not my choice.
I would rather have a world where copyright lasts only long enough for content creators to make a little money off of their works instead of resting on their laurels for 75 years, where books that are out of print for a while automatically become public domain, where money goes to musicians and authors rather than labels and publishers, where restrictions on copying something that I legally purchased are outlawed, where innovators can wade through a massive public domain to find something worth building upon.
But the law opposes such a world, and therefore, the fault lies clearly upon the law itself.We don't have such a world, so the best I can do is to work around the pointless restrictions and promote such a world despite the law.The law has declared war upon those who believe in the original goal of copyright.
My response?
I accept.And yes, I too am a content creator.
I have written some books and released them under a Creative Commons license, so I am, in fact, putting my money where my mouth is.Posted anonymously because I admitted to copyright infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29992104</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257412560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hate to break it to you, but claiming that you don't support software patents, and that you own a few in the same sentence is kinda funny. Yes, you support software patents. You own a few. If you didn't support it, you wouldn't hold any.</p><p>Congrats, you do software, and you have the option to sell it as a service. I'm an artist and musician, I don't have that option. And spare me the diatribe about freedoms, especially in regard to freedoms you don't have. You are not free to do as you please with someone else's property, nor should you. All this talk about violating freedom never takes into account the freedoms and rights of the content providers and copyright holders.</p><p>Maybe you don't care much about people copying your work without your permission, and that's your prerogative. I, however, do, and that's my prerogative. A copyright treaty does not stop you from not enforcing your copyrights, or not using permissive licenses for your work, or from enjoying the works of others who release their work under similar terms, it only makes it harder to use the works of people who don't want you using their work without their permission.</p><p>The only people who lose here, are the pirates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate to break it to you , but claiming that you do n't support software patents , and that you own a few in the same sentence is kinda funny .
Yes , you support software patents .
You own a few .
If you did n't support it , you would n't hold any.Congrats , you do software , and you have the option to sell it as a service .
I 'm an artist and musician , I do n't have that option .
And spare me the diatribe about freedoms , especially in regard to freedoms you do n't have .
You are not free to do as you please with someone else 's property , nor should you .
All this talk about violating freedom never takes into account the freedoms and rights of the content providers and copyright holders.Maybe you do n't care much about people copying your work without your permission , and that 's your prerogative .
I , however , do , and that 's my prerogative .
A copyright treaty does not stop you from not enforcing your copyrights , or not using permissive licenses for your work , or from enjoying the works of others who release their work under similar terms , it only makes it harder to use the works of people who do n't want you using their work without their permission.The only people who lose here , are the pirates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate to break it to you, but claiming that you don't support software patents, and that you own a few in the same sentence is kinda funny.
Yes, you support software patents.
You own a few.
If you didn't support it, you wouldn't hold any.Congrats, you do software, and you have the option to sell it as a service.
I'm an artist and musician, I don't have that option.
And spare me the diatribe about freedoms, especially in regard to freedoms you don't have.
You are not free to do as you please with someone else's property, nor should you.
All this talk about violating freedom never takes into account the freedoms and rights of the content providers and copyright holders.Maybe you don't care much about people copying your work without your permission, and that's your prerogative.
I, however, do, and that's my prerogative.
A copyright treaty does not stop you from not enforcing your copyrights, or not using permissive licenses for your work, or from enjoying the works of others who release their work under similar terms, it only makes it harder to use the works of people who don't want you using their work without their permission.The only people who lose here, are the pirates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978930</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>FTWinston</author>
	<datestamp>1257007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>America is only a subset of humanity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>America is only a subset of humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is only a subset of humanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990320</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also stipulates that playing an authorized copy of a song creates an unauthorized copy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also stipulates that playing an authorized copy of a song creates an unauthorized copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also stipulates that playing an authorized copy of a song creates an unauthorized copy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29993586</id>
	<title>Re:What Do We Know?</title>
	<author>Eivind Eklund</author>
	<datestamp>1257429720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A lot of what we have seen so far on this is second hand, conjecture, etc. The "leaked document" in this case doesn't seem to exist -- it looks like Michael Geist's blog entry is what is being referenced. I think it is reasonable to suppose that the blog entry may be accurate, but we don't really know that it is.</p><p>So what do we know? What conclusions can we draw from the information we have?</p><p>1. It is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The word "counterfeiting" in there seems like an important data point.<br>2. It has been quashed by citing national security. National security has certainly become an extraordinarily loose standard, but it still means something.<br>3. Lots of copyright bigwigs have signed the NDA.<br>4. Three Google representatives have signed the NDA. (not sure what that contributes to this post, but I think it is worth noting)</p></div><p>Relevant links from the Internet (from a Google search for "google acta"):</p><p>Result #2: <a href="http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bitsandbytes/archive/2008/09/24/google-takes-up-the-fight-against-acta.aspx" title="canada.com">http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bitsandbytes/archive/2008/09/24/google-takes-up-the-fight-against-acta.aspx</a> [canada.com]</p><p>Result #12: <a href="http://guardianhost.com/realweeklynews/uploads/Google\_ACTA\_Comments2008.pdf" title="guardianhost.com">http://guardianhost.com/realweeklynews/uploads/Google\_ACTA\_Comments2008.pdf</a> [guardianhost.com]</p><p>Disclaimer: I work for Google, but any opinion is my own.  I also don't have any internal information on this topic.</p><p>Eivind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of what we have seen so far on this is second hand , conjecture , etc .
The " leaked document " in this case does n't seem to exist -- it looks like Michael Geist 's blog entry is what is being referenced .
I think it is reasonable to suppose that the blog entry may be accurate , but we do n't really know that it is.So what do we know ?
What conclusions can we draw from the information we have ? 1 .
It is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement .
The word " counterfeiting " in there seems like an important data point.2 .
It has been quashed by citing national security .
National security has certainly become an extraordinarily loose standard , but it still means something.3 .
Lots of copyright bigwigs have signed the NDA.4 .
Three Google representatives have signed the NDA .
( not sure what that contributes to this post , but I think it is worth noting ) Relevant links from the Internet ( from a Google search for " google acta " ) : Result # 2 : http : //communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bitsandbytes/archive/2008/09/24/google-takes-up-the-fight-against-acta.aspx [ canada.com ] Result # 12 : http : //guardianhost.com/realweeklynews/uploads/Google \ _ACTA \ _Comments2008.pdf [ guardianhost.com ] Disclaimer : I work for Google , but any opinion is my own .
I also do n't have any internal information on this topic.Eivind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of what we have seen so far on this is second hand, conjecture, etc.
The "leaked document" in this case doesn't seem to exist -- it looks like Michael Geist's blog entry is what is being referenced.
I think it is reasonable to suppose that the blog entry may be accurate, but we don't really know that it is.So what do we know?
What conclusions can we draw from the information we have?1.
It is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.
The word "counterfeiting" in there seems like an important data point.2.
It has been quashed by citing national security.
National security has certainly become an extraordinarily loose standard, but it still means something.3.
Lots of copyright bigwigs have signed the NDA.4.
Three Google representatives have signed the NDA.
(not sure what that contributes to this post, but I think it is worth noting)Relevant links from the Internet (from a Google search for "google acta"):Result #2: http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bitsandbytes/archive/2008/09/24/google-takes-up-the-fight-against-acta.aspx [canada.com]Result #12: http://guardianhost.com/realweeklynews/uploads/Google\_ACTA\_Comments2008.pdf [guardianhost.com]Disclaimer: I work for Google, but any opinion is my own.
I also don't have any internal information on this topic.Eivind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1257006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama is a politician. This is what professional politicians do.</p><p>I doubt we'll ever see another Cincinnatus.</p><p>As Douglas Adams wisely told us, no one who wants to be president should ever be allowed to become the president.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is a politician .
This is what professional politicians do.I doubt we 'll ever see another Cincinnatus.As Douglas Adams wisely told us , no one who wants to be president should ever be allowed to become the president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is a politician.
This is what professional politicians do.I doubt we'll ever see another Cincinnatus.As Douglas Adams wisely told us, no one who wants to be president should ever be allowed to become the president.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981184</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>grayshirtninja</author>
	<datestamp>1257014040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He who has the power to destroy a thing has absolute control over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He who has the power to destroy a thing has absolute control over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He who has the power to destroy a thing has absolute control over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979020</id>
	<title>Lets do something about it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick!  Flood the white house with emails!  Get this shit on the daily show or colbert.  Get normal people talking about.  I've seen too many things go unnoticed because we rant and rave about it between ourselves and no one outside of slashdot ever hears or cares about it.  Facebook groups dont ever seem to do any good but any little bit helps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick !
Flood the white house with emails !
Get this shit on the daily show or colbert .
Get normal people talking about .
I 've seen too many things go unnoticed because we rant and rave about it between ourselves and no one outside of slashdot ever hears or cares about it .
Facebook groups dont ever seem to do any good but any little bit helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick!
Flood the white house with emails!
Get this shit on the daily show or colbert.
Get normal people talking about.
I've seen too many things go unnoticed because we rant and rave about it between ourselves and no one outside of slashdot ever hears or cares about it.
Facebook groups dont ever seem to do any good but any little bit helps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979058</id>
	<title>Fight it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>We must stop ACTA.</b> Not just post comments on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We must stop ACTA .
Not just post comments on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We must stop ACTA.
Not just post comments on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978586</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>PhreakOfTime</author>
	<datestamp>1257006060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there are plenty of people who have filed to run their business as a corporation. You arent a 'corporate owner', that phrase drips with sanctimonious self-importance. I certainly hope you hire a lawyer very quickly to handle your copyright, as you obviously have zero idea what copryright law actually is.
</p><p>When 'your friends' create a mix from someone elses music, or use video clips for school work, they are NOT violating copyright. If your friends took someone elses creation, did nothing, and then made a million copies of it to sell for profit, THEN they are violating copyright.

</p><p>Seriously, get a lawyer. If you proceed in your misinformed thoughts you are going to find yourself on the receiving end of whats called a 'declaratory judgment' from someone who your all-encompassing ego sent a threat of copyright litigation.

</p><p>How do I know this? Well some self-important ass clown tried to send me a <a href="http://www.demystify.info/legal/CandD/jarglaw.html" title="demystify.info">cease and desist letter claiming copyright infringement</a> [demystify.info]. So instead of backing down, I hit back harder and filed for a declaratory judgment against them. They obviously lost, as their understanding of copyright is about as accurate as yours. When you dont have any idea what the law is, you better not be making legal threats against people, or spending your time looking for people who you suspect of violating something based on your own inaccurate understanding of the subject.

</p><p>If you ever crossed paths with me with that BS in public, I would hang you out to dry in the court system so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there are plenty of people who have filed to run their business as a corporation .
You arent a 'corporate owner ' , that phrase drips with sanctimonious self-importance .
I certainly hope you hire a lawyer very quickly to handle your copyright , as you obviously have zero idea what copryright law actually is .
When 'your friends ' create a mix from someone elses music , or use video clips for school work , they are NOT violating copyright .
If your friends took someone elses creation , did nothing , and then made a million copies of it to sell for profit , THEN they are violating copyright .
Seriously , get a lawyer .
If you proceed in your misinformed thoughts you are going to find yourself on the receiving end of whats called a 'declaratory judgment ' from someone who your all-encompassing ego sent a threat of copyright litigation .
How do I know this ?
Well some self-important ass clown tried to send me a cease and desist letter claiming copyright infringement [ demystify.info ] .
So instead of backing down , I hit back harder and filed for a declaratory judgment against them .
They obviously lost , as their understanding of copyright is about as accurate as yours .
When you dont have any idea what the law is , you better not be making legal threats against people , or spending your time looking for people who you suspect of violating something based on your own inaccurate understanding of the subject .
If you ever crossed paths with me with that BS in public , I would hang you out to dry in the court system so fast , you would n't know what hit you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there are plenty of people who have filed to run their business as a corporation.
You arent a 'corporate owner', that phrase drips with sanctimonious self-importance.
I certainly hope you hire a lawyer very quickly to handle your copyright, as you obviously have zero idea what copryright law actually is.
When 'your friends' create a mix from someone elses music, or use video clips for school work, they are NOT violating copyright.
If your friends took someone elses creation, did nothing, and then made a million copies of it to sell for profit, THEN they are violating copyright.
Seriously, get a lawyer.
If you proceed in your misinformed thoughts you are going to find yourself on the receiving end of whats called a 'declaratory judgment' from someone who your all-encompassing ego sent a threat of copyright litigation.
How do I know this?
Well some self-important ass clown tried to send me a cease and desist letter claiming copyright infringement [demystify.info].
So instead of backing down, I hit back harder and filed for a declaratory judgment against them.
They obviously lost, as their understanding of copyright is about as accurate as yours.
When you dont have any idea what the law is, you better not be making legal threats against people, or spending your time looking for people who you suspect of violating something based on your own inaccurate understanding of the subject.
If you ever crossed paths with me with that BS in public, I would hang you out to dry in the court system so fast, you wouldn't know what hit you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979802</id>
	<title>Joke Right?</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1257009780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hahahahahaha Hahahahahahaha.  This is a joke right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hahahahahaha Hahahahahahaha .
This is a joke right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hahahahahaha Hahahahahahaha.
This is a joke right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983404</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1257020220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Obama is a politician. This is what professional politicians do.</p></div></blockquote><p>Thing is that even an "honest" professional politician will soon end up out of touch withe the public.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, honest politicians <b>stay</b> bought.  You can't change their position for mere campaign contributions.</p><p>
The guy you wanna vote in is called a <b>statesman</b>.  He'll buck the controls on him if it'll be for the betterment of the people and the state.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is a politician .
This is what professional politicians do.Thing is that even an " honest " professional politician will soon end up out of touch withe the public .
No , honest politicians stay bought .
You ca n't change their position for mere campaign contributions .
The guy you wan na vote in is called a statesman .
He 'll buck the controls on him if it 'll be for the betterment of the people and the state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is a politician.
This is what professional politicians do.Thing is that even an "honest" professional politician will soon end up out of touch withe the public.
No, honest politicians stay bought.
You can't change their position for mere campaign contributions.
The guy you wanna vote in is called a statesman.
He'll buck the controls on him if it'll be for the betterment of the people and the state.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29998850</id>
	<title>False accusations and damages</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1257412140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a person falsely accuses me of violating a copyright, and the ISP shuts me down, could I claim damages from the ISP AND the person making the accusation?  That could be a way to discourage ISPs from cutting someone off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a person falsely accuses me of violating a copyright , and the ISP shuts me down , could I claim damages from the ISP AND the person making the accusation ?
That could be a way to discourage ISPs from cutting someone off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a person falsely accuses me of violating a copyright, and the ISP shuts me down, could I claim damages from the ISP AND the person making the accusation?
That could be a way to discourage ISPs from cutting someone off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981144</id>
	<title>National security</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1257013920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If national security depends on so called copyright...<br>
What does that say?<br>
Everybody knows that especially the US, but most other governments are bought by the (C) cartels.<br>
But what security does it imply?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If national security depends on so called copyright.. . What does that say ?
Everybody knows that especially the US , but most other governments are bought by the ( C ) cartels .
But what security does it imply ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If national security depends on so called copyright...
What does that say?
Everybody knows that especially the US, but most other governments are bought by the (C) cartels.
But what security does it imply?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979130</id>
	<title>Re:How can you be convicted of breaking a secret l</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1257007740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Odds are that the portions of the treaty that are considered sensative to national security deal with economic strategy or distribution of sensative products that are provided to the governments.  ie: We'll sell you these chips that you use to monitor North Korea, but you're only able to use them for that purpose...no giving the chips to your manufacturers that compete directly with our own.  These sections of the treaty are likely seperate or extensions of those that apply to normal commerce.M<br>It probably comes down to: We agree to respect IP laws but allow for the free use of purchased products (execept we don't want you using our classified tech that we're nice enough to give you to put our last chip makers out of business).<br> <br>However, not seeing the original document, I couldn't tell you what it covers.  It might be super horrible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Odds are that the portions of the treaty that are considered sensative to national security deal with economic strategy or distribution of sensative products that are provided to the governments .
ie : We 'll sell you these chips that you use to monitor North Korea , but you 're only able to use them for that purpose...no giving the chips to your manufacturers that compete directly with our own .
These sections of the treaty are likely seperate or extensions of those that apply to normal commerce.MIt probably comes down to : We agree to respect IP laws but allow for the free use of purchased products ( execept we do n't want you using our classified tech that we 're nice enough to give you to put our last chip makers out of business ) .
However , not seeing the original document , I could n't tell you what it covers .
It might be super horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odds are that the portions of the treaty that are considered sensative to national security deal with economic strategy or distribution of sensative products that are provided to the governments.
ie: We'll sell you these chips that you use to monitor North Korea, but you're only able to use them for that purpose...no giving the chips to your manufacturers that compete directly with our own.
These sections of the treaty are likely seperate or extensions of those that apply to normal commerce.MIt probably comes down to: We agree to respect IP laws but allow for the free use of purchased products (execept we don't want you using our classified tech that we're nice enough to give you to put our last chip makers out of business).
However, not seeing the original document, I couldn't tell you what it covers.
It might be super horrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978410</id>
	<title>Re:OH NOES</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. I didn't. But if I'm going to have to hear an asshole in the administration speak for four to eight years, I'd rather have to hear one who's articulate than one who can barely put two words together to make a coherent sentence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I did n't .
But if I 'm going to have to hear an asshole in the administration speak for four to eight years , I 'd rather have to hear one who 's articulate than one who can barely put two words together to make a coherent sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I didn't.
But if I'm going to have to hear an asshole in the administration speak for four to eight years, I'd rather have to hear one who's articulate than one who can barely put two words together to make a coherent sentence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980600</id>
	<title>Re:Devils avocate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sigh! People who don't know what a Devils advocate is.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's\_advocate" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]: In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position he or she does not agree with for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.</p><p>Moderators need to learn some new lexicon. And moderate accordings.  Lets TROLL ANY IDEA WE DISAGREE WITH!!! Even if the idea is trying to balance the idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh !
People who do n't know what a Devils advocate is.Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] : In common parlance , a devil 's advocate is someone who takes a position he or she does not agree with for the sake of argument .
This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.Moderators need to learn some new lexicon .
And moderate accordings .
Lets TROLL ANY IDEA WE DISAGREE WITH ! ! !
Even if the idea is trying to balance the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh!
People who don't know what a Devils advocate is.Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position he or she does not agree with for the sake of argument.
This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.Moderators need to learn some new lexicon.
And moderate accordings.
Lets TROLL ANY IDEA WE DISAGREE WITH!!!
Even if the idea is trying to balance the idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983830</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257021420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agreed completely until this statement. Mainstream media isn't that oblivious- they simply don't have YOUR best interests at heart.</p></div><p>That's why we need publicly-funded new media, like NPR, so that they aren't beholden to corporate interests and can report on news like this.</p><p>Which... <a href="http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=Anti-Counterfeiting+Trade+Agreement" title="npr.org" rel="nofollow">they haven't</a> [npr.org].</p><p>Possibly because they're beholden to the government which is what's pushing this through in the first place.</p><p>Dammit.</p><p>(In case you missed it, there was a recent story on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. suggesting that government-funded media would be the "answer" to the dying newspaper industry. Obviously not.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agreed completely until this statement .
Mainstream media is n't that oblivious- they simply do n't have YOUR best interests at heart.That 's why we need publicly-funded new media , like NPR , so that they are n't beholden to corporate interests and can report on news like this.Which... they have n't [ npr.org ] .Possibly because they 're beholden to the government which is what 's pushing this through in the first place.Dammit .
( In case you missed it , there was a recent story on / .
suggesting that government-funded media would be the " answer " to the dying newspaper industry .
Obviously not .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agreed completely until this statement.
Mainstream media isn't that oblivious- they simply don't have YOUR best interests at heart.That's why we need publicly-funded new media, like NPR, so that they aren't beholden to corporate interests and can report on news like this.Which... they haven't [npr.org].Possibly because they're beholden to the government which is what's pushing this through in the first place.Dammit.
(In case you missed it, there was a recent story on /.
suggesting that government-funded media would be the "answer" to the dying newspaper industry.
Obviously not.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980546</id>
	<title>Painting themselves into corners</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1257011940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The point people seem to forget is THIS WILL ONLY APPLY TO WORKS COVERED BY COPYRIGHT OR PATENT! It amazes me that people are so easily duped sometimes! Piss you off a little and all objectivity leaks from between your ears in rage. When you were a kid, and trying to figure out what friends you wanted to hang out with, one of the ways you determined this was by how high a price to your person and reputation you would have to pay for the association. Some groups required rites of passage, others that you participate in group-think, mob-action, tribute, or sacrifice. The only way to avoid paying any of these was to deny them all.
</p><p>
The same concept applies here. In order to avoid paying for crap, download and consume works from people not trying to extort you for every view, game or listen. Purchase such goods only if YOU feel the artist produced something worthy of the ask-price. ie. DON'T PLAY WITH THE KIDS WHO WANT TO ASS-RAPE YOU FOR NOT PAYING THEM EVERY TIME YOU COPY, WATCH, OR LISTEN TO THEIR WORKS!!! =PROBLEM SOLVED.
</p><p>
Put your products out on the web. Price them fairly, make a quality product, and you won't have to worry too much about piracy.
</p><p>
-Oz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point people seem to forget is THIS WILL ONLY APPLY TO WORKS COVERED BY COPYRIGHT OR PATENT !
It amazes me that people are so easily duped sometimes !
Piss you off a little and all objectivity leaks from between your ears in rage .
When you were a kid , and trying to figure out what friends you wanted to hang out with , one of the ways you determined this was by how high a price to your person and reputation you would have to pay for the association .
Some groups required rites of passage , others that you participate in group-think , mob-action , tribute , or sacrifice .
The only way to avoid paying any of these was to deny them all .
The same concept applies here .
In order to avoid paying for crap , download and consume works from people not trying to extort you for every view , game or listen .
Purchase such goods only if YOU feel the artist produced something worthy of the ask-price .
ie. DO N'T PLAY WITH THE KIDS WHO WANT TO ASS-RAPE YOU FOR NOT PAYING THEM EVERY TIME YOU COPY , WATCH , OR LISTEN TO THEIR WORKS ! ! !
= PROBLEM SOLVED .
Put your products out on the web .
Price them fairly , make a quality product , and you wo n't have to worry too much about piracy .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The point people seem to forget is THIS WILL ONLY APPLY TO WORKS COVERED BY COPYRIGHT OR PATENT!
It amazes me that people are so easily duped sometimes!
Piss you off a little and all objectivity leaks from between your ears in rage.
When you were a kid, and trying to figure out what friends you wanted to hang out with, one of the ways you determined this was by how high a price to your person and reputation you would have to pay for the association.
Some groups required rites of passage, others that you participate in group-think, mob-action, tribute, or sacrifice.
The only way to avoid paying any of these was to deny them all.
The same concept applies here.
In order to avoid paying for crap, download and consume works from people not trying to extort you for every view, game or listen.
Purchase such goods only if YOU feel the artist produced something worthy of the ask-price.
ie. DON'T PLAY WITH THE KIDS WHO WANT TO ASS-RAPE YOU FOR NOT PAYING THEM EVERY TIME YOU COPY, WATCH, OR LISTEN TO THEIR WORKS!!!
=PROBLEM SOLVED.
Put your products out on the web.
Price them fairly, make a quality product, and you won't have to worry too much about piracy.
-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979370</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>LandDolphin</author>
	<datestamp>1257008460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?</p></div><p>
The United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."

<br> <br>

So, Yeah.  If the President and two thirds of the Senate pass the treaty, than it is the Law of the Land.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if agreed upon as a treaty , will it hold up in any courts ?
The United States Constitution , Article VI , paragraph 2 : " ...all Treaties made , or which shall be made , under the Authority of the United States , shall be the supreme Law of the Land ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby... " So , Yeah .
If the President and two thirds of the Senate pass the treaty , than it is the Law of the Land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?
The United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."

 

So, Yeah.
If the President and two thirds of the Senate pass the treaty, than it is the Law of the Land.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978150</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1257004440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it surprising that the mainstream media isn't reporting on this considering that their parent corporations are the ones pushing this?

NBC News, MSNBC News = NBC Universal
Fox News, WSJ, NY Post, etc = News Corp
CBS News = CBS Corp/Viacom
ABC News = Disney
CNN = Time Warner</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it surprising that the mainstream media is n't reporting on this considering that their parent corporations are the ones pushing this ?
NBC News , MSNBC News = NBC Universal Fox News , WSJ , NY Post , etc = News Corp CBS News = CBS Corp/Viacom ABC News = Disney CNN = Time Warner</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it surprising that the mainstream media isn't reporting on this considering that their parent corporations are the ones pushing this?
NBC News, MSNBC News = NBC Universal
Fox News, WSJ, NY Post, etc = News Corp
CBS News = CBS Corp/Viacom
ABC News = Disney
CNN = Time Warner</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.30004920</id>
	<title>Re:What Do We Know?</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1257517680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there is no doubt that counterfeiting will be stretched to include copyright infringement. The reason is simply that most/all? western countries have lost a lot of their industrial base. It is cheaper to use lower paid workers in countries with lower standards of health and safety. Therefore what can these countries do to fill the gap? Many of them see content creation and advanced knowledge as the new industries which we can out compete poorer, more populous countries. </p><p>However there is one problem with this and that is knowledge and information are easily transferable, a CPU design or film is easy to share throughout the world. Only a strong legal framework and enforcement could stop such a natural and easy process. As "stealing" information is so easy to accomplish expect harsher and more desperate laws over the coming decades regarding "IP".</p><p>
Until they eventually work out it won't really work. [cry]
This new treaty as has been described by Geist is a natural progression from what we already have through TRIPS and WIPO. Typical politicians, when laws they make did not have the desired consequences, make harsher and many more laws!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there is no doubt that counterfeiting will be stretched to include copyright infringement .
The reason is simply that most/all ?
western countries have lost a lot of their industrial base .
It is cheaper to use lower paid workers in countries with lower standards of health and safety .
Therefore what can these countries do to fill the gap ?
Many of them see content creation and advanced knowledge as the new industries which we can out compete poorer , more populous countries .
However there is one problem with this and that is knowledge and information are easily transferable , a CPU design or film is easy to share throughout the world .
Only a strong legal framework and enforcement could stop such a natural and easy process .
As " stealing " information is so easy to accomplish expect harsher and more desperate laws over the coming decades regarding " IP " .
Until they eventually work out it wo n't really work .
[ cry ] This new treaty as has been described by Geist is a natural progression from what we already have through TRIPS and WIPO .
Typical politicians , when laws they make did not have the desired consequences , make harsher and many more laws !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there is no doubt that counterfeiting will be stretched to include copyright infringement.
The reason is simply that most/all?
western countries have lost a lot of their industrial base.
It is cheaper to use lower paid workers in countries with lower standards of health and safety.
Therefore what can these countries do to fill the gap?
Many of them see content creation and advanced knowledge as the new industries which we can out compete poorer, more populous countries.
However there is one problem with this and that is knowledge and information are easily transferable, a CPU design or film is easy to share throughout the world.
Only a strong legal framework and enforcement could stop such a natural and easy process.
As "stealing" information is so easy to accomplish expect harsher and more desperate laws over the coming decades regarding "IP".
Until they eventually work out it won't really work.
[cry]
This new treaty as has been described by Geist is a natural progression from what we already have through TRIPS and WIPO.
Typical politicians, when laws they make did not have the desired consequences, make harsher and many more laws!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982476</id>
	<title>I've said it before</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1257017700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but in a real way, I'm glad I'm not younger, as the next 40 years (if we even have that) are really gonna suck.  I really used to enjoy following the progress of high tech in our lives, never realizing it was all being done just to build more effective tools of oppression.  Soon, the most unobtainable treasure will be true privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but in a real way , I 'm glad I 'm not younger , as the next 40 years ( if we even have that ) are really gon na suck .
I really used to enjoy following the progress of high tech in our lives , never realizing it was all being done just to build more effective tools of oppression .
Soon , the most unobtainable treasure will be true privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but in a real way, I'm glad I'm not younger, as the next 40 years (if we even have that) are really gonna suck.
I really used to enjoy following the progress of high tech in our lives, never realizing it was all being done just to build more effective tools of oppression.
Soon, the most unobtainable treasure will be true privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978308</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what you're saying is that you really don't give a damn about the art and are simply doing it for the money? I mean really, saying that you don't want people to use your work for such things isn't really going to stop them once they have access to it. People want to take art that has been created, change it and make it their own. I mean, Shakespeare is one of the most celebrated playwrights, and most of his work is derivative. I understand that you need to live, and I can see why you would need the money, but taking money from kids is just pointless. Teaching them that they can't be creative, they can't use the tools that others have provided them with and things that they may even own a copy of by paying for it legally just seems wel, evil.</p><p>I partially understand what you want and at the same time do not understand you at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what you 're saying is that you really do n't give a damn about the art and are simply doing it for the money ?
I mean really , saying that you do n't want people to use your work for such things is n't really going to stop them once they have access to it .
People want to take art that has been created , change it and make it their own .
I mean , Shakespeare is one of the most celebrated playwrights , and most of his work is derivative .
I understand that you need to live , and I can see why you would need the money , but taking money from kids is just pointless .
Teaching them that they ca n't be creative , they ca n't use the tools that others have provided them with and things that they may even own a copy of by paying for it legally just seems wel , evil.I partially understand what you want and at the same time do not understand you at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what you're saying is that you really don't give a damn about the art and are simply doing it for the money?
I mean really, saying that you don't want people to use your work for such things isn't really going to stop them once they have access to it.
People want to take art that has been created, change it and make it their own.
I mean, Shakespeare is one of the most celebrated playwrights, and most of his work is derivative.
I understand that you need to live, and I can see why you would need the money, but taking money from kids is just pointless.
Teaching them that they can't be creative, they can't use the tools that others have provided them with and things that they may even own a copy of by paying for it legally just seems wel, evil.I partially understand what you want and at the same time do not understand you at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979830</id>
	<title>On the fence but leaning for this legalese</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must side with small artists, software developers, and musicians who are trying to make a living without the umbrella of the music and computer mafia.  They are the ones who really suffer when people decide that they don't need to pay for that content, that it should be free.  Slashdotters routinely find themselves polarized either for or against FOSS.  I feel like people think that arts, music, and computer code should be free and open sourced as well.  As a professional software developer who also contributes GPL code, I feel that it is my right to tell you when my creations are free and whey they aren't.  It is not for you to make that decision for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must side with small artists , software developers , and musicians who are trying to make a living without the umbrella of the music and computer mafia .
They are the ones who really suffer when people decide that they do n't need to pay for that content , that it should be free .
Slashdotters routinely find themselves polarized either for or against FOSS .
I feel like people think that arts , music , and computer code should be free and open sourced as well .
As a professional software developer who also contributes GPL code , I feel that it is my right to tell you when my creations are free and whey they are n't .
It is not for you to make that decision for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must side with small artists, software developers, and musicians who are trying to make a living without the umbrella of the music and computer mafia.
They are the ones who really suffer when people decide that they don't need to pay for that content, that it should be free.
Slashdotters routinely find themselves polarized either for or against FOSS.
I feel like people think that arts, music, and computer code should be free and open sourced as well.
As a professional software developer who also contributes GPL code, I feel that it is my right to tell you when my creations are free and whey they aren't.
It is not for you to make that decision for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29984910</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1256981700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Obama is Kenyan, not American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Obama is Kenyan , not American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Obama is Kenyan, not American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979002</id>
	<title>The problem with Presidents</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1257007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with Presidents is that we can only count on them to have a clue on a few things, and we can only select them on a few issues. Obama may have a great foreign policy, admirable intent for health care, and some other nice things, but he's not clued on every potential issue. That said, I'm very disappointed at them dropping the ball on this. Not all legislation is bad, not all legislation is good, but if we're going to have some bad legislation, the least we can hope is that it's developed badly in the open. Of course, other nations that are negotiating this may be even worse off - I suspect that US-based businesses are the main forces writing ACTA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Presidents is that we can only count on them to have a clue on a few things , and we can only select them on a few issues .
Obama may have a great foreign policy , admirable intent for health care , and some other nice things , but he 's not clued on every potential issue .
That said , I 'm very disappointed at them dropping the ball on this .
Not all legislation is bad , not all legislation is good , but if we 're going to have some bad legislation , the least we can hope is that it 's developed badly in the open .
Of course , other nations that are negotiating this may be even worse off - I suspect that US-based businesses are the main forces writing ACTA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Presidents is that we can only count on them to have a clue on a few things, and we can only select them on a few issues.
Obama may have a great foreign policy, admirable intent for health care, and some other nice things, but he's not clued on every potential issue.
That said, I'm very disappointed at them dropping the ball on this.
Not all legislation is bad, not all legislation is good, but if we're going to have some bad legislation, the least we can hope is that it's developed badly in the open.
Of course, other nations that are negotiating this may be even worse off - I suspect that US-based businesses are the main forces writing ACTA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.30000310</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257418140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better yet, just rent the video from one of those one-dollar-a-night kiosks at Wal-Mart, copy it at home, return it that evening, and watch the movie at your leisure.  No large downloads for your ISP to bitch about, no way for the content provider to know that the movie in question was ever copied, and no $20 expenditure for a pressed copy.  Distribute additional copies via whatever back-alley method you'd have otherwise used to obtain the movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , just rent the video from one of those one-dollar-a-night kiosks at Wal-Mart , copy it at home , return it that evening , and watch the movie at your leisure .
No large downloads for your ISP to bitch about , no way for the content provider to know that the movie in question was ever copied , and no $ 20 expenditure for a pressed copy .
Distribute additional copies via whatever back-alley method you 'd have otherwise used to obtain the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, just rent the video from one of those one-dollar-a-night kiosks at Wal-Mart, copy it at home, return it that evening, and watch the movie at your leisure.
No large downloads for your ISP to bitch about, no way for the content provider to know that the movie in question was ever copied, and no $20 expenditure for a pressed copy.
Distribute additional copies via whatever back-alley method you'd have otherwise used to obtain the movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979082</id>
	<title>Go After Individual Lobbyists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll wager that the lobbying industry working for Big Content are filled with the same dishonest, shady and corrupt characters that shilled for Big Tobacco decades ago when they tried to deny links between smoking and lung cancer for purely selfish business reasons; or the corrupt rightwing shills who effectively conned the US government in waging wars and terrorism against Latin American countries to "protect US interests" (e.g. United Fruit).  The same morally bankrupt individuals who staff lobbying companies and populate rightwing think tanks that are blitzing the world with climate denialism.</p><p>Perhaps it's time for society to start asking who these people are, who they're working for and what they're getting paid.  A public open database of paid lobbyists and shills might be useful. Perhaps these weasels might be less keen on trashing our liberties for profit if they know that light is being shone on their corrupt activities.</p><p>Chances are, there will be only several dozen key individuals, who if pressured enough, and "encouraged" to find a more legitimate and honest lines of work, would make a big difference in fighting the onward march of vested interests in eroding our rights for profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll wager that the lobbying industry working for Big Content are filled with the same dishonest , shady and corrupt characters that shilled for Big Tobacco decades ago when they tried to deny links between smoking and lung cancer for purely selfish business reasons ; or the corrupt rightwing shills who effectively conned the US government in waging wars and terrorism against Latin American countries to " protect US interests " ( e.g .
United Fruit ) .
The same morally bankrupt individuals who staff lobbying companies and populate rightwing think tanks that are blitzing the world with climate denialism.Perhaps it 's time for society to start asking who these people are , who they 're working for and what they 're getting paid .
A public open database of paid lobbyists and shills might be useful .
Perhaps these weasels might be less keen on trashing our liberties for profit if they know that light is being shone on their corrupt activities.Chances are , there will be only several dozen key individuals , who if pressured enough , and " encouraged " to find a more legitimate and honest lines of work , would make a big difference in fighting the onward march of vested interests in eroding our rights for profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll wager that the lobbying industry working for Big Content are filled with the same dishonest, shady and corrupt characters that shilled for Big Tobacco decades ago when they tried to deny links between smoking and lung cancer for purely selfish business reasons; or the corrupt rightwing shills who effectively conned the US government in waging wars and terrorism against Latin American countries to "protect US interests" (e.g.
United Fruit).
The same morally bankrupt individuals who staff lobbying companies and populate rightwing think tanks that are blitzing the world with climate denialism.Perhaps it's time for society to start asking who these people are, who they're working for and what they're getting paid.
A public open database of paid lobbyists and shills might be useful.
Perhaps these weasels might be less keen on trashing our liberties for profit if they know that light is being shone on their corrupt activities.Chances are, there will be only several dozen key individuals, who if pressured enough, and "encouraged" to find a more legitimate and honest lines of work, would make a big difference in fighting the onward march of vested interests in eroding our rights for profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981850</id>
	<title>Wikileaks had it more than a year ago...</title>
	<author>isd.bz</author>
	<datestamp>1257015960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed\_US\_ACTA\_multi-lateral\_intellectual\_property\_trade\_agreement\_(2007)" title="wikileaks.org" rel="nofollow">ACTA Proposal (2007)</a> [wikileaks.org] was leaked by Wikileaks more than a year ago. Granted, this was a rough draft of a rough draft, but the principles are still the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ACTA Proposal ( 2007 ) [ wikileaks.org ] was leaked by Wikileaks more than a year ago .
Granted , this was a rough draft of a rough draft , but the principles are still the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ACTA Proposal (2007) [wikileaks.org] was leaked by Wikileaks more than a year ago.
Granted, this was a rough draft of a rough draft, but the principles are still the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980010</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Critical Facilities</author>
	<datestamp>1257010380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry. You are a minority. A corporate drone without creativity and/or life. Please, move along. Don't let the door hit you.....I do not support neither software patents (even though I hold some)</p></div><p>Oh come off it,  you're full of it.  If you don't support the idea,  then perhaps you can explain why you hold the software patents at all?<br> <br>You people with your condescending,  borderline ecclesiastical defense of this "everything must be free" mentality are completely bereft of any rational perspective.  I'd wager that your oh\_so\_much\_more\_evolved\_than\_the\_rest\_of\_you attitude would change dramatically if the "software" you sell were subject to much more piracy,  and if you were to find your ability to provide for yourself as a result.  <br> <br>Guys like you spout off on this tip that you'd "rather lose more sales than lose more freedoms" as though it were that cut and dried.  All of you would sing a different tune if you lost <strong>all</strong> or <strong>most</strong> of your sales,  and were suddenly trying to pay your bills.<br> <br>Mod me down if you want,  I don't care.  I just get tired of this idea that anyone who creates anything should be demonized for wanting to protect it from being stolen and from wanting to be able to recoup some of his/her expenses associated with the creation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry .
You are a minority .
A corporate drone without creativity and/or life .
Please , move along .
Do n't let the door hit you.....I do not support neither software patents ( even though I hold some ) Oh come off it , you 're full of it .
If you do n't support the idea , then perhaps you can explain why you hold the software patents at all ?
You people with your condescending , borderline ecclesiastical defense of this " everything must be free " mentality are completely bereft of any rational perspective .
I 'd wager that your oh \ _so \ _much \ _more \ _evolved \ _than \ _the \ _rest \ _of \ _you attitude would change dramatically if the " software " you sell were subject to much more piracy , and if you were to find your ability to provide for yourself as a result .
Guys like you spout off on this tip that you 'd " rather lose more sales than lose more freedoms " as though it were that cut and dried .
All of you would sing a different tune if you lost all or most of your sales , and were suddenly trying to pay your bills .
Mod me down if you want , I do n't care .
I just get tired of this idea that anyone who creates anything should be demonized for wanting to protect it from being stolen and from wanting to be able to recoup some of his/her expenses associated with the creation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry.
You are a minority.
A corporate drone without creativity and/or life.
Please, move along.
Don't let the door hit you.....I do not support neither software patents (even though I hold some)Oh come off it,  you're full of it.
If you don't support the idea,  then perhaps you can explain why you hold the software patents at all?
You people with your condescending,  borderline ecclesiastical defense of this "everything must be free" mentality are completely bereft of any rational perspective.
I'd wager that your oh\_so\_much\_more\_evolved\_than\_the\_rest\_of\_you attitude would change dramatically if the "software" you sell were subject to much more piracy,  and if you were to find your ability to provide for yourself as a result.
Guys like you spout off on this tip that you'd "rather lose more sales than lose more freedoms" as though it were that cut and dried.
All of you would sing a different tune if you lost all or most of your sales,  and were suddenly trying to pay your bills.
Mod me down if you want,  I don't care.
I just get tired of this idea that anyone who creates anything should be demonized for wanting to protect it from being stolen and from wanting to be able to recoup some of his/her expenses associated with the creation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982416</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257017580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the whole past 5 years were coming to this end. Remember Trusted Computing? Now TPM chips are everywhere, meaning that infrastructure for this kind of laws is widespread, all it needs is to be switched on. Secret treaties? I am sure it is something public would love. And being on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. one would expect people would be rational enough to never trust a politician, even glorified with Nobel Peace Prize. The question now is: are we going to fascism or communism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the whole past 5 years were coming to this end .
Remember Trusted Computing ?
Now TPM chips are everywhere , meaning that infrastructure for this kind of laws is widespread , all it needs is to be switched on .
Secret treaties ?
I am sure it is something public would love .
And being on / .
one would expect people would be rational enough to never trust a politician , even glorified with Nobel Peace Prize .
The question now is : are we going to fascism or communism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the whole past 5 years were coming to this end.
Remember Trusted Computing?
Now TPM chips are everywhere, meaning that infrastructure for this kind of laws is widespread, all it needs is to be switched on.
Secret treaties?
I am sure it is something public would love.
And being on /.
one would expect people would be rational enough to never trust a politician, even glorified with Nobel Peace Prize.
The question now is: are we going to fascism or communism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988108</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1256993100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You people with your condescending, borderline ecclesiastical defense of this "everything must be free" mentality are completely bereft of any rational perspective.</p></div><p>Well, I'm not one of the "everything must be free guys", and I'm broadly pro-copyright (though in favor of term reduction). However, I am disgusted by GGP's post as well. His key premise is this:</p><p><i>"Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former."</i></p><p>He then goes on to say that the sole reason for his position is because it is more beneficial for him personally; in other words, sheer egotistical greed. I have very little sympathy for people like that. Society as a whole has interests too, and it takes a carefully tuned balance of those versus individual interests to make things tick. GGP is one of the people who deliberately upset those balance because they want as much as they can grab, and they want it here and now, and screw everyone else who gets in the way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You people with your condescending , borderline ecclesiastical defense of this " everything must be free " mentality are completely bereft of any rational perspective.Well , I 'm not one of the " everything must be free guys " , and I 'm broadly pro-copyright ( though in favor of term reduction ) .
However , I am disgusted by GGP 's post as well .
His key premise is this : " Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use , and I 'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former .
" He then goes on to say that the sole reason for his position is because it is more beneficial for him personally ; in other words , sheer egotistical greed .
I have very little sympathy for people like that .
Society as a whole has interests too , and it takes a carefully tuned balance of those versus individual interests to make things tick .
GGP is one of the people who deliberately upset those balance because they want as much as they can grab , and they want it here and now , and screw everyone else who gets in the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people with your condescending, borderline ecclesiastical defense of this "everything must be free" mentality are completely bereft of any rational perspective.Well, I'm not one of the "everything must be free guys", and I'm broadly pro-copyright (though in favor of term reduction).
However, I am disgusted by GGP's post as well.
His key premise is this:"Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.
"He then goes on to say that the sole reason for his position is because it is more beneficial for him personally; in other words, sheer egotistical greed.
I have very little sympathy for people like that.
Society as a whole has interests too, and it takes a carefully tuned balance of those versus individual interests to make things tick.
GGP is one of the people who deliberately upset those balance because they want as much as they can grab, and they want it here and now, and screw everyone else who gets in the way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981888</id>
	<title>Re:How can you be convicted of breaking a secret l</title>
	<author>Solemn Bob</author>
	<datestamp>1257016140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out Gilmore v Gonzales:   <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore\_v.\_Gonzales" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore\_v.\_Gonzales</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>John Gilmore sued then-attorney general Alberto Gonzales in 2005, complaining (among other things) that when airport security refused to let him on a flight without showing ID, that no one would tell him which law made that a requirement.  Because that law was a Secret.</p><p>He lost. As best I can tell, he lost without him or his lawyers ever getting to see the text of the law he was theoretically violating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Gilmore v Gonzales : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore \ _v. \ _Gonzales [ wikipedia.org ] John Gilmore sued then-attorney general Alberto Gonzales in 2005 , complaining ( among other things ) that when airport security refused to let him on a flight without showing ID , that no one would tell him which law made that a requirement .
Because that law was a Secret.He lost .
As best I can tell , he lost without him or his lawyers ever getting to see the text of the law he was theoretically violating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Gilmore v Gonzales:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore\_v.\_Gonzales [wikipedia.org]John Gilmore sued then-attorney general Alberto Gonzales in 2005, complaining (among other things) that when airport security refused to let him on a flight without showing ID, that no one would tell him which law made that a requirement.
Because that law was a Secret.He lost.
As best I can tell, he lost without him or his lawyers ever getting to see the text of the law he was theoretically violating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978048</id>
	<title>Re:Devils avocate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.<br>Added to this we have to carefully defend ownership of intellectual property. If ownership of intellectual property would ever be undermined other kinds of property are next in line. Private ownership is the basis of democracy, regardless of the type of property in question. A worldwide communism where no private individual has ownership does not sound appealing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.Added to this we have to carefully defend ownership of intellectual property .
If ownership of intellectual property would ever be undermined other kinds of property are next in line .
Private ownership is the basis of democracy , regardless of the type of property in question .
A worldwide communism where no private individual has ownership does not sound appealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.Added to this we have to carefully defend ownership of intellectual property.
If ownership of intellectual property would ever be undermined other kinds of property are next in line.
Private ownership is the basis of democracy, regardless of the type of property in question.
A worldwide communism where no private individual has ownership does not sound appealing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979618</id>
	<title>oh yes ! yes. ruining SO many lives.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1257009240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 cents over 20 bucks goes to distribution companies, artists get ZIT, distribution companies dont employ any noticeable portion of workforce or supply any noticeable side industries, buuuuuut, you come up here saying 'so many lives ruined'.</p><p>excuse me, but are you stupid ? are you SO completely naive ? how the hell are you even able to muster the cognitive power to use internet ? read the below so you can get some sense in your head :</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430956&amp;cid=29979454" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430956&amp;cid=29979454</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 cents over 20 bucks goes to distribution companies , artists get ZIT , distribution companies dont employ any noticeable portion of workforce or supply any noticeable side industries , buuuuuut , you come up here saying 'so many lives ruined'.excuse me , but are you stupid ?
are you SO completely naive ?
how the hell are you even able to muster the cognitive power to use internet ?
read the below so you can get some sense in your head : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1430956&amp;cid = 29979454 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 cents over 20 bucks goes to distribution companies, artists get ZIT, distribution companies dont employ any noticeable portion of workforce or supply any noticeable side industries, buuuuuut, you come up here saying 'so many lives ruined'.excuse me, but are you stupid ?
are you SO completely naive ?
how the hell are you even able to muster the cognitive power to use internet ?
read the below so you can get some sense in your head :http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1430956&amp;cid=29979454 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978794</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>japhering</author>
	<datestamp>1257006660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are people (the decision makers) taking this seriously? It reads like something from The Onion...</p><p>Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?</p><p>Above all, will it even work? So instead of a handful of very popular torrent sites (and video, picture, file, etc sharing) we get millions of small secret for-friends-only sites.... or we go back to CD/DVD trading</p></div><p>Yes, once it is ratified it holds authority above the local courts and constitutions.  The US Supreme Court would NOT have standing to review any of the provisions of the treaty.   Same for any country that approves the treaty.   As such, the content holders will go after anyone that violates any of the provisions and the accused will have ZERO recourse, because there is NOT a single court in the world that has standing to challenge an approved treaty</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are people ( the decision makers ) taking this seriously ?
It reads like something from The Onion...Even if agreed upon as a treaty , will it hold up in any courts ? Above all , will it even work ?
So instead of a handful of very popular torrent sites ( and video , picture , file , etc sharing ) we get millions of small secret for-friends-only sites.... or we go back to CD/DVD tradingYes , once it is ratified it holds authority above the local courts and constitutions .
The US Supreme Court would NOT have standing to review any of the provisions of the treaty .
Same for any country that approves the treaty .
As such , the content holders will go after anyone that violates any of the provisions and the accused will have ZERO recourse , because there is NOT a single court in the world that has standing to challenge an approved treaty</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are people (the decision makers) taking this seriously?
It reads like something from The Onion...Even if agreed upon as a treaty, will it hold up in any courts?Above all, will it even work?
So instead of a handful of very popular torrent sites (and video, picture, file, etc sharing) we get millions of small secret for-friends-only sites.... or we go back to CD/DVD tradingYes, once it is ratified it holds authority above the local courts and constitutions.
The US Supreme Court would NOT have standing to review any of the provisions of the treaty.
Same for any country that approves the treaty.
As such, the content holders will go after anyone that violates any of the provisions and the accused will have ZERO recourse, because there is NOT a single court in the world that has standing to challenge an approved treaty
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979182</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>urulokion</author>
	<datestamp>1257007920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose.  Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.</p> </div><p>Do you even kno what the basis of Fair Use is? It's not something that you can sacrifice. Fair Use derives from diametrically opposed provisions of the US Constitution.</p><p>The First Amendment:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."</p></div><p>And the Copyright Clause:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.</p></div><p>The first gives me unlimited freedom to use speech even it's someone else's speech. And the second gives a limited time monopoly to a creator's speech. You cannot downplay nor get rid of one or the other. They have equal weight in determining the law.</p><p>Though the years,court cases and precedents, the US Courts crafted the Fair Use doctrine as a balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause. And ultimately the Fair Use doctrine was written into law by the US Congress.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm agreeing with most of the intent , and certainly all of the purpose .
Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use , and I 'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former .
Do you even kno what the basis of Fair Use is ?
It 's not something that you can sacrifice .
Fair Use derives from diametrically opposed provisions of the US Constitution.The First Amendment : " Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech... " And the Copyright Clause : To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.The first gives me unlimited freedom to use speech even it 's someone else 's speech .
And the second gives a limited time monopoly to a creator 's speech .
You can not downplay nor get rid of one or the other .
They have equal weight in determining the law.Though the years,court cases and precedents , the US Courts crafted the Fair Use doctrine as a balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause .
And ultimately the Fair Use doctrine was written into law by the US Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose.
Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.
Do you even kno what the basis of Fair Use is?
It's not something that you can sacrifice.
Fair Use derives from diametrically opposed provisions of the US Constitution.The First Amendment:"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."And the Copyright Clause:To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.The first gives me unlimited freedom to use speech even it's someone else's speech.
And the second gives a limited time monopoly to a creator's speech.
You cannot downplay nor get rid of one or the other.
They have equal weight in determining the law.Though the years,court cases and precedents, the US Courts crafted the Fair Use doctrine as a balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause.
And ultimately the Fair Use doctrine was written into law by the US Congress.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29997770</id>
	<title>Re:How can you be convicted of breaking a secret l</title>
	<author>themusicgod1</author>
	<datestamp>1257450660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt> How would the secret treaty work in Canada? Change the laws secretly?</tt>
<br> <br>
It'll be just like the WIPO Copyright Treaty -- we'll sign it, and then we'll argue for the next 10-20 years about whether or not we've ratified it and whether or not we need to institute draconian laws to ratify it.  The first step, however is to not sign the damn treaty in the first place, because once we do the conservatives and liberals will use it as an excuse to create the law (because clearly large US media conglomerates matter a lot more than the voice of the canadian people).</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the secret treaty work in Canada ?
Change the laws secretly ?
It 'll be just like the WIPO Copyright Treaty -- we 'll sign it , and then we 'll argue for the next 10-20 years about whether or not we 've ratified it and whether or not we need to institute draconian laws to ratify it .
The first step , however is to not sign the damn treaty in the first place , because once we do the conservatives and liberals will use it as an excuse to create the law ( because clearly large US media conglomerates matter a lot more than the voice of the canadian people ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How would the secret treaty work in Canada?
Change the laws secretly?
It'll be just like the WIPO Copyright Treaty -- we'll sign it, and then we'll argue for the next 10-20 years about whether or not we've ratified it and whether or not we need to institute draconian laws to ratify it.
The first step, however is to not sign the damn treaty in the first place, because once we do the conservatives and liberals will use it as an excuse to create the law (because clearly large US media conglomerates matter a lot more than the voice of the canadian people).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982826</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1257018660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, are you saying it's better if we trust the opinions of someone sitting in the closed off world of the metropolis instead of the man providing your food, fixing your transportation, keeping your power lines on, building your house, or one of the many other things "red necks" do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , are you saying it 's better if we trust the opinions of someone sitting in the closed off world of the metropolis instead of the man providing your food , fixing your transportation , keeping your power lines on , building your house , or one of the many other things " red necks " do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, are you saying it's better if we trust the opinions of someone sitting in the closed off world of the metropolis instead of the man providing your food, fixing your transportation, keeping your power lines on, building your house, or one of the many other things "red necks" do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978214</id>
	<title>Re:What are the chances of this being adopted?</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1257004620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Above all, will it even work?</p></div></blockquote><p>You're making the fundamental assumption here that no legislature would ever pass a law that couldn't achieve the stated purpose of the law.
</p><p>History tends to show that few, if any, laws achieve their stated purposes.  Though they pretty much all tend to remove a bit of freedom....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Above all , will it even work ? You 're making the fundamental assumption here that no legislature would ever pass a law that could n't achieve the stated purpose of the law .
History tends to show that few , if any , laws achieve their stated purposes .
Though they pretty much all tend to remove a bit of freedom... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Above all, will it even work?You're making the fundamental assumption here that no legislature would ever pass a law that couldn't achieve the stated purpose of the law.
History tends to show that few, if any, laws achieve their stated purposes.
Though they pretty much all tend to remove a bit of freedom....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980200</id>
	<title>Freenet time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this will be the point at which people will take interest in Freenet( http://freenetproject.org/ ). It might be awfully slow, but could be our only hope... I have been waiting fearfully the moment when I will start hating my internet connection's speed to be even slower than it already is because I'm forced to use something like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this will be the point at which people will take interest in Freenet ( http : //freenetproject.org/ ) .
It might be awfully slow , but could be our only hope... I have been waiting fearfully the moment when I will start hating my internet connection 's speed to be even slower than it already is because I 'm forced to use something like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this will be the point at which people will take interest in Freenet( http://freenetproject.org/ ).
It might be awfully slow, but could be our only hope... I have been waiting fearfully the moment when I will start hating my internet connection's speed to be even slower than it already is because I'm forced to use something like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29998668</id>
	<title>great</title>
	<author>vuffi\_raa</author>
	<datestamp>1257454380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It means I will get more idiots sending me takedown notices to stop distributing my own music that I own the rights to... and then they can boot me from my ISP</htmltext>
<tokenext>It means I will get more idiots sending me takedown notices to stop distributing my own music that I own the rights to... and then they can boot me from my ISP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means I will get more idiots sending me takedown notices to stop distributing my own music that I own the rights to... and then they can boot me from my ISP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978486</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1257005700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sigh.  You kids today, <a href="http://slashdot.org/~Captain+Splendid/journal/216789" title="slashdot.org">unawares of your history.</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh .
You kids today , unawares of your history .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh.
You kids today, unawares of your history.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978394</id>
	<title>Re:OH NOES</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't think they'd be any different. I just knew the alternative was even worse.</p><p>The only shocker to me is that it's gotten to the point where <i>I can't hate politicians and large multinational corporations enough</i>. Like there's not enough vitriolic words and energy contained within the human brains and body to express adequately what <b>monumental bastards</b> they are. They're fucking blights on society. They're massive drag on the intellectual and economic progress of a country. They are the arch-enemy of freedom and free expression. They are absolutely opposed to anything that advances the state of the average man that doesn't grant a pile of money to the elite in the process.</p><p>Fuck these people and institutions. To quote Joe Pesci in Casino: "Don't fuck me in the ass and tell me it's a blowjob!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't think they 'd be any different .
I just knew the alternative was even worse.The only shocker to me is that it 's gotten to the point where I ca n't hate politicians and large multinational corporations enough .
Like there 's not enough vitriolic words and energy contained within the human brains and body to express adequately what monumental bastards they are .
They 're fucking blights on society .
They 're massive drag on the intellectual and economic progress of a country .
They are the arch-enemy of freedom and free expression .
They are absolutely opposed to anything that advances the state of the average man that does n't grant a pile of money to the elite in the process.Fuck these people and institutions .
To quote Joe Pesci in Casino : " Do n't fuck me in the ass and tell me it 's a blowjob !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't think they'd be any different.
I just knew the alternative was even worse.The only shocker to me is that it's gotten to the point where I can't hate politicians and large multinational corporations enough.
Like there's not enough vitriolic words and energy contained within the human brains and body to express adequately what monumental bastards they are.
They're fucking blights on society.
They're massive drag on the intellectual and economic progress of a country.
They are the arch-enemy of freedom and free expression.
They are absolutely opposed to anything that advances the state of the average man that doesn't grant a pile of money to the elite in the process.Fuck these people and institutions.
To quote Joe Pesci in Casino: "Don't fuck me in the ass and tell me it's a blowjob!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988846</id>
	<title>I hope it's not a sign.</title>
	<author>Rufty</author>
	<datestamp>1256996760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I click on this story there are 666 comments...
PS, 667'th post!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I click on this story there are 666 comments.. . PS , 667'th post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I click on this story there are 666 comments...
PS, 667'th post!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979122</id>
	<title>Re:So Where Exactly is this 'Leaked' Document?</title>
	<author>Smallpond</author>
	<datestamp>1257007740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole point is that there are precious few details about any of ACTA because nobody outside of the governments involved, their lawyers and a few high-paying lobby groups have been allowed to see any of its contents.</p><p>*Everything* about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it's too late to do anything about it.</p></div><p>There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own.  If you don't believe me, just ask the government to show it to you and prove me wrong.  Tell all your friends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point is that there are precious few details about any of ACTA because nobody outside of the governments involved , their lawyers and a few high-paying lobby groups have been allowed to see any of its contents .
* Everything * about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it 's too late to do anything about it.There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own .
If you do n't believe me , just ask the government to show it to you and prove me wrong .
Tell all your friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point is that there are precious few details about any of ACTA because nobody outside of the governments involved, their lawyers and a few high-paying lobby groups have been allowed to see any of its contents.
*Everything* about it is hearsay until either someone succeeds in getting an FOI request honoured or the thing gets ratified and it's too late to do anything about it.There is a section in the agreement allowing the RIAA or MPAA to confiscate all of your possessions if they find a single infringing item on any PC you own.
If you don't believe me, just ask the government to show it to you and prove me wrong.
Tell all your friends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983050</id>
	<title>Re:OH NOES</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257019320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I second this.  Explain to people what will happen in more exact terms than "OMG, the gubmint is after yewr pr0n and t00ns".  When Joe Sixpack realizes that he might be banned from the Internet for good because of pure allegations and no civil or criminal due process, he isn't going to take it sitting down.  There is already a lot of anti government sentiment as it is, and adding more facts to the situation.</p><p>It would help if you explained this to people as a treaty like NAFTA, that was not passed for the good for American people, but something to take something away.  NAFTA took jobs, this takes basic Constitutional rights away.</p><p>People don't care if they lose their jobs, but if they get stuff taken away from them they had before that they use all the time, politicians actually might face some actual competition come the next election cycle.  The DMCA didn't affect Joe Sixpack, because all he would do is ask someone clever enough to get around something.  However, if people get disconnect from the Internet, and new DRM appears on every product, then Joe Sixpsck will either deal with it like a beaten down prisoner, or actually get fed up with it and start hitting the soap box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I second this .
Explain to people what will happen in more exact terms than " OMG , the gubmint is after yewr pr0n and t00ns " .
When Joe Sixpack realizes that he might be banned from the Internet for good because of pure allegations and no civil or criminal due process , he is n't going to take it sitting down .
There is already a lot of anti government sentiment as it is , and adding more facts to the situation.It would help if you explained this to people as a treaty like NAFTA , that was not passed for the good for American people , but something to take something away .
NAFTA took jobs , this takes basic Constitutional rights away.People do n't care if they lose their jobs , but if they get stuff taken away from them they had before that they use all the time , politicians actually might face some actual competition come the next election cycle .
The DMCA did n't affect Joe Sixpack , because all he would do is ask someone clever enough to get around something .
However , if people get disconnect from the Internet , and new DRM appears on every product , then Joe Sixpsck will either deal with it like a beaten down prisoner , or actually get fed up with it and start hitting the soap box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second this.
Explain to people what will happen in more exact terms than "OMG, the gubmint is after yewr pr0n and t00ns".
When Joe Sixpack realizes that he might be banned from the Internet for good because of pure allegations and no civil or criminal due process, he isn't going to take it sitting down.
There is already a lot of anti government sentiment as it is, and adding more facts to the situation.It would help if you explained this to people as a treaty like NAFTA, that was not passed for the good for American people, but something to take something away.
NAFTA took jobs, this takes basic Constitutional rights away.People don't care if they lose their jobs, but if they get stuff taken away from them they had before that they use all the time, politicians actually might face some actual competition come the next election cycle.
The DMCA didn't affect Joe Sixpack, because all he would do is ask someone clever enough to get around something.
However, if people get disconnect from the Internet, and new DRM appears on every product, then Joe Sixpsck will either deal with it like a beaten down prisoner, or actually get fed up with it and start hitting the soap box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978290</id>
	<title>Re:I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but. .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose.  Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.</p></div><p>I'd gladly sacrifice you to protect fair use.  And by sacrifice I mean put you up against a wall and shoot you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm agreeing with most of the intent , and certainly all of the purpose .
Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use , and I 'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.I 'd gladly sacrifice you to protect fair use .
And by sacrifice I mean put you up against a wall and shoot you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm agreeing with most of the intent, and certainly all of the purpose.
Supporting copyright is far more importantto me than supporting fair-use, and I'd certainly sacrifice the latter entirely in order to improve the former.I'd gladly sacrifice you to protect fair use.
And by sacrifice I mean put you up against a wall and shoot you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978224</id>
	<title>Re:So what's new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257004680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else see that speech by I think Neil Portnow during the grammys where he praised Obama to bring a new era of protecting their music?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else see that speech by I think Neil Portnow during the grammys where he praised Obama to bring a new era of protecting their music ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else see that speech by I think Neil Portnow during the grammys where he praised Obama to bring a new era of protecting their music?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978918</id>
	<title>Re:What do ISP's have to do with anything?</title>
	<author>TarrVetus</author>
	<datestamp>1257007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is all of the responsibility coming down to the ISP? Why should they make sure none of their customers uploads illegal content to e.g. YouTube and why should they remove it if noticed?</p></div></blockquote><p>
&nbsp; <br>This is a simple broad-sweeping move to make the treaty more powerful.  Holding ISPs responsible for everything sounds overly general because it's meant to be.<br>
&nbsp; <br>As an example, if YouTube is forced to heavily police its content, then another site will appear with less restrictions until they, too, are discovered by 'Those in Power', and so on and so forth.  However, if the very ISPs that people would use to access <i>any</i> of those sites, present or future, are so intimidated by an ambiguous and powerful government rule that they will happily prevent people from even accessing anything that isn't expressly "approved", then you can begin to block the very idea of creating content providers that aren't closely monitored.</p><p>If shutting down copyright-infringing sites is like telling someone what ideas they can or cannot say, holding the ISPs responsible for Internet content is like going to the source and removing the ability to say the words the person would need to express the idea in their language, altogether.  Things such as this copyright treaty are meant to remove the concept of open content by scaring people into silence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is all of the responsibility coming down to the ISP ?
Why should they make sure none of their customers uploads illegal content to e.g .
YouTube and why should they remove it if noticed ?
  This is a simple broad-sweeping move to make the treaty more powerful .
Holding ISPs responsible for everything sounds overly general because it 's meant to be .
  As an example , if YouTube is forced to heavily police its content , then another site will appear with less restrictions until they , too , are discovered by 'Those in Power ' , and so on and so forth .
However , if the very ISPs that people would use to access any of those sites , present or future , are so intimidated by an ambiguous and powerful government rule that they will happily prevent people from even accessing anything that is n't expressly " approved " , then you can begin to block the very idea of creating content providers that are n't closely monitored.If shutting down copyright-infringing sites is like telling someone what ideas they can or can not say , holding the ISPs responsible for Internet content is like going to the source and removing the ability to say the words the person would need to express the idea in their language , altogether .
Things such as this copyright treaty are meant to remove the concept of open content by scaring people into silence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is all of the responsibility coming down to the ISP?
Why should they make sure none of their customers uploads illegal content to e.g.
YouTube and why should they remove it if noticed?
  This is a simple broad-sweeping move to make the treaty more powerful.
Holding ISPs responsible for everything sounds overly general because it's meant to be.
  As an example, if YouTube is forced to heavily police its content, then another site will appear with less restrictions until they, too, are discovered by 'Those in Power', and so on and so forth.
However, if the very ISPs that people would use to access any of those sites, present or future, are so intimidated by an ambiguous and powerful government rule that they will happily prevent people from even accessing anything that isn't expressly "approved", then you can begin to block the very idea of creating content providers that aren't closely monitored.If shutting down copyright-infringing sites is like telling someone what ideas they can or cannot say, holding the ISPs responsible for Internet content is like going to the source and removing the ability to say the words the person would need to express the idea in their language, altogether.
Things such as this copyright treaty are meant to remove the concept of open content by scaring people into silence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29989066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.30000310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29986166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29986250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29993586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29987490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29994916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29992194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29984910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29986294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.30004920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29992108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29998064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29989842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29997770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29984050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29991022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29991266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29991242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29984358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29992104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_144240_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29987106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.30000310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29987106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29986294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29993586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.30004920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29997770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29992194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980010
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29991022
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29992104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29988220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978874
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981530
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983404
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29986250
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985732
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29991242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982416
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29994916
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978418
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982496
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978930
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29984910
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29986166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978438
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982932
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29984358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982826
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29989066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979122
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980568
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980620
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990320
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29998064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29991266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29977844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29987490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29985182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29984050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29980684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29979004
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29981566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29989842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29982432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29978312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_144240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29983846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29992108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_144240.29990362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
