<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_25_1518217</id>
	<title>Universal, Pay Those EFFing Lawyers</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264436100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Slashdot frequent contributor <a href="mailto:bennett@peacefire.org">Bennett Haselton</a> writes

<i>"The EFF is seeking over $400,000 in attorney's fees from Universal Music Group after Universal
sent a
<a href="http://www.eff.org/wp/unsafe-harbors-abusive-dmca-subpoenas-and-takedown-demands">DMCA takedown notice</a>
to YouTube, demanding the removal of a video posted by user
Stephanie Lenz.  Lenz had posted a video of her toddler dancing to a 30-second clip of
the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy"; after Universal sent the takedown notice, the EFF sent YouTube
a counter-notice on behalf of Lenz arguing that the video was fair use, and YouTube restored
it.  Now the EFF is asking the judge to award them attorney's fees for their work."</i>  Use your magical clicking device below to read many more words.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes " The EFF is seeking over $ 400,000 in attorney 's fees from Universal Music Group after Universal sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube , demanding the removal of a video posted by user Stephanie Lenz .
Lenz had posted a video of her toddler dancing to a 30-second clip of the Prince song " Let 's Go Crazy " ; after Universal sent the takedown notice , the EFF sent YouTube a counter-notice on behalf of Lenz arguing that the video was fair use , and YouTube restored it .
Now the EFF is asking the judge to award them attorney 's fees for their work .
" Use your magical clicking device below to read many more words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes

"The EFF is seeking over $400,000 in attorney's fees from Universal Music Group after Universal
sent a
DMCA takedown notice
to YouTube, demanding the removal of a video posted by user
Stephanie Lenz.
Lenz had posted a video of her toddler dancing to a 30-second clip of
the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy"; after Universal sent the takedown notice, the EFF sent YouTube
a counter-notice on behalf of Lenz arguing that the video was fair use, and YouTube restored
it.
Now the EFF is asking the judge to award them attorney's fees for their work.
"  Use your magical clicking device below to read many more words.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898902</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1264428600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my biggest peeves with the current legal system is the concept of 'interpretation'.  Interpretation throws 'grey area' all over something that a person would expect to be clearly understandable.  Ought we have a legal dictionary so that each word can be exactly understood?  I think so.  Ought we have laws that are clear and exact, and if exceptions need to be added, then the time is taken to add them.  If more specificity is needed, then additional laws should be written.</p><p>Part of the problem with the approach you're getting at is the idea that there ought be exceptions in the first place.  I see it different in that I think there should be clearly written rules with clearly written exceptions, with each exception clearly identified.</p><p>Sure it would take more work to do it... in my idea you can't lazily apply vague words like 'reasonably blah blah' to somehow make up for needs of exceptions.  But in the long run you would have a population of people who know exactly what is possible, exactly what is expected, and have much less grey area to litigate over.</p><p>What's even funnier (but not funny) is that lawmakers will spend thousands of pages of effort to accomplish goals that can actually be accomplished with very clean and succinct wording.   Right now there is a healthcare bill going through that is over 1000 pages long.  The irony in that, and what I'm getting at, is that the news articles that sum up the bill are only about a page long and yet contain nearly all that could be necessary.</p><p>Example:  Hundreds (or at least dozens) of pages written up in regard to not allowing insurance companies to discrimination on prior medical conditions.</p><p>This is junk... In reality, a line to the tune of "All health and/or medicine related insurers operating in the united states for US citizens shall not discriminate for any prior medical conditions, else the company will be assumed by the IRS, shut down, and its assets sold with the money going to the general fund."</p><p>Clear and succinct.  And if you had a legal dictionary to make sure all the words are well understood... And a framework that says the words are to be LITERAL and NOT UP TO INTERPRETATION, then you've got a single sentence that solves the whole issue right there in one shot.  Need an exception?  Add a sentence.  No need to blur it all up with vague words and leaving them up to interpretation.<br>------</p><p>But what do I know.. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a man subject to laws lawyers(lawmakers) create; a citizen in fear of interpretation and litigious garbage, watching his country dissolve into petty nothingness by lawyer-catalyzed destruction and exploitation... Oh, and I have logic.</p><p>It is my logic that wants simple answers.  It is my observation of what is really happening that tells me even your own understanding and approach cannot be trusted.  You *think* it must be complex, but that is only because you've been influenced to always think it is that way; surely you still feel there is a need for 'interpretation' in the legal system.</p><p>To this day I keep wondering why the constitution is interpreted at all.  When I read it, the words are very clear.  It is lawyers and judges that felt the constitution needs to be played with and manipulated with interpretation.... some goal in mind... personal interest that is not permitted when read literally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my biggest peeves with the current legal system is the concept of 'interpretation' .
Interpretation throws 'grey area ' all over something that a person would expect to be clearly understandable .
Ought we have a legal dictionary so that each word can be exactly understood ?
I think so .
Ought we have laws that are clear and exact , and if exceptions need to be added , then the time is taken to add them .
If more specificity is needed , then additional laws should be written.Part of the problem with the approach you 're getting at is the idea that there ought be exceptions in the first place .
I see it different in that I think there should be clearly written rules with clearly written exceptions , with each exception clearly identified.Sure it would take more work to do it... in my idea you ca n't lazily apply vague words like 'reasonably blah blah ' to somehow make up for needs of exceptions .
But in the long run you would have a population of people who know exactly what is possible , exactly what is expected , and have much less grey area to litigate over.What 's even funnier ( but not funny ) is that lawmakers will spend thousands of pages of effort to accomplish goals that can actually be accomplished with very clean and succinct wording .
Right now there is a healthcare bill going through that is over 1000 pages long .
The irony in that , and what I 'm getting at , is that the news articles that sum up the bill are only about a page long and yet contain nearly all that could be necessary.Example : Hundreds ( or at least dozens ) of pages written up in regard to not allowing insurance companies to discrimination on prior medical conditions.This is junk... In reality , a line to the tune of " All health and/or medicine related insurers operating in the united states for US citizens shall not discriminate for any prior medical conditions , else the company will be assumed by the IRS , shut down , and its assets sold with the money going to the general fund .
" Clear and succinct .
And if you had a legal dictionary to make sure all the words are well understood... And a framework that says the words are to be LITERAL and NOT UP TO INTERPRETATION , then you 've got a single sentence that solves the whole issue right there in one shot .
Need an exception ?
Add a sentence .
No need to blur it all up with vague words and leaving them up to interpretation.------But what do I know.. I 'm not a lawyer , I 'm just a man subject to laws lawyers ( lawmakers ) create ; a citizen in fear of interpretation and litigious garbage , watching his country dissolve into petty nothingness by lawyer-catalyzed destruction and exploitation... Oh , and I have logic.It is my logic that wants simple answers .
It is my observation of what is really happening that tells me even your own understanding and approach can not be trusted .
You * think * it must be complex , but that is only because you 've been influenced to always think it is that way ; surely you still feel there is a need for 'interpretation ' in the legal system.To this day I keep wondering why the constitution is interpreted at all .
When I read it , the words are very clear .
It is lawyers and judges that felt the constitution needs to be played with and manipulated with interpretation.... some goal in mind... personal interest that is not permitted when read literally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my biggest peeves with the current legal system is the concept of 'interpretation'.
Interpretation throws 'grey area' all over something that a person would expect to be clearly understandable.
Ought we have a legal dictionary so that each word can be exactly understood?
I think so.
Ought we have laws that are clear and exact, and if exceptions need to be added, then the time is taken to add them.
If more specificity is needed, then additional laws should be written.Part of the problem with the approach you're getting at is the idea that there ought be exceptions in the first place.
I see it different in that I think there should be clearly written rules with clearly written exceptions, with each exception clearly identified.Sure it would take more work to do it... in my idea you can't lazily apply vague words like 'reasonably blah blah' to somehow make up for needs of exceptions.
But in the long run you would have a population of people who know exactly what is possible, exactly what is expected, and have much less grey area to litigate over.What's even funnier (but not funny) is that lawmakers will spend thousands of pages of effort to accomplish goals that can actually be accomplished with very clean and succinct wording.
Right now there is a healthcare bill going through that is over 1000 pages long.
The irony in that, and what I'm getting at, is that the news articles that sum up the bill are only about a page long and yet contain nearly all that could be necessary.Example:  Hundreds (or at least dozens) of pages written up in regard to not allowing insurance companies to discrimination on prior medical conditions.This is junk... In reality, a line to the tune of "All health and/or medicine related insurers operating in the united states for US citizens shall not discriminate for any prior medical conditions, else the company will be assumed by the IRS, shut down, and its assets sold with the money going to the general fund.
"Clear and succinct.
And if you had a legal dictionary to make sure all the words are well understood... And a framework that says the words are to be LITERAL and NOT UP TO INTERPRETATION, then you've got a single sentence that solves the whole issue right there in one shot.
Need an exception?
Add a sentence.
No need to blur it all up with vague words and leaving them up to interpretation.------But what do I know.. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a man subject to laws lawyers(lawmakers) create; a citizen in fear of interpretation and litigious garbage, watching his country dissolve into petty nothingness by lawyer-catalyzed destruction and exploitation... Oh, and I have logic.It is my logic that wants simple answers.
It is my observation of what is really happening that tells me even your own understanding and approach cannot be trusted.
You *think* it must be complex, but that is only because you've been influenced to always think it is that way; surely you still feel there is a need for 'interpretation' in the legal system.To this day I keep wondering why the constitution is interpreted at all.
When I read it, the words are very clear.
It is lawyers and judges that felt the constitution needs to be played with and manipulated with interpretation.... some goal in mind... personal interest that is not permitted when read literally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893274</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>laughingcoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1264446780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then again, if a single song download can be worth $10,000 or $80,000 or what have you, why shouldn't we let the EFF make up arbitrary figures as well? Universal doesn't seem to mind arbitrary dollar amounts rather than something based on an actual calculation of actual costs when that's in their favor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again , if a single song download can be worth $ 10,000 or $ 80,000 or what have you , why should n't we let the EFF make up arbitrary figures as well ?
Universal does n't seem to mind arbitrary dollar amounts rather than something based on an actual calculation of actual costs when that 's in their favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again, if a single song download can be worth $10,000 or $80,000 or what have you, why shouldn't we let the EFF make up arbitrary figures as well?
Universal doesn't seem to mind arbitrary dollar amounts rather than something based on an actual calculation of actual costs when that's in their favor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30901264</id>
	<title>Faster work = more clients/time, more competitive</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264538580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with attorneys' fees is not unlike the problem in the medical profession. They usually get paid per hour. This gives them incentives to drag cases out and not do their best work up front.</p></div><p>If you work faster, you can have more clients per time instead of having each client longer.  Then, by your per-case cost being cheaper, you have a competitive edge and clients will prefer you.</p><p>So you make the same as if you work slowly, and have more customers banging down your door.</p><p>Where's the downside?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with attorneys ' fees is not unlike the problem in the medical profession .
They usually get paid per hour .
This gives them incentives to drag cases out and not do their best work up front.If you work faster , you can have more clients per time instead of having each client longer .
Then , by your per-case cost being cheaper , you have a competitive edge and clients will prefer you.So you make the same as if you work slowly , and have more customers banging down your door.Where 's the downside ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with attorneys' fees is not unlike the problem in the medical profession.
They usually get paid per hour.
This gives them incentives to drag cases out and not do their best work up front.If you work faster, you can have more clients per time instead of having each client longer.
Then, by your per-case cost being cheaper, you have a competitive edge and clients will prefer you.So you make the same as if you work slowly, and have more customers banging down your door.Where's the downside?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898236</id>
	<title>A simple solution no American would think of.</title>
	<author>Catbeller</author>
	<datestamp>1264424820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a way to cut the fantastic number of hours that lawyers rack up. But an American populace marinated for almost a century and a half of "capitalist" propaganda would not, could not think of it.</p><p>Institute salary and wage controls for lawyers. Chop 'em down to mortal size. Pay them what a file clerk would make, times two. Take out the incentive for infinite profits. (Come to think of it, ditto for doctors and CEO's and boards of directors.) Institute state law schools and subsidize the costs through taxpayers (some countries provide free education) so the burden of the education debt no longer serves as an excuse.</p><p>Problem solved.</p><p>We've no problem with controlling the wages of poor people by slaughtering their unions and pensions. Yet rich people are sacrosanct, 'cause everyone hopes to be rich and untouchable someday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a way to cut the fantastic number of hours that lawyers rack up .
But an American populace marinated for almost a century and a half of " capitalist " propaganda would not , could not think of it.Institute salary and wage controls for lawyers .
Chop 'em down to mortal size .
Pay them what a file clerk would make , times two .
Take out the incentive for infinite profits .
( Come to think of it , ditto for doctors and CEO 's and boards of directors .
) Institute state law schools and subsidize the costs through taxpayers ( some countries provide free education ) so the burden of the education debt no longer serves as an excuse.Problem solved.We 've no problem with controlling the wages of poor people by slaughtering their unions and pensions .
Yet rich people are sacrosanct , 'cause everyone hopes to be rich and untouchable someday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a way to cut the fantastic number of hours that lawyers rack up.
But an American populace marinated for almost a century and a half of "capitalist" propaganda would not, could not think of it.Institute salary and wage controls for lawyers.
Chop 'em down to mortal size.
Pay them what a file clerk would make, times two.
Take out the incentive for infinite profits.
(Come to think of it, ditto for doctors and CEO's and boards of directors.
) Institute state law schools and subsidize the costs through taxpayers (some countries provide free education) so the burden of the education debt no longer serves as an excuse.Problem solved.We've no problem with controlling the wages of poor people by slaughtering their unions and pensions.
Yet rich people are sacrosanct, 'cause everyone hopes to be rich and untouchable someday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894182</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1264450920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is; Why should any non-lawyer-type have to know exactly what percentage of a song they should allow the toddler to dance to on video and why would they first have to measure the length of the full song and then calculate the amount of time allowed?</p><p>That is probably why the law is deliberately vague and why the 30-second/10\% thing is just something that turned out to be a reasonably safe limit generally, not a ruler to measure the amount of "fairness" of any specific "usage".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is ; Why should any non-lawyer-type have to know exactly what percentage of a song they should allow the toddler to dance to on video and why would they first have to measure the length of the full song and then calculate the amount of time allowed ? That is probably why the law is deliberately vague and why the 30-second/10 \ % thing is just something that turned out to be a reasonably safe limit generally , not a ruler to measure the amount of " fairness " of any specific " usage " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is; Why should any non-lawyer-type have to know exactly what percentage of a song they should allow the toddler to dance to on video and why would they first have to measure the length of the full song and then calculate the amount of time allowed?That is probably why the law is deliberately vague and why the 30-second/10\% thing is just something that turned out to be a reasonably safe limit generally, not a ruler to measure the amount of "fairness" of any specific "usage".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899098</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>v. Konigsmann</author>
	<datestamp>1264430040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please note:  any parent who allows their baby to be filmed dancing is in clear violation of the prior art rights of the makers of Ally McBeal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please note : any parent who allows their baby to be filmed dancing is in clear violation of the prior art rights of the makers of Ally McBeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please note:  any parent who allows their baby to be filmed dancing is in clear violation of the prior art rights of the makers of Ally McBeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892280</id>
	<title>Here'e my well-thought scheme :-)</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264442700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate the fact that money buys justice.  I propose that neither side can spend more than the other without loaning the other the difference, and loser pays.  If I sue MegaCrp for a legit complaint and they bring in ten lawyers to my one, that is hardly justice.  They must offer to loan me what it takes to hire a full team.  If I decline the offer, they are limited to one lawyer, just like me.  If I take their offer and win, they don't get their money back, and they owe me for the one lawyer I paid for.  If I lose, I owe them the fees for 19 lawyers.  If they think I am not able to repay their loan and/or their own costs, they should not offer the loan and should restrict themselves to equal costs, or even less -- hire a cheap lawyer and make me loan them the difference, and if I can't afford that, I have to reduce my lawyering costs to match.</p><p>Same thing applies if they sue me.</p><p>Obviously you have to have some leeway; you can't demand matching down to the penny.  You also have to have some auditing to eliminate padding and lies.  But cases where MegaCorp brings in a full fancy team against a single lawyer is blatantly wrong.</p><p>I especially like the idea that it encourages keeping expenses small.  The more you spend, the more you have to loan, and the more the other side spends.  You can't simply swamp the other side with expensive investigations.</p><p>You have to combine with with loser pays or it is pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate the fact that money buys justice .
I propose that neither side can spend more than the other without loaning the other the difference , and loser pays .
If I sue MegaCrp for a legit complaint and they bring in ten lawyers to my one , that is hardly justice .
They must offer to loan me what it takes to hire a full team .
If I decline the offer , they are limited to one lawyer , just like me .
If I take their offer and win , they do n't get their money back , and they owe me for the one lawyer I paid for .
If I lose , I owe them the fees for 19 lawyers .
If they think I am not able to repay their loan and/or their own costs , they should not offer the loan and should restrict themselves to equal costs , or even less -- hire a cheap lawyer and make me loan them the difference , and if I ca n't afford that , I have to reduce my lawyering costs to match.Same thing applies if they sue me.Obviously you have to have some leeway ; you ca n't demand matching down to the penny .
You also have to have some auditing to eliminate padding and lies .
But cases where MegaCorp brings in a full fancy team against a single lawyer is blatantly wrong.I especially like the idea that it encourages keeping expenses small .
The more you spend , the more you have to loan , and the more the other side spends .
You ca n't simply swamp the other side with expensive investigations.You have to combine with with loser pays or it is pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate the fact that money buys justice.
I propose that neither side can spend more than the other without loaning the other the difference, and loser pays.
If I sue MegaCrp for a legit complaint and they bring in ten lawyers to my one, that is hardly justice.
They must offer to loan me what it takes to hire a full team.
If I decline the offer, they are limited to one lawyer, just like me.
If I take their offer and win, they don't get their money back, and they owe me for the one lawyer I paid for.
If I lose, I owe them the fees for 19 lawyers.
If they think I am not able to repay their loan and/or their own costs, they should not offer the loan and should restrict themselves to equal costs, or even less -- hire a cheap lawyer and make me loan them the difference, and if I can't afford that, I have to reduce my lawyering costs to match.Same thing applies if they sue me.Obviously you have to have some leeway; you can't demand matching down to the penny.
You also have to have some auditing to eliminate padding and lies.
But cases where MegaCorp brings in a full fancy team against a single lawyer is blatantly wrong.I especially like the idea that it encourages keeping expenses small.
The more you spend, the more you have to loan, and the more the other side spends.
You can't simply swamp the other side with expensive investigations.You have to combine with with loser pays or it is pointless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891864</id>
	<title>EFF Overreaches...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EFF overreached for excessive legal fees today. This generated headlines on obscure news sites far from mainstream eyes. The Judge will certainly reduce the award, if he doesn't throw the case out entirely because of the preposterous request.</p><p>Nobody really cares, and there won;t be film at 11:00.</p><p>However, this reporter is left wondering; what percentage of any settlement will the actual injured party, Stephanie Lenz, receive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EFF overreached for excessive legal fees today .
This generated headlines on obscure news sites far from mainstream eyes .
The Judge will certainly reduce the award , if he does n't throw the case out entirely because of the preposterous request.Nobody really cares , and there won ; t be film at 11 : 00.However , this reporter is left wondering ; what percentage of any settlement will the actual injured party , Stephanie Lenz , receive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EFF overreached for excessive legal fees today.
This generated headlines on obscure news sites far from mainstream eyes.
The Judge will certainly reduce the award, if he doesn't throw the case out entirely because of the preposterous request.Nobody really cares, and there won;t be film at 11:00.However, this reporter is left wondering; what percentage of any settlement will the actual injured party, Stephanie Lenz, receive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891944</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1264441500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's quite important that they get the fees for abusing the DMCA. Lots of companies have tried and with a case that is clear about it, could set an important precedent to stop people from just doing bogus DMCA takedowns all day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite important that they get the fees for abusing the DMCA .
Lots of companies have tried and with a case that is clear about it , could set an important precedent to stop people from just doing bogus DMCA takedowns all day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite important that they get the fees for abusing the DMCA.
Lots of companies have tried and with a case that is clear about it, could set an important precedent to stop people from just doing bogus DMCA takedowns all day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893826</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264449120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just shows the EFF are as corrupt as the system they claim to fight against.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just shows the EFF are as corrupt as the system they claim to fight against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just shows the EFF are as corrupt as the system they claim to fight against.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893542</id>
	<title>two notes:</title>
	<author>drew30319</author>
	<datestamp>1264447800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've not read through all of the replies so I apologize if I'm being repetitive, however I read enough of them to want to add some notes that I believe are important:<p>

1) "knowingly materially misrepresents under this section... that material or activity is infringing... shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees"</p><p>

Understand the application of the word "<b>knowingly</b>" here - it matters.  Knowingly in this context implies that the rights holder knows that they are misrepresenting the activity as infringing.</p><p>

2) Fair use is not a black and white issue - it is very, very gray.  There are four aspects to fair use and no single bright line rule that applies.  Decisions may vary widely and because of this it may be difficult to show that Universal "knowingly" misrepresented the material as infringing.</p><p>

Although the use in this case appears (to me) to be unquestionably fair use, Universal should be able to make an argument that they fairly believed their takedown notice to be legitimate.  That said, I personally believe that the takedown notice was asinine and a slap on the wrist may serve to have Universal pay a bit more attention to their claims in the future.</p><p>

I should point out that IANAL (though I am in law school) and none of the above is legal advice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not read through all of the replies so I apologize if I 'm being repetitive , however I read enough of them to want to add some notes that I believe are important : 1 ) " knowingly materially misrepresents under this section... that material or activity is infringing... shall be liable for any damages , including costs and attorneys ' fees " Understand the application of the word " knowingly " here - it matters .
Knowingly in this context implies that the rights holder knows that they are misrepresenting the activity as infringing .
2 ) Fair use is not a black and white issue - it is very , very gray .
There are four aspects to fair use and no single bright line rule that applies .
Decisions may vary widely and because of this it may be difficult to show that Universal " knowingly " misrepresented the material as infringing .
Although the use in this case appears ( to me ) to be unquestionably fair use , Universal should be able to make an argument that they fairly believed their takedown notice to be legitimate .
That said , I personally believe that the takedown notice was asinine and a slap on the wrist may serve to have Universal pay a bit more attention to their claims in the future .
I should point out that IANAL ( though I am in law school ) and none of the above is legal advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not read through all of the replies so I apologize if I'm being repetitive, however I read enough of them to want to add some notes that I believe are important:

1) "knowingly materially misrepresents under this section... that material or activity is infringing... shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees"

Understand the application of the word "knowingly" here - it matters.
Knowingly in this context implies that the rights holder knows that they are misrepresenting the activity as infringing.
2) Fair use is not a black and white issue - it is very, very gray.
There are four aspects to fair use and no single bright line rule that applies.
Decisions may vary widely and because of this it may be difficult to show that Universal "knowingly" misrepresented the material as infringing.
Although the use in this case appears (to me) to be unquestionably fair use, Universal should be able to make an argument that they fairly believed their takedown notice to be legitimate.
That said, I personally believe that the takedown notice was asinine and a slap on the wrist may serve to have Universal pay a bit more attention to their claims in the future.
I should point out that IANAL (though I am in law school) and none of the above is legal advice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891954</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why the federal goverment should control the salery structure of all lawyers.  Obviously they used the over-priced lawyer to type the letter.</p><p>If they CAP Lawyer saleries at somewhere in the $200K/Year range, then they would not have generated a $400,000 letter.   At most they would generate a $68.50 for an hour of letter writing, and maybe 1 hour for research (gotta wait for the computer to boot, etc..)  So the total lawyer fee under the new plan would be around $136, plus postage.   That is assuming that the lawyer would work 365 days a year/ 8hrs a day, to give the hourerly salery of $68.50.</p><p>With the $400,000 current rate, the lawyer that wrote the letter should be earning $584,000,000<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Yr.  YES, that is 584MILLION to write letters 8 hours a day, 365 days.  Sounds just as bad as those banks CEO's... Hmm...</p><p>Of course they have to pay their taxes still... Who asked that?  Tim, is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why the federal goverment should control the salery structure of all lawyers .
Obviously they used the over-priced lawyer to type the letter.If they CAP Lawyer saleries at somewhere in the $ 200K/Year range , then they would not have generated a $ 400,000 letter .
At most they would generate a $ 68.50 for an hour of letter writing , and maybe 1 hour for research ( got ta wait for the computer to boot , etc.. ) So the total lawyer fee under the new plan would be around $ 136 , plus postage .
That is assuming that the lawyer would work 365 days a year/ 8hrs a day , to give the hourerly salery of $ 68.50.With the $ 400,000 current rate , the lawyer that wrote the letter should be earning $ 584,000,000 /Yr .
YES , that is 584MILLION to write letters 8 hours a day , 365 days .
Sounds just as bad as those banks CEO 's... Hmm...Of course they have to pay their taxes still... Who asked that ?
Tim , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why the federal goverment should control the salery structure of all lawyers.
Obviously they used the over-priced lawyer to type the letter.If they CAP Lawyer saleries at somewhere in the $200K/Year range, then they would not have generated a $400,000 letter.
At most they would generate a $68.50 for an hour of letter writing, and maybe 1 hour for research (gotta wait for the computer to boot, etc..)  So the total lawyer fee under the new plan would be around $136, plus postage.
That is assuming that the lawyer would work 365 days a year/ 8hrs a day, to give the hourerly salery of $68.50.With the $400,000 current rate, the lawyer that wrote the letter should be earning $584,000,000 /Yr.
YES, that is 584MILLION to write letters 8 hours a day, 365 days.
Sounds just as bad as those banks CEO's... Hmm...Of course they have to pay their taxes still... Who asked that?
Tim, is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896876</id>
	<title>Re:Knowingly misrepresents</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1264418160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've go it backwards.</p><p>If you are an indie musician, you understand fair use and you want as many people as possible to hear you. You don't care that 100,000 people saw your music video, because chances are, 100,000 people havent heard the title of your band, even by accident in random conversation (see, the indie band accident in random conversation just got a couple thousand people to hear their name, for free!). You aren't going to send a bunch of takedown notices unless someone is actually selling your product.</p><p>If you are universal, you can't let 1000 people hear your music without paying for it. Shareholders (correctly) believe that if you restrict access, people will pay for it. Exorbitant claims of lost value simply encourage the public to buy more (and it works).</p><p>EFF did more than just draft a letter. They determined that there was enough of a basis to draft a letter without risking countersuit. Is that worth 400k? Probably not, they are looking to settle. You can't negotiate by asking for less than you expect to get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've go it backwards.If you are an indie musician , you understand fair use and you want as many people as possible to hear you .
You do n't care that 100,000 people saw your music video , because chances are , 100,000 people havent heard the title of your band , even by accident in random conversation ( see , the indie band accident in random conversation just got a couple thousand people to hear their name , for free ! ) .
You are n't going to send a bunch of takedown notices unless someone is actually selling your product.If you are universal , you ca n't let 1000 people hear your music without paying for it .
Shareholders ( correctly ) believe that if you restrict access , people will pay for it .
Exorbitant claims of lost value simply encourage the public to buy more ( and it works ) .EFF did more than just draft a letter .
They determined that there was enough of a basis to draft a letter without risking countersuit .
Is that worth 400k ?
Probably not , they are looking to settle .
You ca n't negotiate by asking for less than you expect to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've go it backwards.If you are an indie musician, you understand fair use and you want as many people as possible to hear you.
You don't care that 100,000 people saw your music video, because chances are, 100,000 people havent heard the title of your band, even by accident in random conversation (see, the indie band accident in random conversation just got a couple thousand people to hear their name, for free!).
You aren't going to send a bunch of takedown notices unless someone is actually selling your product.If you are universal, you can't let 1000 people hear your music without paying for it.
Shareholders (correctly) believe that if you restrict access, people will pay for it.
Exorbitant claims of lost value simply encourage the public to buy more (and it works).EFF did more than just draft a letter.
They determined that there was enough of a basis to draft a letter without risking countersuit.
Is that worth 400k?
Probably not, they are looking to settle.
You can't negotiate by asking for less than you expect to get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893566</id>
	<title>A possible solution might be:</title>
	<author>aix tom</author>
	<datestamp>1264447860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Not to make it *perfect*, but at least to make it *better*, mind)</p><p>When a DMCA takedown notice is sent, there should be a simple reply mechanism for the person that posted the material.</p><p>If the person agrees with the takedown, all legal proceedings can stop right there.</p><p>If the person disagrees, the case should be put before an independent <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman" title="wikipedia.org">Ombudsman</a> [wikipedia.org], which is perhaps paid for by both sides. I estimate in most cases that Ombudsman would need maybe half an hour max for each case, and not keep lawyers and judges busy for days. And I would probably prefer a hosting site that has a "DMCA Ombudsman protection" for $1 per video or something like that.</p><p>After his decision, the party that does not agree with his ruling would still have the ability to sue before an court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Not to make it * perfect * , but at least to make it * better * , mind ) When a DMCA takedown notice is sent , there should be a simple reply mechanism for the person that posted the material.If the person agrees with the takedown , all legal proceedings can stop right there.If the person disagrees , the case should be put before an independent Ombudsman [ wikipedia.org ] , which is perhaps paid for by both sides .
I estimate in most cases that Ombudsman would need maybe half an hour max for each case , and not keep lawyers and judges busy for days .
And I would probably prefer a hosting site that has a " DMCA Ombudsman protection " for $ 1 per video or something like that.After his decision , the party that does not agree with his ruling would still have the ability to sue before an court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Not to make it *perfect*, but at least to make it *better*, mind)When a DMCA takedown notice is sent, there should be a simple reply mechanism for the person that posted the material.If the person agrees with the takedown, all legal proceedings can stop right there.If the person disagrees, the case should be put before an independent Ombudsman [wikipedia.org], which is perhaps paid for by both sides.
I estimate in most cases that Ombudsman would need maybe half an hour max for each case, and not keep lawyers and judges busy for days.
And I would probably prefer a hosting site that has a "DMCA Ombudsman protection" for $1 per video or something like that.After his decision, the party that does not agree with his ruling would still have the ability to sue before an court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893450</id>
	<title>Remove the system of law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264447440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Move law into the private market, let private companies come up with the rules and methods of enforcing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Move law into the private market , let private companies come up with the rules and methods of enforcing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Move law into the private market, let private companies come up with the rules and methods of enforcing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892642</id>
	<title>Fair use and for profit</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1264443840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm likely missing something, but I thought that pretty much any nonprofit use qualified as fair use. This is obviously distinguishing use (like using it in a home video) from distribution (like torrent).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm likely missing something , but I thought that pretty much any nonprofit use qualified as fair use .
This is obviously distinguishing use ( like using it in a home video ) from distribution ( like torrent ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm likely missing something, but I thought that pretty much any nonprofit use qualified as fair use.
This is obviously distinguishing use (like using it in a home video) from distribution (like torrent).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891620</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Run this by me again.</p><p>EFF's lawyers charged $400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect?  That's not legal advice, that's extortion.</p></div><p>More precisely it's counter-extortion.  I agree $400,000 is excessive... I hope they win $10,000 or whatever the minimum is to make it profitable for the EFF to defend the common person.  Most people would just fold and take down a fair-use clip rather than risk bankruptcy so the EFF is necessary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Run this by me again.EFF 's lawyers charged $ 400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect ?
That 's not legal advice , that 's extortion.More precisely it 's counter-extortion .
I agree $ 400,000 is excessive... I hope they win $ 10,000 or whatever the minimum is to make it profitable for the EFF to defend the common person .
Most people would just fold and take down a fair-use clip rather than risk bankruptcy so the EFF is necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run this by me again.EFF's lawyers charged $400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect?
That's not legal advice, that's extortion.More precisely it's counter-extortion.
I agree $400,000 is excessive... I hope they win $10,000 or whatever the minimum is to make it profitable for the EFF to defend the common person.
Most people would just fold and take down a fair-use clip rather than risk bankruptcy so the EFF is necessary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891712</id>
	<title>Hey</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to point out that sneaking TFA into TFS cheating. Damn you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to point out that sneaking TFA into TFS cheating .
Damn you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to point out that sneaking TFA into TFS cheating.
Damn you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892230</id>
	<title>take that thought all the way</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264442580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that is, creators dumping their content online for free</p><p>in effect, the same point as radio airplay: free advertising</p><p>then financial benefits come in the form of warm bodies showing up to your concert gigs, more fame (since there's no barrier to consumers enjoying your content), and then with enough fame, new ancillary streams of revenue like endorsements, personalized content, movie soundtracks, etc.</p><p>granted, this system will only reward a few, those who are truly fame worthy. not every artist will benefit from the free advertising. as if most artists benefit from the current system. the truth is that in all art, and this will always be true, no matter the distribution system, that only a tiny few are smash successes. but at least in the direct consumer-creator link, there's more "granularity": artists of marginal value to consumers still get a few bucks. while in the old distributor controlled system, the marginal acts simply wouldn't get any exposure, or any money. this is true even of some "just ok" acts. distributors decided in the old model, and their decisions were often fickle and without reason. plenty of good acts in the past didn't get a contract for really stupid reasons. at least with a direct consumer-artist link, plenty of mediocre to middling acts get good exposure still, and money still from warm bodies at live gigs. so rather than a "cliff", that if you fall beyond a certain amount of fame, you get nothing, in a direct creator-consumer links, its a gradual falling off of exposure... i just realized i just wasted a lot of time explaining the concept of the "long tail"</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long\_Tail" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long\_Tail</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is , creators dumping their content online for freein effect , the same point as radio airplay : free advertisingthen financial benefits come in the form of warm bodies showing up to your concert gigs , more fame ( since there 's no barrier to consumers enjoying your content ) , and then with enough fame , new ancillary streams of revenue like endorsements , personalized content , movie soundtracks , etc.granted , this system will only reward a few , those who are truly fame worthy .
not every artist will benefit from the free advertising .
as if most artists benefit from the current system .
the truth is that in all art , and this will always be true , no matter the distribution system , that only a tiny few are smash successes .
but at least in the direct consumer-creator link , there 's more " granularity " : artists of marginal value to consumers still get a few bucks .
while in the old distributor controlled system , the marginal acts simply would n't get any exposure , or any money .
this is true even of some " just ok " acts .
distributors decided in the old model , and their decisions were often fickle and without reason .
plenty of good acts in the past did n't get a contract for really stupid reasons .
at least with a direct consumer-artist link , plenty of mediocre to middling acts get good exposure still , and money still from warm bodies at live gigs .
so rather than a " cliff " , that if you fall beyond a certain amount of fame , you get nothing , in a direct creator-consumer links , its a gradual falling off of exposure... i just realized i just wasted a lot of time explaining the concept of the " long tail " http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long \ _Tail [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is, creators dumping their content online for freein effect, the same point as radio airplay: free advertisingthen financial benefits come in the form of warm bodies showing up to your concert gigs, more fame (since there's no barrier to consumers enjoying your content), and then with enough fame, new ancillary streams of revenue like endorsements, personalized content, movie soundtracks, etc.granted, this system will only reward a few, those who are truly fame worthy.
not every artist will benefit from the free advertising.
as if most artists benefit from the current system.
the truth is that in all art, and this will always be true, no matter the distribution system, that only a tiny few are smash successes.
but at least in the direct consumer-creator link, there's more "granularity": artists of marginal value to consumers still get a few bucks.
while in the old distributor controlled system, the marginal acts simply wouldn't get any exposure, or any money.
this is true even of some "just ok" acts.
distributors decided in the old model, and their decisions were often fickle and without reason.
plenty of good acts in the past didn't get a contract for really stupid reasons.
at least with a direct consumer-artist link, plenty of mediocre to middling acts get good exposure still, and money still from warm bodies at live gigs.
so rather than a "cliff", that if you fall beyond a certain amount of fame, you get nothing, in a direct creator-consumer links, its a gradual falling off of exposure... i just realized i just wasted a lot of time explaining the concept of the "long tail"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long\_Tail [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892052</id>
	<title>Yo0 FaiL It!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">came as a complEte out of bed in the problems that I've everyday...We</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>came as a complEte out of bed in the problems that I 've everyday...We [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>came as a complEte out of bed in the problems that I've everyday...We [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896540</id>
	<title>Perjury</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1264416900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</p></div></blockquote><p>A)  When you signed on the dotted-line that says "I swear under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct" you'd better have been damn sure everything you wrote was accurate.  If not, a $400,000 fine could be the least of your problems.</p><p>B) Penalties require intent, not accidents.</p><p>C) YES.  Even  Indie musicians can be jackasses.  If they're going around sending legal notices to everyone who uses 5sec of their songs, they too do indeed deserve a hefty fine.  It certainly costs those on the receiving end, so you should be paying for you ill-conceived actions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ? A ) When you signed on the dotted-line that says " I swear under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct " you 'd better have been damn sure everything you wrote was accurate .
If not , a $ 400,000 fine could be the least of your problems.B ) Penalties require intent , not accidents.C ) YES .
Even Indie musicians can be jackasses .
If they 're going around sending legal notices to everyone who uses 5sec of their songs , they too do indeed deserve a hefty fine .
It certainly costs those on the receiving end , so you should be paying for you ill-conceived actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?A)  When you signed on the dotted-line that says "I swear under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct" you'd better have been damn sure everything you wrote was accurate.
If not, a $400,000 fine could be the least of your problems.B) Penalties require intent, not accidents.C) YES.
Even  Indie musicians can be jackasses.
If they're going around sending legal notices to everyone who uses 5sec of their songs, they too do indeed deserve a hefty fine.
It certainly costs those on the receiving end, so you should be paying for you ill-conceived actions.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893140</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Bogtha</author>
	<datestamp>1264446180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
Now lets say you have a huge catalog of songs you'd like to defend. You're a big mega corporation so what you do is you hire developers to analyze songs for fingerprints and -- funny how pedantic algorithms get to be -- submit anything over the 'safe harbor' limit to Control Gate C (that being the legal arm which churns out thousands of take down notices). </i> </p></div> </blockquote><p>
Anybody implementing an automated system like that without a human well-versed in copyright law manually validating the list would be skating on very thin ice.  DMCA takedown notices require the notifier to swear under penalty of perjury that the information contained in the DMCA takedown notice is accurate.  Would you swear under penalty of perjury that such a system is always accurate?  That there are no bugs?
</p><p>
On the other hand, if you assume that there <em>is</em> a proper human validation in the legal arm you mention rather than simply "churning them out", then that human can quite reasonably be given enough discretion to avoid cases like this.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now lets say you have a huge catalog of songs you 'd like to defend .
You 're a big mega corporation so what you do is you hire developers to analyze songs for fingerprints and -- funny how pedantic algorithms get to be -- submit anything over the 'safe harbor ' limit to Control Gate C ( that being the legal arm which churns out thousands of take down notices ) .
Anybody implementing an automated system like that without a human well-versed in copyright law manually validating the list would be skating on very thin ice .
DMCA takedown notices require the notifier to swear under penalty of perjury that the information contained in the DMCA takedown notice is accurate .
Would you swear under penalty of perjury that such a system is always accurate ?
That there are no bugs ?
On the other hand , if you assume that there is a proper human validation in the legal arm you mention rather than simply " churning them out " , then that human can quite reasonably be given enough discretion to avoid cases like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Now lets say you have a huge catalog of songs you'd like to defend.
You're a big mega corporation so what you do is you hire developers to analyze songs for fingerprints and -- funny how pedantic algorithms get to be -- submit anything over the 'safe harbor' limit to Control Gate C (that being the legal arm which churns out thousands of take down notices).
Anybody implementing an automated system like that without a human well-versed in copyright law manually validating the list would be skating on very thin ice.
DMCA takedown notices require the notifier to swear under penalty of perjury that the information contained in the DMCA takedown notice is accurate.
Would you swear under penalty of perjury that such a system is always accurate?
That there are no bugs?
On the other hand, if you assume that there is a proper human validation in the legal arm you mention rather than simply "churning them out", then that human can quite reasonably be given enough discretion to avoid cases like this.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895160</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264411620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Forgive me if you've heard this put better, but...</i></p><p><i>From <a href="http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/09/i\_will\_not\_read.php?page=1" title="villagevoice.com" rel="nofollow">I will not read your fucking script</a> [villagevoice.com]:</i></p><blockquote><div><p><i>There's a great story about Pablo Picasso. Some guy told Picasso he'd pay him to draw a picture on a napkin. Picasso whipped out a pen and banged out a sketch, handed it to the guy, and said, "One million dollars, please."<br>"A million dollars?" the guy exclaimed. "That only took you thirty seconds!"<br>"Yes," said Picasso. "But it took me fifty years to learn how to draw that in thirty seconds."</i></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive me if you 've heard this put better , but...From I will not read your fucking script [ villagevoice.com ] : There 's a great story about Pablo Picasso .
Some guy told Picasso he 'd pay him to draw a picture on a napkin .
Picasso whipped out a pen and banged out a sketch , handed it to the guy , and said , " One million dollars , please .
" " A million dollars ?
" the guy exclaimed .
" That only took you thirty seconds !
" " Yes , " said Picasso .
" But it took me fifty years to learn how to draw that in thirty seconds .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive me if you've heard this put better, but...From I will not read your fucking script [villagevoice.com]:There's a great story about Pablo Picasso.
Some guy told Picasso he'd pay him to draw a picture on a napkin.
Picasso whipped out a pen and banged out a sketch, handed it to the guy, and said, "One million dollars, please.
""A million dollars?
" the guy exclaimed.
"That only took you thirty seconds!
""Yes," said Picasso.
"But it took me fifty years to learn how to draw that in thirty seconds.
" 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892924</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1264445160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The RIAA made multiple copies of the letter.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, obviously the RIAA were breaking copyright law by copying this letter without permission. Thus the US$ 399,999 punitive damages on a US$ 1,000 letter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA made multiple copies of the letter.Well , obviously the RIAA were breaking copyright law by copying this letter without permission .
Thus the US $ 399,999 punitive damages on a US $ 1,000 letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA made multiple copies of the letter.Well, obviously the RIAA were breaking copyright law by copying this letter without permission.
Thus the US$ 399,999 punitive damages on a US$ 1,000 letter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892176</id>
	<title>Mandatory Slashdot Editor Criticism</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1264442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long have the editors waited to use the phrase "EFFing lawyers"? All their lives, I'd guess.</p><p>Grats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long have the editors waited to use the phrase " EFFing lawyers " ?
All their lives , I 'd guess.Grats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long have the editors waited to use the phrase "EFFing lawyers"?
All their lives, I'd guess.Grats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892616</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>nextekcarl</author>
	<datestamp>1264443720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you assume they were charging $600/hour you end up with an interesting amount of hours, maybe it is a bit of a joke?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you assume they were charging $ 600/hour you end up with an interesting amount of hours , maybe it is a bit of a joke ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you assume they were charging $600/hour you end up with an interesting amount of hours, maybe it is a bit of a joke?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891416</id>
	<title>Universal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264439820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">Universal's New Website</a> [goatse.fr]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Universal 's New Website [ goatse.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Universal's New Website [goatse.fr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30909846</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1264500180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question is -- given the above -- were they really?</p></div><p>While you make a good point, there's one detail you missed: Even if they didn't "materially misrepresent" in any one particular instance, they may very well know the decision process to be systematically making bogus claims.</p><p>We agree there's a process in place that guesses whether a certain piece of media infringes copyright. Those that are considered as infringing get a DMCA takedown notice thrown at them. So far so good. Shit hits the fan when some people start complaining that the supposedly infringing media doesn't actually infringe all that much. From that point on, they've been informed that the system is potentially overreaching. Take one single overturned takedown notice and they know for a fact the system is flawed. If the system isn't adjusted, then they are pretty much knowingly making claims they know are potentially wrong, and in any particular case where they're proven wrong, this should amount to the same as misrepresentation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is -- given the above -- were they really ? While you make a good point , there 's one detail you missed : Even if they did n't " materially misrepresent " in any one particular instance , they may very well know the decision process to be systematically making bogus claims.We agree there 's a process in place that guesses whether a certain piece of media infringes copyright .
Those that are considered as infringing get a DMCA takedown notice thrown at them .
So far so good .
Shit hits the fan when some people start complaining that the supposedly infringing media does n't actually infringe all that much .
From that point on , they 've been informed that the system is potentially overreaching .
Take one single overturned takedown notice and they know for a fact the system is flawed .
If the system is n't adjusted , then they are pretty much knowingly making claims they know are potentially wrong , and in any particular case where they 're proven wrong , this should amount to the same as misrepresentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is -- given the above -- were they really?While you make a good point, there's one detail you missed: Even if they didn't "materially misrepresent" in any one particular instance, they may very well know the decision process to be systematically making bogus claims.We agree there's a process in place that guesses whether a certain piece of media infringes copyright.
Those that are considered as infringing get a DMCA takedown notice thrown at them.
So far so good.
Shit hits the fan when some people start complaining that the supposedly infringing media doesn't actually infringe all that much.
From that point on, they've been informed that the system is potentially overreaching.
Take one single overturned takedown notice and they know for a fact the system is flawed.
If the system isn't adjusted, then they are pretty much knowingly making claims they know are potentially wrong, and in any particular case where they're proven wrong, this should amount to the same as misrepresentation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30900760</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>BillX</author>
	<datestamp>1264445700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The $400K figure is likely an amount carefully calculated to make Universal's lawyers go "WTF?" and come out fighting. Remember, the EFF doesn't really want $400k out of this, they want an end to the practice of secretive and often-wrong Algorithms robo-lawyering toddlers and infringing peoples' fair use rights, and that likely starts with getting them into a courtroom. Billing $100 for their work is not going to raise an eyebrow, either for Universal or any hypothetical collections agency they hired to enforce it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The $ 400K figure is likely an amount carefully calculated to make Universal 's lawyers go " WTF ?
" and come out fighting .
Remember , the EFF does n't really want $ 400k out of this , they want an end to the practice of secretive and often-wrong Algorithms robo-lawyering toddlers and infringing peoples ' fair use rights , and that likely starts with getting them into a courtroom .
Billing $ 100 for their work is not going to raise an eyebrow , either for Universal or any hypothetical collections agency they hired to enforce it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The $400K figure is likely an amount carefully calculated to make Universal's lawyers go "WTF?
" and come out fighting.
Remember, the EFF doesn't really want $400k out of this, they want an end to the practice of secretive and often-wrong Algorithms robo-lawyering toddlers and infringing peoples' fair use rights, and that likely starts with getting them into a courtroom.
Billing $100 for their work is not going to raise an eyebrow, either for Universal or any hypothetical collections agency they hired to enforce it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893188</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264446360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you mean the RIAA may or may not have made one copy available on a p2p network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean the RIAA may or may not have made one copy available on a p2p network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean the RIAA may or may not have made one copy available on a p2p network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896834</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Tempete</author>
	<datestamp>1264417920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><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><p>
 Article I, Section 8</p>
</div></blockquote></div><p>That power is in the hands of Congress. It doesn't seem like there's anything in the DMCA that isn't in line with <i>"securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exlusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"</i>, so what would you have the courts do?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to live in a country with lifelong appointed Judges throwing away legislation for any reason other than it's constitutionality. We get little enough say in legislation written by Congress, but it is better than none. Obviously the DMCA benefits some and causes harm to others, but the Court isn't there to make policy decisions.</p><p><div class="quote"><div><p>"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."</p><p>
  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr</p>
</div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>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 ; Article I , Section 8 That power is in the hands of Congress .
It does n't seem like there 's anything in the DMCA that is n't in line with " securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exlusive right to their respective writings and discoveries " , so what would you have the courts do ?
I do n't know about you , but I would n't like to live in a country with lifelong appointed Judges throwing away legislation for any reason other than it 's constitutionality .
We get little enough say in legislation written by Congress , but it is better than none .
Obviously the DMCA benefits some and causes harm to others , but the Court is n't there to make policy decisions .
" This is a court of law , young man , not a court of justice .
" Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes , Jr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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;
 Article I, Section 8
That power is in the hands of Congress.
It doesn't seem like there's anything in the DMCA that isn't in line with "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exlusive right to their respective writings and discoveries", so what would you have the courts do?
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to live in a country with lifelong appointed Judges throwing away legislation for any reason other than it's constitutionality.
We get little enough say in legislation written by Congress, but it is better than none.
Obviously the DMCA benefits some and causes harm to others, but the Court isn't there to make policy decisions.
"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.
"
  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897812</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264422900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a patent no matte what until it expires, what's the difference?<br>If someone infringes on your copyright, you have the right to sue them. The same goes for patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a patent no matte what until it expires , what 's the difference ? If someone infringes on your copyright , you have the right to sue them .
The same goes for patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a patent no matte what until it expires, what's the difference?If someone infringes on your copyright, you have the right to sue them.
The same goes for patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895642</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It doesn't matter whether the number is higher or lower than Reebok's punishment or NASA's shuttle launch or Timmy's lollipop - they're all completely and utterly irrelevant to the case in question.</p></div><p>Actually, it does matter.  For what it took for them to write a letter, you could buy 12-16 new cars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter whether the number is higher or lower than Reebok 's punishment or NASA 's shuttle launch or Timmy 's lollipop - they 're all completely and utterly irrelevant to the case in question.Actually , it does matter .
For what it took for them to write a letter , you could buy 12-16 new cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter whether the number is higher or lower than Reebok's punishment or NASA's shuttle launch or Timmy's lollipop - they're all completely and utterly irrelevant to the case in question.Actually, it does matter.
For what it took for them to write a letter, you could buy 12-16 new cars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892286</id>
	<title>Re:How is $400k possibly reasonable?</title>
	<author>adamstew</author>
	<datestamp>1264442700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about perhaps it was only $1000 to send the letter.  But Universal refused to pay it.  So they had to sue them for it.  Now it's $1000 to send the letter and $399,000 worth of legal fees to pursue the original $1000.  Knowing how the music industry loves their lawyers, I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up taking 10 month's worth of man hours to resolve this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about perhaps it was only $ 1000 to send the letter .
But Universal refused to pay it .
So they had to sue them for it .
Now it 's $ 1000 to send the letter and $ 399,000 worth of legal fees to pursue the original $ 1000 .
Knowing how the music industry loves their lawyers , I would n't be surprised if this ended up taking 10 month 's worth of man hours to resolve this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about perhaps it was only $1000 to send the letter.
But Universal refused to pay it.
So they had to sue them for it.
Now it's $1000 to send the letter and $399,000 worth of legal fees to pursue the original $1000.
Knowing how the music industry loves their lawyers, I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up taking 10 month's worth of man hours to resolve this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30900468</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1264442760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many unfounded takedown notices do they have to issue before it graduates to "knowingly materially misrepresents"? Was the dancing baby a threat to Prince somehow?</p><p>Universal should be able to tell the difference between infringement and fair use. However, along with the rest of the RIAA, Doug Morris at UMG will insist that fair use is stealing "just a little bit." As long as the industry keeps pretending the law says something different than it actually does, they'll continue to send a takedown notice to every dancing baby they find.</p><p>The accused deserve legal representation if it is required. If the accusation is baseless, the accuser should have to pay the legal fees.</p><p>Sadly, the Supreme Court just upgraded the RIAA to a person and gave the RIAA's money freedom of speech, which they can now use to impede everyone else's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many unfounded takedown notices do they have to issue before it graduates to " knowingly materially misrepresents " ?
Was the dancing baby a threat to Prince somehow ? Universal should be able to tell the difference between infringement and fair use .
However , along with the rest of the RIAA , Doug Morris at UMG will insist that fair use is stealing " just a little bit .
" As long as the industry keeps pretending the law says something different than it actually does , they 'll continue to send a takedown notice to every dancing baby they find.The accused deserve legal representation if it is required .
If the accusation is baseless , the accuser should have to pay the legal fees.Sadly , the Supreme Court just upgraded the RIAA to a person and gave the RIAA 's money freedom of speech , which they can now use to impede everyone else 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many unfounded takedown notices do they have to issue before it graduates to "knowingly materially misrepresents"?
Was the dancing baby a threat to Prince somehow?Universal should be able to tell the difference between infringement and fair use.
However, along with the rest of the RIAA, Doug Morris at UMG will insist that fair use is stealing "just a little bit.
" As long as the industry keeps pretending the law says something different than it actually does, they'll continue to send a takedown notice to every dancing baby they find.The accused deserve legal representation if it is required.
If the accusation is baseless, the accuser should have to pay the legal fees.Sadly, the Supreme Court just upgraded the RIAA to a person and gave the RIAA's money freedom of speech, which they can now use to impede everyone else's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899230</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1264431180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Civil Law system has the traditions that judges are not lawyers, but take a completely separate path of learning.  As well, the judges must interpret the laws as written, and can't just make things up, or even depend upon what some other judge said about a situation that might be similar.</p><p>From my reading of laws and stuff, it turns out that lawyers do a good job of being specific about certain things, and vague about other things.  Domestic violence laws, passed to reduce wife beating, are not limited in wording to "a husband hitting his wife".  As simple as that law would seem to most, how do you know if the individuals are husband and wife?  Well, they're married, right?  Not always.  And what if he doesn't hit her, he just pushes her down the stairs?</p><p>The art in crafting laws and contracts is that you want the law/contract to read as broadly as necessary, but no further.  The problem with this, is that it introduces a hojillion instances where someone could find a boundary condition that the original crafting never considered.</p><p>I think the best way to explain why laws will never be perfect is to point out that computer code will never be perfect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Civil Law system has the traditions that judges are not lawyers , but take a completely separate path of learning .
As well , the judges must interpret the laws as written , and ca n't just make things up , or even depend upon what some other judge said about a situation that might be similar.From my reading of laws and stuff , it turns out that lawyers do a good job of being specific about certain things , and vague about other things .
Domestic violence laws , passed to reduce wife beating , are not limited in wording to " a husband hitting his wife " .
As simple as that law would seem to most , how do you know if the individuals are husband and wife ?
Well , they 're married , right ?
Not always .
And what if he does n't hit her , he just pushes her down the stairs ? The art in crafting laws and contracts is that you want the law/contract to read as broadly as necessary , but no further .
The problem with this , is that it introduces a hojillion instances where someone could find a boundary condition that the original crafting never considered.I think the best way to explain why laws will never be perfect is to point out that computer code will never be perfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Civil Law system has the traditions that judges are not lawyers, but take a completely separate path of learning.
As well, the judges must interpret the laws as written, and can't just make things up, or even depend upon what some other judge said about a situation that might be similar.From my reading of laws and stuff, it turns out that lawyers do a good job of being specific about certain things, and vague about other things.
Domestic violence laws, passed to reduce wife beating, are not limited in wording to "a husband hitting his wife".
As simple as that law would seem to most, how do you know if the individuals are husband and wife?
Well, they're married, right?
Not always.
And what if he doesn't hit her, he just pushes her down the stairs?The art in crafting laws and contracts is that you want the law/contract to read as broadly as necessary, but no further.
The problem with this, is that it introduces a hojillion instances where someone could find a boundary condition that the original crafting never considered.I think the best way to explain why laws will never be perfect is to point out that computer code will never be perfect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891764</id>
	<title>How is $400k possibly reasonable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In what crazy universe does it take multiple lawyers hundreds of hours to file a DMCA counter-notice? I mean, $400,000 is enough to pay a team of 10 lawyers for a month of billable hours! How could they have possibly accumulated that much just to file a simple boilerplate letter?</p><p>At most this sort of thing should cost $1000-2000.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In what crazy universe does it take multiple lawyers hundreds of hours to file a DMCA counter-notice ?
I mean , $ 400,000 is enough to pay a team of 10 lawyers for a month of billable hours !
How could they have possibly accumulated that much just to file a simple boilerplate letter ? At most this sort of thing should cost $ 1000-2000.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what crazy universe does it take multiple lawyers hundreds of hours to file a DMCA counter-notice?
I mean, $400,000 is enough to pay a team of 10 lawyers for a month of billable hours!
How could they have possibly accumulated that much just to file a simple boilerplate letter?At most this sort of thing should cost $1000-2000.dom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894842</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Thalaric</author>
	<datestamp>1264410360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with most of what you said in principle, in practice it is near impossible to write a legal framework that is "very clear". If you make the wording too specific you are likely to leave out important coverage, causing loopholes that allow an end run around the law (the more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers). If you leave room to cover all cases your law may become too vague and will be "interpreted" to death. To make matters worse, new words are necessary to communicate reoccurring concepts and legal connotations can mean the exact opposite of normal language. E.g. in the elastic clause of the U.S. Constitution, "necessary" is legally defined as "expedient". The founding fathers thought they were using clear and simple language and the results show that more clarification was probably necessary.</p><p>In short, while we require language to express laws, it will be impossible to write them clear and precise and you will always need someone trained to write and interpret them.</p><p>Your other comments about the moral responsibility of lawyers are well taken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with most of what you said in principle , in practice it is near impossible to write a legal framework that is " very clear " .
If you make the wording too specific you are likely to leave out important coverage , causing loopholes that allow an end run around the law ( the more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers ) .
If you leave room to cover all cases your law may become too vague and will be " interpreted " to death .
To make matters worse , new words are necessary to communicate reoccurring concepts and legal connotations can mean the exact opposite of normal language .
E.g. in the elastic clause of the U.S. Constitution , " necessary " is legally defined as " expedient " .
The founding fathers thought they were using clear and simple language and the results show that more clarification was probably necessary.In short , while we require language to express laws , it will be impossible to write them clear and precise and you will always need someone trained to write and interpret them.Your other comments about the moral responsibility of lawyers are well taken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with most of what you said in principle, in practice it is near impossible to write a legal framework that is "very clear".
If you make the wording too specific you are likely to leave out important coverage, causing loopholes that allow an end run around the law (the more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers).
If you leave room to cover all cases your law may become too vague and will be "interpreted" to death.
To make matters worse, new words are necessary to communicate reoccurring concepts and legal connotations can mean the exact opposite of normal language.
E.g. in the elastic clause of the U.S. Constitution, "necessary" is legally defined as "expedient".
The founding fathers thought they were using clear and simple language and the results show that more clarification was probably necessary.In short, while we require language to express laws, it will be impossible to write them clear and precise and you will always need someone trained to write and interpret them.Your other comments about the moral responsibility of lawyers are well taken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895766</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1264414080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[Bennett] know[s] enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be right.</p></div><p>In other words, he's a Slashdotter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Bennett ] know [ s ] enough to be dangerous , but not enough to be right.In other words , he 's a Slashdotter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Bennett] know[s] enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be right.In other words, he's a Slashdotter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891514</id>
	<title>These are the only industries</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1264440120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>that don't see deep cultural penetration of their products as an unqualified good. They could take a cue from Microsoft and learn that even piracy brings value by making your product be what's on people's minds in a desirable way. Yes, Microsoft may lose business, but they maintain marketshare. Likewise, a label whose songs are remixed in fan videos or used as background music in a YouTube video is keeping its product out there at no cost to itself, which at least keeps it in the minds of more music buyers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that do n't see deep cultural penetration of their products as an unqualified good .
They could take a cue from Microsoft and learn that even piracy brings value by making your product be what 's on people 's minds in a desirable way .
Yes , Microsoft may lose business , but they maintain marketshare .
Likewise , a label whose songs are remixed in fan videos or used as background music in a YouTube video is keeping its product out there at no cost to itself , which at least keeps it in the minds of more music buyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that don't see deep cultural penetration of their products as an unqualified good.
They could take a cue from Microsoft and learn that even piracy brings value by making your product be what's on people's minds in a desirable way.
Yes, Microsoft may lose business, but they maintain marketshare.
Likewise, a label whose songs are remixed in fan videos or used as background music in a YouTube video is keeping its product out there at no cost to itself, which at least keeps it in the minds of more music buyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897618</id>
	<title>Universal is NOT an indie artist.</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1264421940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the danger of attorney fee awards will prevent entities (including artists) from abusing the DMCA (even more) and encourage them to actually review their accusations to see if they hold up to the light of fair use or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the danger of attorney fee awards will prevent entities ( including artists ) from abusing the DMCA ( even more ) and encourage them to actually review their accusations to see if they hold up to the light of fair use or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the danger of attorney fee awards will prevent entities (including artists) from abusing the DMCA (even more) and encourage them to actually review their accusations to see if they hold up to the light of fair use or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895464</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>shadowrat</author>
	<datestamp>1264412880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so only cost $399 999 for the attorneys? that's a good deal then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so only cost $ 399 999 for the attorneys ?
that 's a good deal then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so only cost $399 999 for the attorneys?
that's a good deal then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895238</id>
	<title>Re:It was not just 30s</title>
	<author>Teun</author>
	<datestamp>1264411980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pure evil sir, pure unadulterated evil did it.<p>
Oh yeah, and a sprinkle of greed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pure evil sir , pure unadulterated evil did it .
Oh yeah , and a sprinkle of greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pure evil sir, pure unadulterated evil did it.
Oh yeah, and a sprinkle of greed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892382</id>
	<title>$400,000 is cheap</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1264443060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. This is the Legal world not a PHP/.net software contract.  The social value of Lawyers is ranked far and above any software/net profession.  Their costs have a greater probability of reflecting what's needed in dollar terms to maintain a specific American standard of living within the higher ranks of American society.</p><p>2. Look at it the way software projects doomed for failure in the average megacorp are costed-out.  Take the lone developer or two's salary, divide it into the hours on the project, then add in every single conceivable cost including electricity for the entire facility, the CTO's salary, Project Manager's salary, Project Team, the cost of every computer that uses the software, the cost of every *user* that somehow benefits and you'll get to a project cost of $400,000 for a bash script.  While it may sound funny, I've been there and seen that.</p><p>Not to hijack the thread too much, but the CEO's pet project can bleed costs all year and not come under any scrutiny whatsoever.</p><p>Bottom line: $400,000 won't last long at the EFF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
This is the Legal world not a PHP/.net software contract .
The social value of Lawyers is ranked far and above any software/net profession .
Their costs have a greater probability of reflecting what 's needed in dollar terms to maintain a specific American standard of living within the higher ranks of American society.2 .
Look at it the way software projects doomed for failure in the average megacorp are costed-out .
Take the lone developer or two 's salary , divide it into the hours on the project , then add in every single conceivable cost including electricity for the entire facility , the CTO 's salary , Project Manager 's salary , Project Team , the cost of every computer that uses the software , the cost of every * user * that somehow benefits and you 'll get to a project cost of $ 400,000 for a bash script .
While it may sound funny , I 've been there and seen that.Not to hijack the thread too much , but the CEO 's pet project can bleed costs all year and not come under any scrutiny whatsoever.Bottom line : $ 400,000 wo n't last long at the EFF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
This is the Legal world not a PHP/.net software contract.
The social value of Lawyers is ranked far and above any software/net profession.
Their costs have a greater probability of reflecting what's needed in dollar terms to maintain a specific American standard of living within the higher ranks of American society.2.
Look at it the way software projects doomed for failure in the average megacorp are costed-out.
Take the lone developer or two's salary, divide it into the hours on the project, then add in every single conceivable cost including electricity for the entire facility, the CTO's salary, Project Manager's salary, Project Team, the cost of every computer that uses the software, the cost of every *user* that somehow benefits and you'll get to a project cost of $400,000 for a bash script.
While it may sound funny, I've been there and seen that.Not to hijack the thread too much, but the CEO's pet project can bleed costs all year and not come under any scrutiny whatsoever.Bottom line: $400,000 won't last long at the EFF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892134</id>
	<title>How about a variation of "loser-pays?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My suggestion:  When you sue someone, you first have to post a bond to the court, the amount being proportional to how much you're suing for.  If you win or the case is settled out of court, you get it back.  If you lose, it goes to the defendant.  Why this one-sided "loser-pays" system?  Because the plaintiff is the one who decides whether to sue.  The defendant has no choice in the matter.  This unexpected interruption of his life and the legal expenses involved in defending himself should be compensated for, if it turns out that he did no wrong.  On the other hand, the plaintiff has a choice.  He doesn't have to sue.  He will only sue when he believes the court costs and attorney fees are something he can afford.  This just adds one more potential cost on top of that.</p><p>By keeping the bond amount tied to the amount requested by the plaintiff, you accomplish two things: First, it discourages people from suing for insane amounts.  Second, if the defendant really did cost you something in the same order of magnitude as to what you're requesting, then it should be pretty safe to assume that you have something on the same order of magnitude in assets.  For example, if I mug you and take $250.00, that means your income allows you to carry $250.00 around in your wallet.  So posting a bond of, say, $150.00 shouldn't be an overwhelming hardship for you.  On the other hand, if I mug you and take $10,000.00, then your income level means you should be able to afford to post a bond of, say, $7,000.00.  It's not a perfect assumption, but it's a pretty good one.</p><p>Of course, this doesn't address how much the bond would be if you're suing for an injunction, or custody of a child, or some other non-monetary compensation, so those would have to be dealt with as special cases.</p><p>You could also give the judge discretion over returning the bond to the plaintiff even if they lose, for example if the defendant deliberately and willfully wronged the plaintiff but managed to exploit a loophole in the law to get away with it.</p><p>This also doesn't apply directly to DMCA takedown notices, but a variation of the same theory could work.  It should cost you to file a fraudulent notice.  Maybe not $400,000.00, but maybe $100.00 per notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My suggestion : When you sue someone , you first have to post a bond to the court , the amount being proportional to how much you 're suing for .
If you win or the case is settled out of court , you get it back .
If you lose , it goes to the defendant .
Why this one-sided " loser-pays " system ?
Because the plaintiff is the one who decides whether to sue .
The defendant has no choice in the matter .
This unexpected interruption of his life and the legal expenses involved in defending himself should be compensated for , if it turns out that he did no wrong .
On the other hand , the plaintiff has a choice .
He does n't have to sue .
He will only sue when he believes the court costs and attorney fees are something he can afford .
This just adds one more potential cost on top of that.By keeping the bond amount tied to the amount requested by the plaintiff , you accomplish two things : First , it discourages people from suing for insane amounts .
Second , if the defendant really did cost you something in the same order of magnitude as to what you 're requesting , then it should be pretty safe to assume that you have something on the same order of magnitude in assets .
For example , if I mug you and take $ 250.00 , that means your income allows you to carry $ 250.00 around in your wallet .
So posting a bond of , say , $ 150.00 should n't be an overwhelming hardship for you .
On the other hand , if I mug you and take $ 10,000.00 , then your income level means you should be able to afford to post a bond of , say , $ 7,000.00 .
It 's not a perfect assumption , but it 's a pretty good one.Of course , this does n't address how much the bond would be if you 're suing for an injunction , or custody of a child , or some other non-monetary compensation , so those would have to be dealt with as special cases.You could also give the judge discretion over returning the bond to the plaintiff even if they lose , for example if the defendant deliberately and willfully wronged the plaintiff but managed to exploit a loophole in the law to get away with it.This also does n't apply directly to DMCA takedown notices , but a variation of the same theory could work .
It should cost you to file a fraudulent notice .
Maybe not $ 400,000.00 , but maybe $ 100.00 per notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suggestion:  When you sue someone, you first have to post a bond to the court, the amount being proportional to how much you're suing for.
If you win or the case is settled out of court, you get it back.
If you lose, it goes to the defendant.
Why this one-sided "loser-pays" system?
Because the plaintiff is the one who decides whether to sue.
The defendant has no choice in the matter.
This unexpected interruption of his life and the legal expenses involved in defending himself should be compensated for, if it turns out that he did no wrong.
On the other hand, the plaintiff has a choice.
He doesn't have to sue.
He will only sue when he believes the court costs and attorney fees are something he can afford.
This just adds one more potential cost on top of that.By keeping the bond amount tied to the amount requested by the plaintiff, you accomplish two things: First, it discourages people from suing for insane amounts.
Second, if the defendant really did cost you something in the same order of magnitude as to what you're requesting, then it should be pretty safe to assume that you have something on the same order of magnitude in assets.
For example, if I mug you and take $250.00, that means your income allows you to carry $250.00 around in your wallet.
So posting a bond of, say, $150.00 shouldn't be an overwhelming hardship for you.
On the other hand, if I mug you and take $10,000.00, then your income level means you should be able to afford to post a bond of, say, $7,000.00.
It's not a perfect assumption, but it's a pretty good one.Of course, this doesn't address how much the bond would be if you're suing for an injunction, or custody of a child, or some other non-monetary compensation, so those would have to be dealt with as special cases.You could also give the judge discretion over returning the bond to the plaintiff even if they lose, for example if the defendant deliberately and willfully wronged the plaintiff but managed to exploit a loophole in the law to get away with it.This also doesn't apply directly to DMCA takedown notices, but a variation of the same theory could work.
It should cost you to file a fraudulent notice.
Maybe not $400,000.00, but maybe $100.00 per notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891680</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>DreamsAreOkToo</author>
	<datestamp>1264440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if a song is worth $180,000, then I can see how the letter is worth $400,000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if a song is worth $ 180,000 , then I can see how the letter is worth $ 400,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if a song is worth $180,000, then I can see how the letter is worth $400,000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892120</id>
	<title>Yes, $40,000 is a fair punishment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264442160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The problem is that once you have a $400,000 bill on the table, someone has to pay it, which punishes one or both parties usually vastly out of proportion to any wrongdoing.</p><p>Yes, $40,000 is a fair punishment, IF you decided to use an ultimate arbiter (the legal system) as your first and only means of interaction.</p><p>You should be able to come to some kind of agreement long before lawyers and their $40,000 bills are involved. If you can't, then it's most likely because the $40,000 result is stacked in your favor. Otherwise, you wouldn't play that way, would you?</p><p>Since the major abusers of copyright have decided to use a system that was never intended as anything other than an absolute last resort where it is essential that the parties have their differences of opinion reconciled, and use it as though it is a means for forcing their every petty trifle that they notice; then yes, seriously risking $40,000 should be the price of admission. Or, you know, they could try something else first ($40,000 would pay a negotiator full-time for a whole year to try and solve the problem amicably).</p><p>THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS A LAST RESORT FOR CASES WHERE NEGOTIATION IS OR HAS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE AND LOSSES ARE OR COULD BE CRITICAL. IF YOU TAKE TRIVIAL MATTERS THERE, YOU ARE TAKING A $40,000+ RISK; AS YOU SHOULD BE. IF IT'S NOT WORTH $40,000 THEN IT SHOULDN'T EVEN INVOLVE LAWYERS; LET ALONE INVOLVE LAWYERS AS THE FIRST OPTION.</p><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but let's play devil's advocate. Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube. Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use. Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</p><p>Indie musicians probably wouldn't be in this position; because they probably wouldn't have lawyers just hanging around waiting for infringement to be detected so that they can send out mass-produced takedowns. They would send takedowns only for infringement that actually threatened their work; and even then, only where they had bothered to ensure that the infringement, in the opinion of a COMPETENT, PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL lawyer, was a slam-dunk case. Otherwise, they'd be better off spending their time getting on with their job of creating and not worry so much that someone, somewhere, might not have paid the full fraction of a dollar that they are entitled to for performance royalties or other purchases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The problem is that once you have a $ 400,000 bill on the table , someone has to pay it , which punishes one or both parties usually vastly out of proportion to any wrongdoing.Yes , $ 40,000 is a fair punishment , IF you decided to use an ultimate arbiter ( the legal system ) as your first and only means of interaction.You should be able to come to some kind of agreement long before lawyers and their $ 40,000 bills are involved .
If you ca n't , then it 's most likely because the $ 40,000 result is stacked in your favor .
Otherwise , you would n't play that way , would you ? Since the major abusers of copyright have decided to use a system that was never intended as anything other than an absolute last resort where it is essential that the parties have their differences of opinion reconciled , and use it as though it is a means for forcing their every petty trifle that they notice ; then yes , seriously risking $ 40,000 should be the price of admission .
Or , you know , they could try something else first ( $ 40,000 would pay a negotiator full-time for a whole year to try and solve the problem amicably ) .THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS A LAST RESORT FOR CASES WHERE NEGOTIATION IS OR HAS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE AND LOSSES ARE OR COULD BE CRITICAL .
IF YOU TAKE TRIVIAL MATTERS THERE , YOU ARE TAKING A $ 40,000 + RISK ; AS YOU SHOULD BE .
IF IT 'S NOT WORTH $ 40,000 THEN IT SHOULD N'T EVEN INVOLVE LAWYERS ; LET ALONE INVOLVE LAWYERS AS THE FIRST OPTION. &gt; ...but let 's play devil 's advocate .
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online , and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission , so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube .
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song , short enough to count as fair use .
Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ? Indie musicians probably would n't be in this position ; because they probably would n't have lawyers just hanging around waiting for infringement to be detected so that they can send out mass-produced takedowns .
They would send takedowns only for infringement that actually threatened their work ; and even then , only where they had bothered to ensure that the infringement , in the opinion of a COMPETENT , PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL lawyer , was a slam-dunk case .
Otherwise , they 'd be better off spending their time getting on with their job of creating and not worry so much that someone , somewhere , might not have paid the full fraction of a dollar that they are entitled to for performance royalties or other purchases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The problem is that once you have a $400,000 bill on the table, someone has to pay it, which punishes one or both parties usually vastly out of proportion to any wrongdoing.Yes, $40,000 is a fair punishment, IF you decided to use an ultimate arbiter (the legal system) as your first and only means of interaction.You should be able to come to some kind of agreement long before lawyers and their $40,000 bills are involved.
If you can't, then it's most likely because the $40,000 result is stacked in your favor.
Otherwise, you wouldn't play that way, would you?Since the major abusers of copyright have decided to use a system that was never intended as anything other than an absolute last resort where it is essential that the parties have their differences of opinion reconciled, and use it as though it is a means for forcing their every petty trifle that they notice; then yes, seriously risking $40,000 should be the price of admission.
Or, you know, they could try something else first ($40,000 would pay a negotiator full-time for a whole year to try and solve the problem amicably).THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS A LAST RESORT FOR CASES WHERE NEGOTIATION IS OR HAS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE AND LOSSES ARE OR COULD BE CRITICAL.
IF YOU TAKE TRIVIAL MATTERS THERE, YOU ARE TAKING A $40,000+ RISK; AS YOU SHOULD BE.
IF IT'S NOT WORTH $40,000 THEN IT SHOULDN'T EVEN INVOLVE LAWYERS; LET ALONE INVOLVE LAWYERS AS THE FIRST OPTION.&gt; ...but let's play devil's advocate.
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube.
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use.
Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?Indie musicians probably wouldn't be in this position; because they probably wouldn't have lawyers just hanging around waiting for infringement to be detected so that they can send out mass-produced takedowns.
They would send takedowns only for infringement that actually threatened their work; and even then, only where they had bothered to ensure that the infringement, in the opinion of a COMPETENT, PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL lawyer, was a slam-dunk case.
Otherwise, they'd be better off spending their time getting on with their job of creating and not worry so much that someone, somewhere, might not have paid the full fraction of a dollar that they are entitled to for performance royalties or other purchases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892976</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Synchis</author>
	<datestamp>1264445400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The $x,xxx per song that the RIAA has been winning are not punitive damages. They are Statutory damages.</p><p>Here's the difference:</p><p>Punitive damages are awarded when actual damages are not enough to punish the defendant for the act. A punitive damage award is *in addition to* actual damages, and serves as that punishment. Jail time is not an option in civil cases, and thus, punitive damages are used instead to deter future offenses.</p><p>Statutory damages are awarded when actual damages are difficult or impossible to calculate. They are awarded *instead of* actual damages. And there are times when punitive damages may be awarded *in addition to* statutory damages. Statutory damages are not meant as a deterrent for future offenses, which is one of the biggest issues people have with the massive damage awards the RIAA is getting in the Lindor and Tennenbaum cases. It's like they are using statutory damages as a punitive damage award because the law does not allow for a punitive damage award in those cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The $ x,xxx per song that the RIAA has been winning are not punitive damages .
They are Statutory damages.Here 's the difference : Punitive damages are awarded when actual damages are not enough to punish the defendant for the act .
A punitive damage award is * in addition to * actual damages , and serves as that punishment .
Jail time is not an option in civil cases , and thus , punitive damages are used instead to deter future offenses.Statutory damages are awarded when actual damages are difficult or impossible to calculate .
They are awarded * instead of * actual damages .
And there are times when punitive damages may be awarded * in addition to * statutory damages .
Statutory damages are not meant as a deterrent for future offenses , which is one of the biggest issues people have with the massive damage awards the RIAA is getting in the Lindor and Tennenbaum cases .
It 's like they are using statutory damages as a punitive damage award because the law does not allow for a punitive damage award in those cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The $x,xxx per song that the RIAA has been winning are not punitive damages.
They are Statutory damages.Here's the difference:Punitive damages are awarded when actual damages are not enough to punish the defendant for the act.
A punitive damage award is *in addition to* actual damages, and serves as that punishment.
Jail time is not an option in civil cases, and thus, punitive damages are used instead to deter future offenses.Statutory damages are awarded when actual damages are difficult or impossible to calculate.
They are awarded *instead of* actual damages.
And there are times when punitive damages may be awarded *in addition to* statutory damages.
Statutory damages are not meant as a deterrent for future offenses, which is one of the biggest issues people have with the massive damage awards the RIAA is getting in the Lindor and Tennenbaum cases.
It's like they are using statutory damages as a punitive damage award because the law does not allow for a punitive damage award in those cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892322</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1264442880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember the argument as to why file sharers have to pay a million dollars for sharing one CD?  Because you only catch one, but millions of people are doing it, so they have to pay for all the others, too, to be fair to the copyright owner!  Lots of companies and firms send out LOTS of completely bogus DMCA notices, and the EFF deals with a large number of them.  So, fair's fair, why can't they charge Universal all their legal fees for all of the bogus notices?  They should also charge for all the lobbying they do to try to get the DMCA fixed!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the argument as to why file sharers have to pay a million dollars for sharing one CD ?
Because you only catch one , but millions of people are doing it , so they have to pay for all the others , too , to be fair to the copyright owner !
Lots of companies and firms send out LOTS of completely bogus DMCA notices , and the EFF deals with a large number of them .
So , fair 's fair , why ca n't they charge Universal all their legal fees for all of the bogus notices ?
They should also charge for all the lobbying they do to try to get the DMCA fixed !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the argument as to why file sharers have to pay a million dollars for sharing one CD?
Because you only catch one, but millions of people are doing it, so they have to pay for all the others, too, to be fair to the copyright owner!
Lots of companies and firms send out LOTS of completely bogus DMCA notices, and the EFF deals with a large number of them.
So, fair's fair, why can't they charge Universal all their legal fees for all of the bogus notices?
They should also charge for all the lobbying they do to try to get the DMCA fixed!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893212</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>nabsltd</author>
	<datestamp>1264446480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or, if longer than five minutes, thirty seconds (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Music\_samples#How\_much\_is\_10.25" title="wikipedia.org">even Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] implements this).</p></div><p>I'm not sure what "most copyright lawyers" believe, but I do know that there has never been any codified limit on the portion of an audiovisual work that makes "fair use" an unassailable defense.</p><p>The bogus 30-second limit has been used countless times in references that know nothing about copyright law, similar to the way that 10 or 25 words or "one sentence" or any other essentially random number is used as the layman's criterion for fair use when quoting text.</p><p>The four pillars that make up fair use are:
</p><ul> <li>the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes</li><li>the nature of the copyrighted work</li><li>the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole</li><li>the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work</li></ul><p>In a particular case, if the other three far outweigh the "amount and substantiality", then it's still fair use, even if you are using the entire original work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor ' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or , if longer than five minutes , thirty seconds ( even Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] implements this ) .I 'm not sure what " most copyright lawyers " believe , but I do know that there has never been any codified limit on the portion of an audiovisual work that makes " fair use " an unassailable defense.The bogus 30-second limit has been used countless times in references that know nothing about copyright law , similar to the way that 10 or 25 words or " one sentence " or any other essentially random number is used as the layman 's criterion for fair use when quoting text.The four pillars that make up fair use are : the purpose and character of the use , including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposesthe nature of the copyrighted workthe amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a wholethe effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted workIn a particular case , if the other three far outweigh the " amount and substantiality " , then it 's still fair use , even if you are using the entire original work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or, if longer than five minutes, thirty seconds (even Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] implements this).I'm not sure what "most copyright lawyers" believe, but I do know that there has never been any codified limit on the portion of an audiovisual work that makes "fair use" an unassailable defense.The bogus 30-second limit has been used countless times in references that know nothing about copyright law, similar to the way that 10 or 25 words or "one sentence" or any other essentially random number is used as the layman's criterion for fair use when quoting text.The four pillars that make up fair use are:
 the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposesthe nature of the copyrighted workthe amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a wholethe effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted workIn a particular case, if the other three far outweigh the "amount and substantiality", then it's still fair use, even if you are using the entire original work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891790</id>
	<title>Hey, if 1 song is worth $40,000...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...then 1 attorney taking 2 or 3 hours of time to review the facts, compose the letter, and handle internal billing paperwork is surely worth $400,000.  What goes around comes around.  When grandma gets penalized millions of dollars for having her grandson download 20 songs over bit torrent, surely lawyer fees must be worth much more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...then 1 attorney taking 2 or 3 hours of time to review the facts , compose the letter , and handle internal billing paperwork is surely worth $ 400,000 .
What goes around comes around .
When grandma gets penalized millions of dollars for having her grandson download 20 songs over bit torrent , surely lawyer fees must be worth much more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then 1 attorney taking 2 or 3 hours of time to review the facts, compose the letter, and handle internal billing paperwork is surely worth $400,000.
What goes around comes around.
When grandma gets penalized millions of dollars for having her grandson download 20 songs over bit torrent, surely lawyer fees must be worth much more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892268</id>
	<title>It's just like that time with the brooms!</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1264442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh god! I think my magical clicky device is broken. I aligned the two eldrich factors correctly and conjured more words to the mystic scrying pool just like I've seen others do, but something happened and I can't fix it. More words appeared, and then more and more and there doesn't seem to be an end to them. Oh god they're everywhere! My master is going to be back soon and I don't know what to do with all of them. I think I'll get the axe!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh god !
I think my magical clicky device is broken .
I aligned the two eldrich factors correctly and conjured more words to the mystic scrying pool just like I 've seen others do , but something happened and I ca n't fix it .
More words appeared , and then more and more and there does n't seem to be an end to them .
Oh god they 're everywhere !
My master is going to be back soon and I do n't know what to do with all of them .
I think I 'll get the axe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh god!
I think my magical clicky device is broken.
I aligned the two eldrich factors correctly and conjured more words to the mystic scrying pool just like I've seen others do, but something happened and I can't fix it.
More words appeared, and then more and more and there doesn't seem to be an end to them.
Oh god they're everywhere!
My master is going to be back soon and I don't know what to do with all of them.
I think I'll get the axe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899454</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>be-fan</author>
	<datestamp>1264433460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Laws are written by lawyers, voted in by politicians (80\% of which are/were lawyers), and judged by judges who were lawyers.</p><p>Loopholes and vague wording are things that lawyers are GOOD at creating in our system.  They are lawyers, they are supposed to be smart enough to make laws very clear; yet wherever you look, laws are written with loopholes and vague wording that permit loads of points of contention to which lawyers must be hired to resolve...</p></div><p>The law tries to be clear, but it never can be because it's fundamentally trying to encode all sorts of fuzzy human emotions/motivations/tendencies, etc.</p><p>Let's take your lawyer-free utopia. Rules are crystal clear and the process of checking whether a rule has been followed is straightforward and mechanical. How do you handle something like a fair use rule? A 30 second time limit? What if it's a 35 second clip that's on quietly in the background of an Indie movie? What if it's a 15 second clip of an advertisement lifted directly from a competing company's ad?</p><p>Look at laws that have crystal clear applications: statutory rape laws. Did they have sex? If yes, is she under 17? If yes, then guilty! No mind that it was her 18 year old boyfriend. How about drug possession? No need for judges to do the sentencing, we can simply make sentencing mechanical. 10 years for 10 grams, 100 years for 100 grams. No need to consider stuff like that the same amount of LSD can weigh a ton more when it's dissolved in sugar cubes rather than blotter paper.</p><p>The criminal justice system is one of those areas where lawyers and judges have been taken out of the loop, with 95\% of cases being disposed of quickly through plea bargaining and sentencing being dictated by tables and formulas. It is also one of the most completely messed up, random, and downright unfair areas of the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws are written by lawyers , voted in by politicians ( 80 \ % of which are/were lawyers ) , and judged by judges who were lawyers.Loopholes and vague wording are things that lawyers are GOOD at creating in our system .
They are lawyers , they are supposed to be smart enough to make laws very clear ; yet wherever you look , laws are written with loopholes and vague wording that permit loads of points of contention to which lawyers must be hired to resolve...The law tries to be clear , but it never can be because it 's fundamentally trying to encode all sorts of fuzzy human emotions/motivations/tendencies , etc.Let 's take your lawyer-free utopia .
Rules are crystal clear and the process of checking whether a rule has been followed is straightforward and mechanical .
How do you handle something like a fair use rule ?
A 30 second time limit ?
What if it 's a 35 second clip that 's on quietly in the background of an Indie movie ?
What if it 's a 15 second clip of an advertisement lifted directly from a competing company 's ad ? Look at laws that have crystal clear applications : statutory rape laws .
Did they have sex ?
If yes , is she under 17 ?
If yes , then guilty !
No mind that it was her 18 year old boyfriend .
How about drug possession ?
No need for judges to do the sentencing , we can simply make sentencing mechanical .
10 years for 10 grams , 100 years for 100 grams .
No need to consider stuff like that the same amount of LSD can weigh a ton more when it 's dissolved in sugar cubes rather than blotter paper.The criminal justice system is one of those areas where lawyers and judges have been taken out of the loop , with 95 \ % of cases being disposed of quickly through plea bargaining and sentencing being dictated by tables and formulas .
It is also one of the most completely messed up , random , and downright unfair areas of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws are written by lawyers, voted in by politicians (80\% of which are/were lawyers), and judged by judges who were lawyers.Loopholes and vague wording are things that lawyers are GOOD at creating in our system.
They are lawyers, they are supposed to be smart enough to make laws very clear; yet wherever you look, laws are written with loopholes and vague wording that permit loads of points of contention to which lawyers must be hired to resolve...The law tries to be clear, but it never can be because it's fundamentally trying to encode all sorts of fuzzy human emotions/motivations/tendencies, etc.Let's take your lawyer-free utopia.
Rules are crystal clear and the process of checking whether a rule has been followed is straightforward and mechanical.
How do you handle something like a fair use rule?
A 30 second time limit?
What if it's a 35 second clip that's on quietly in the background of an Indie movie?
What if it's a 15 second clip of an advertisement lifted directly from a competing company's ad?Look at laws that have crystal clear applications: statutory rape laws.
Did they have sex?
If yes, is she under 17?
If yes, then guilty!
No mind that it was her 18 year old boyfriend.
How about drug possession?
No need for judges to do the sentencing, we can simply make sentencing mechanical.
10 years for 10 grams, 100 years for 100 grams.
No need to consider stuff like that the same amount of LSD can weigh a ton more when it's dissolved in sugar cubes rather than blotter paper.The criminal justice system is one of those areas where lawyers and judges have been taken out of the loop, with 95\% of cases being disposed of quickly through plea bargaining and sentencing being dictated by tables and formulas.
It is also one of the most completely messed up, random, and downright unfair areas of the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892018</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1264441800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Let's Go Crazy" is a 279 second track off of Purple Rain. Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or, if longer than five minutes, thirty seconds (even Wikipedia implements this). In a very pedantic analysis, had she used 27.9 seconds of the song instead of the quoted 30 then there would be no grounds for take down, let alone a court case.</i> <br> <br>

There's no basis in law for those figures.  The law is deliberately constructed to NOT have those sorts of arbitrary limits.  It's a mistake to be pedantic over a rule-of-thumb estimate that has no legal weight.  There are cases where a full song would be fair use, there are cases where a fifteen-second clip would be infringement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Let 's Go Crazy " is a 279 second track off of Purple Rain .
Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor ' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or , if longer than five minutes , thirty seconds ( even Wikipedia implements this ) .
In a very pedantic analysis , had she used 27.9 seconds of the song instead of the quoted 30 then there would be no grounds for take down , let alone a court case .
There 's no basis in law for those figures .
The law is deliberately constructed to NOT have those sorts of arbitrary limits .
It 's a mistake to be pedantic over a rule-of-thumb estimate that has no legal weight .
There are cases where a full song would be fair use , there are cases where a fifteen-second clip would be infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Let's Go Crazy" is a 279 second track off of Purple Rain.
Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or, if longer than five minutes, thirty seconds (even Wikipedia implements this).
In a very pedantic analysis, had she used 27.9 seconds of the song instead of the quoted 30 then there would be no grounds for take down, let alone a court case.
There's no basis in law for those figures.
The law is deliberately constructed to NOT have those sorts of arbitrary limits.
It's a mistake to be pedantic over a rule-of-thumb estimate that has no legal weight.
There are cases where a full song would be fair use, there are cases where a fifteen-second clip would be infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899440</id>
	<title>Re:Some background on the this issue in the case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264433340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I kind of took you seriously up until you linked to a fucking XKCD comic, at which point I realized that you're really just an armchair lawyer without a fucking clue. At best, at BEST you're a college student studying law and desperately vying for attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I kind of took you seriously up until you linked to a fucking XKCD comic , at which point I realized that you 're really just an armchair lawyer without a fucking clue .
At best , at BEST you 're a college student studying law and desperately vying for attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kind of took you seriously up until you linked to a fucking XKCD comic, at which point I realized that you're really just an armchair lawyer without a fucking clue.
At best, at BEST you're a college student studying law and desperately vying for attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891746</id>
	<title>IndieArtist says....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the standpoint of (an) IndieArtist -- They don't have a team of lawyers or sub-sub-contractors trolling youtube videos looking for so-called infringments.</p><p>So the only way that they would find out is by somebody else reporting it, randomly stumbling across a video, or by purposefully searching for their song titles.</p><p>In any case, IndieArtist would have to read up on DMCA takedown actions and responsibilities, because TANAL.  Hopefully, before sending out any such takedown requests, they've actually spoken to a lawyer-friend to get advice.</p><p>At the very least, they would have had to "done their homework"  and viewed the videos looking for infringing materials.   But again, the concept of infringement to IndieArtist may be subtly different:  Propagating their song by fan-made tribute videos can only increase their exposure, so unless they're really trying to stop something from getting out of hand, chances are they're going to "let it ride," or at the very least, contact the poster of the video and ask them nicely to remove it, or hey!  "buy the CD if you haven't already."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the standpoint of ( an ) IndieArtist -- They do n't have a team of lawyers or sub-sub-contractors trolling youtube videos looking for so-called infringments.So the only way that they would find out is by somebody else reporting it , randomly stumbling across a video , or by purposefully searching for their song titles.In any case , IndieArtist would have to read up on DMCA takedown actions and responsibilities , because TANAL .
Hopefully , before sending out any such takedown requests , they 've actually spoken to a lawyer-friend to get advice.At the very least , they would have had to " done their homework " and viewed the videos looking for infringing materials .
But again , the concept of infringement to IndieArtist may be subtly different : Propagating their song by fan-made tribute videos can only increase their exposure , so unless they 're really trying to stop something from getting out of hand , chances are they 're going to " let it ride , " or at the very least , contact the poster of the video and ask them nicely to remove it , or hey !
" buy the CD if you have n't already .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the standpoint of (an) IndieArtist -- They don't have a team of lawyers or sub-sub-contractors trolling youtube videos looking for so-called infringments.So the only way that they would find out is by somebody else reporting it, randomly stumbling across a video, or by purposefully searching for their song titles.In any case, IndieArtist would have to read up on DMCA takedown actions and responsibilities, because TANAL.
Hopefully, before sending out any such takedown requests, they've actually spoken to a lawyer-friend to get advice.At the very least, they would have had to "done their homework"  and viewed the videos looking for infringing materials.
But again, the concept of infringement to IndieArtist may be subtly different:  Propagating their song by fan-made tribute videos can only increase their exposure, so unless they're really trying to stop something from getting out of hand, chances are they're going to "let it ride," or at the very least, contact the poster of the video and ask them nicely to remove it, or hey!
"buy the CD if you haven't already.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896746</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1264417680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Wayne's Word, Wayne plays one generic riff. Instead of one specific riff from Stairway to Heaven, with the big sign "No playing 'Stairway to Heaven'" in the guitar store.<br>Yep, the 8 or so notes were too much of a copyright issue and had to be scrapped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Wayne 's Word , Wayne plays one generic riff .
Instead of one specific riff from Stairway to Heaven , with the big sign " No playing 'Stairway to Heaven ' " in the guitar store.Yep , the 8 or so notes were too much of a copyright issue and had to be scrapped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Wayne's Word, Wayne plays one generic riff.
Instead of one specific riff from Stairway to Heaven, with the big sign "No playing 'Stairway to Heaven'" in the guitar store.Yep, the 8 or so notes were too much of a copyright issue and had to be scrapped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893708</id>
	<title>The attorney fees are a seperate dispute</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1264448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but the attorney fees, how reasonable they are, if the other party owes them, and so on are a separate dispute arising out of the first dispute. Different case, different law suit.</p><p>By the way $400,000 for a case of that nature is not all that crazy, if a lot of resources where devoted to the case and assuming no one is padding their bills. A judge might give them a bit of trim here and there, but attorney fees larger than the value of settlement happen all the time.</p><p>Throwing $400,000 in legal resources at a company that big is like a fly hitting a windshield. It really does not slow the car down at all that much nor does it really disrupt the cars aerodynamics in a noticeable way.  They need to be hit with something like $400 million in attorney fees and settlement cost. Something that will stick to the quarterly reports, and raise some eyebrows during a conference call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but the attorney fees , how reasonable they are , if the other party owes them , and so on are a separate dispute arising out of the first dispute .
Different case , different law suit.By the way $ 400,000 for a case of that nature is not all that crazy , if a lot of resources where devoted to the case and assuming no one is padding their bills .
A judge might give them a bit of trim here and there , but attorney fees larger than the value of settlement happen all the time.Throwing $ 400,000 in legal resources at a company that big is like a fly hitting a windshield .
It really does not slow the car down at all that much nor does it really disrupt the cars aerodynamics in a noticeable way .
They need to be hit with something like $ 400 million in attorney fees and settlement cost .
Something that will stick to the quarterly reports , and raise some eyebrows during a conference call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but the attorney fees, how reasonable they are, if the other party owes them, and so on are a separate dispute arising out of the first dispute.
Different case, different law suit.By the way $400,000 for a case of that nature is not all that crazy, if a lot of resources where devoted to the case and assuming no one is padding their bills.
A judge might give them a bit of trim here and there, but attorney fees larger than the value of settlement happen all the time.Throwing $400,000 in legal resources at a company that big is like a fly hitting a windshield.
It really does not slow the car down at all that much nor does it really disrupt the cars aerodynamics in a noticeable way.
They need to be hit with something like $400 million in attorney fees and settlement cost.
Something that will stick to the quarterly reports, and raise some eyebrows during a conference call.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30903666</id>
	<title>Gbor</title>
	<author>Gbor</author>
	<datestamp>1264518840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very informative and balanced article. Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very informative and balanced article .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very informative and balanced article.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892672</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1264443960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  Unless the EFF did something extraordinary, asking a judge for a $400k recovery is a little like a 4-year old excitedly asking for a billion pounds of ice cream from Santa.  It isn't going to happen and it makes you look very amateurish.  <br> <br>There is one and only reason I think a fee like this makes sense: publicity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Unless the EFF did something extraordinary , asking a judge for a $ 400k recovery is a little like a 4-year old excitedly asking for a billion pounds of ice cream from Santa .
It is n't going to happen and it makes you look very amateurish .
There is one and only reason I think a fee like this makes sense : publicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Unless the EFF did something extraordinary, asking a judge for a $400k recovery is a little like a 4-year old excitedly asking for a billion pounds of ice cream from Santa.
It isn't going to happen and it makes you look very amateurish.
There is one and only reason I think a fee like this makes sense: publicity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895114</id>
	<title>Not really the issue?</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1264411380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm probably mistaken, but I don't think his royal badness had a problem with the music in the background, but rather the title of the video being the title of his song?</p><p>I don't see a problem with them wanting her to change the title of the video in that case.</p><p>Definitely agree that a full takedown is ridiculous, however.</p><p>It's a shame, as Prince is one artist to break free of the big music groups and produce for himself, but only to act the same as they do?  Boo.  Otherwise, he gets it right.  Check out the 3-disc deal at Target for $11.  Some great guitar work on mplsound and lotusflow3r</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm probably mistaken , but I do n't think his royal badness had a problem with the music in the background , but rather the title of the video being the title of his song ? I do n't see a problem with them wanting her to change the title of the video in that case.Definitely agree that a full takedown is ridiculous , however.It 's a shame , as Prince is one artist to break free of the big music groups and produce for himself , but only to act the same as they do ?
Boo. Otherwise , he gets it right .
Check out the 3-disc deal at Target for $ 11 .
Some great guitar work on mplsound and lotusflow3r</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm probably mistaken, but I don't think his royal badness had a problem with the music in the background, but rather the title of the video being the title of his song?I don't see a problem with them wanting her to change the title of the video in that case.Definitely agree that a full takedown is ridiculous, however.It's a shame, as Prince is one artist to break free of the big music groups and produce for himself, but only to act the same as they do?
Boo.  Otherwise, he gets it right.
Check out the 3-disc deal at Target for $11.
Some great guitar work on mplsound and lotusflow3r</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892350</id>
	<title>coming up with a system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264442940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated? </i></p><p>I could, but I'd charge you &pound;4000000 for the work involved in coming up with it.</p><p>That is in jest, but it does make the point that those who would be the ones that would have to come up with such a system would be the ones with the least incentive to spend time doing so. Which gives us a delightful little loop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides , and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated ?
I could , but I 'd charge you   4000000 for the work involved in coming up with it.That is in jest , but it does make the point that those who would be the ones that would have to come up with such a system would be the ones with the least incentive to spend time doing so .
Which gives us a delightful little loop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated?
I could, but I'd charge you £4000000 for the work involved in coming up with it.That is in jest, but it does make the point that those who would be the ones that would have to come up with such a system would be the ones with the least incentive to spend time doing so.
Which gives us a delightful little loop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892602</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>SpeedyDX</author>
	<datestamp>1264443660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent is absolutely right. Section 512(f) is for people who are deliberately and clearly being assholes and abusing the court process. Due to the ambiguity of the relevant laws, it's entirely reasonable that Universal try to defend their copyright. This is one of the very reasons why courts exist - to try to figure out grey-area cases like these that do not fall explicitly on one side of the law or the other.</p><p>Now, thankfully, the EFF was successful in their counter-claim, but that doesn't mean that Universal was wrong to try to defend their copyright, given relevant laws. By the same token, however, the EFF is also doing the right thing in trying to pursue their attorney fees. I see some posts already about how $400,000 is a lot of money for the letter, but they're completely disregarding the painstaking work and research that went into drafting that letter. There is little or no precedent for this, and because, again, of the ambiguity of the relevant case law, the EFF is completely reasonable in seeking attorney fees from Universal.</p><p>Basically, all this boils down to is that this case shows that the system is working as intended. The DMCA may be problematic depending on which side you fall on in the copyright debate, but given that this act exists, each party is acting completely within their rights and within reason.</p><p>Now the question is whether Universal should pay the attorney fees. Whether they should be awarded the amount is up to the judge to decide, and someone else with more knowledge in the relevant laws than myself to comment on. I can, however, try to comment on the size of attorney fees.</p><p>Directly related to this case, the number amount of the fee is relevant, but only with two factors. One is insofar as whether it is a reasonable amount for attorney fees. Give the number of lawyers and the amount of time they put into it, the $400,000 is not completely unreasonable. The other factor is whether the other party reasonably has the ability to pay that amount. It doesn't matter whether the number is higher or lower than Reebok's punishment or NASA's shuttle launch or Timmy's lollipop - they're all completely and utterly irrelevant to the case in question.</p><p>Bennett points out the problems of his own analysis (although I'm reluctant to label it as such), but there are more. The first is that if you charge by content, you won't know the resulting fees until the end of the case. This is highly problematic because lawyers can't create quotes for their clients. How am I supposed to hire a lawyer if I can't have the faintest clue what they're going to charge me? Further, there already are professional guidelines to minimize attorney fees. These may not work so well due to human greed, but Bennett's proposal would clog up the court system more than it already is. Instead of having judges determine whether a figure is reasonable based on time and effort required, you'll now require judges to go through a comprehensive list of whether each point is obvious, how obvious a point has to be in order for it to qualify as being obvious, etc, etc. This in turn would increase attorney fees further because of the sheer amount of time and effort required to argue these non-obvious points as to whether a point is obvious.</p><p>Bennett Haselton, once again, completely misses the point of legal cases and circumstances. Each case does not occur in a vacuum where mathematicians can apply game theory or whatever the fuck they want to. They are all inextricably tied to other relevant case and substantive laws, stretching back over centuries. It may be a fun exercise to examine what the outcome might be had this case happened in a vacuum with only the factors favouring my argument factor into my analysis, but it's not a good legal argument.</p><p>Furthermore, his analysis of attorney costs again assumes that legal cases occur in a vacuum as opposed to a highly intricate system of courts, lawyers, judges, juries, etc, etc. He's trying to DECREASE attorney fees by making attorneys and judges do MORE work?! Yeah, good luck with that.</p><p>Bennett, please stop writing essays and trying to appear authoritative on subjects about which you know very little. You know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is absolutely right .
Section 512 ( f ) is for people who are deliberately and clearly being assholes and abusing the court process .
Due to the ambiguity of the relevant laws , it 's entirely reasonable that Universal try to defend their copyright .
This is one of the very reasons why courts exist - to try to figure out grey-area cases like these that do not fall explicitly on one side of the law or the other.Now , thankfully , the EFF was successful in their counter-claim , but that does n't mean that Universal was wrong to try to defend their copyright , given relevant laws .
By the same token , however , the EFF is also doing the right thing in trying to pursue their attorney fees .
I see some posts already about how $ 400,000 is a lot of money for the letter , but they 're completely disregarding the painstaking work and research that went into drafting that letter .
There is little or no precedent for this , and because , again , of the ambiguity of the relevant case law , the EFF is completely reasonable in seeking attorney fees from Universal.Basically , all this boils down to is that this case shows that the system is working as intended .
The DMCA may be problematic depending on which side you fall on in the copyright debate , but given that this act exists , each party is acting completely within their rights and within reason.Now the question is whether Universal should pay the attorney fees .
Whether they should be awarded the amount is up to the judge to decide , and someone else with more knowledge in the relevant laws than myself to comment on .
I can , however , try to comment on the size of attorney fees.Directly related to this case , the number amount of the fee is relevant , but only with two factors .
One is insofar as whether it is a reasonable amount for attorney fees .
Give the number of lawyers and the amount of time they put into it , the $ 400,000 is not completely unreasonable .
The other factor is whether the other party reasonably has the ability to pay that amount .
It does n't matter whether the number is higher or lower than Reebok 's punishment or NASA 's shuttle launch or Timmy 's lollipop - they 're all completely and utterly irrelevant to the case in question.Bennett points out the problems of his own analysis ( although I 'm reluctant to label it as such ) , but there are more .
The first is that if you charge by content , you wo n't know the resulting fees until the end of the case .
This is highly problematic because lawyers ca n't create quotes for their clients .
How am I supposed to hire a lawyer if I ca n't have the faintest clue what they 're going to charge me ?
Further , there already are professional guidelines to minimize attorney fees .
These may not work so well due to human greed , but Bennett 's proposal would clog up the court system more than it already is .
Instead of having judges determine whether a figure is reasonable based on time and effort required , you 'll now require judges to go through a comprehensive list of whether each point is obvious , how obvious a point has to be in order for it to qualify as being obvious , etc , etc .
This in turn would increase attorney fees further because of the sheer amount of time and effort required to argue these non-obvious points as to whether a point is obvious.Bennett Haselton , once again , completely misses the point of legal cases and circumstances .
Each case does not occur in a vacuum where mathematicians can apply game theory or whatever the fuck they want to .
They are all inextricably tied to other relevant case and substantive laws , stretching back over centuries .
It may be a fun exercise to examine what the outcome might be had this case happened in a vacuum with only the factors favouring my argument factor into my analysis , but it 's not a good legal argument.Furthermore , his analysis of attorney costs again assumes that legal cases occur in a vacuum as opposed to a highly intricate system of courts , lawyers , judges , juries , etc , etc .
He 's trying to DECREASE attorney fees by making attorneys and judges do MORE work ? !
Yeah , good luck with that.Bennett , please stop writing essays and trying to appear authoritative on subjects about which you know very little .
You know enough to be dangerous , but not enough to be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is absolutely right.
Section 512(f) is for people who are deliberately and clearly being assholes and abusing the court process.
Due to the ambiguity of the relevant laws, it's entirely reasonable that Universal try to defend their copyright.
This is one of the very reasons why courts exist - to try to figure out grey-area cases like these that do not fall explicitly on one side of the law or the other.Now, thankfully, the EFF was successful in their counter-claim, but that doesn't mean that Universal was wrong to try to defend their copyright, given relevant laws.
By the same token, however, the EFF is also doing the right thing in trying to pursue their attorney fees.
I see some posts already about how $400,000 is a lot of money for the letter, but they're completely disregarding the painstaking work and research that went into drafting that letter.
There is little or no precedent for this, and because, again, of the ambiguity of the relevant case law, the EFF is completely reasonable in seeking attorney fees from Universal.Basically, all this boils down to is that this case shows that the system is working as intended.
The DMCA may be problematic depending on which side you fall on in the copyright debate, but given that this act exists, each party is acting completely within their rights and within reason.Now the question is whether Universal should pay the attorney fees.
Whether they should be awarded the amount is up to the judge to decide, and someone else with more knowledge in the relevant laws than myself to comment on.
I can, however, try to comment on the size of attorney fees.Directly related to this case, the number amount of the fee is relevant, but only with two factors.
One is insofar as whether it is a reasonable amount for attorney fees.
Give the number of lawyers and the amount of time they put into it, the $400,000 is not completely unreasonable.
The other factor is whether the other party reasonably has the ability to pay that amount.
It doesn't matter whether the number is higher or lower than Reebok's punishment or NASA's shuttle launch or Timmy's lollipop - they're all completely and utterly irrelevant to the case in question.Bennett points out the problems of his own analysis (although I'm reluctant to label it as such), but there are more.
The first is that if you charge by content, you won't know the resulting fees until the end of the case.
This is highly problematic because lawyers can't create quotes for their clients.
How am I supposed to hire a lawyer if I can't have the faintest clue what they're going to charge me?
Further, there already are professional guidelines to minimize attorney fees.
These may not work so well due to human greed, but Bennett's proposal would clog up the court system more than it already is.
Instead of having judges determine whether a figure is reasonable based on time and effort required, you'll now require judges to go through a comprehensive list of whether each point is obvious, how obvious a point has to be in order for it to qualify as being obvious, etc, etc.
This in turn would increase attorney fees further because of the sheer amount of time and effort required to argue these non-obvious points as to whether a point is obvious.Bennett Haselton, once again, completely misses the point of legal cases and circumstances.
Each case does not occur in a vacuum where mathematicians can apply game theory or whatever the fuck they want to.
They are all inextricably tied to other relevant case and substantive laws, stretching back over centuries.
It may be a fun exercise to examine what the outcome might be had this case happened in a vacuum with only the factors favouring my argument factor into my analysis, but it's not a good legal argument.Furthermore, his analysis of attorney costs again assumes that legal cases occur in a vacuum as opposed to a highly intricate system of courts, lawyers, judges, juries, etc, etc.
He's trying to DECREASE attorney fees by making attorneys and judges do MORE work?!
Yeah, good luck with that.Bennett, please stop writing essays and trying to appear authoritative on subjects about which you know very little.
You know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894208</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264450980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As an <b>attorney</b> I can assure you there is no <b>legitimate</b> scenario where the EFF <b>honestly</b> had to expend $400,000 worth of work to write a letter.</p></div><p>What the fuck would an attorney know about legitimacy and honesty?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an attorney I can assure you there is no legitimate scenario where the EFF honestly had to expend $ 400,000 worth of work to write a letter.What the fuck would an attorney know about legitimacy and honesty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an attorney I can assure you there is no legitimate scenario where the EFF honestly had to expend $400,000 worth of work to write a letter.What the fuck would an attorney know about legitimacy and honesty?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891856</id>
	<title>Indie Musician vs RIAA</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1264441200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online..."<br>
<br>
To be awarded damages you have to *know* you were filing a false claim. And at this point the difference between a self-represented indie musician (who accidentally flagged a single fair-use video in a long list of infringing ones) and a team of lawyers specializing in copyright law (who flag every video using any part of "their" songs, with no apparent effort to identify fair use) becomes important. One can argue that they missed some nuance of "fair use". The other really can't. Especially when they do it over and over again with no apparent effort reduce the number of falsely flagged videos.<br>
<br>
The point of asking for penalties in this case is not to set a precedent of penalizing every mistakenly sent DMCA claim, it's to change the attitude of "we'll take down every possibly infringing video and let people who think they have fair use file counter-notices" into "hey, lets only file DMCA complaints against videos that are actually infringing."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online... " To be awarded damages you have to * know * you were filing a false claim .
And at this point the difference between a self-represented indie musician ( who accidentally flagged a single fair-use video in a long list of infringing ones ) and a team of lawyers specializing in copyright law ( who flag every video using any part of " their " songs , with no apparent effort to identify fair use ) becomes important .
One can argue that they missed some nuance of " fair use " .
The other really ca n't .
Especially when they do it over and over again with no apparent effort reduce the number of falsely flagged videos .
The point of asking for penalties in this case is not to set a precedent of penalizing every mistakenly sent DMCA claim , it 's to change the attitude of " we 'll take down every possibly infringing video and let people who think they have fair use file counter-notices " into " hey , lets only file DMCA complaints against videos that are actually infringing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online..."

To be awarded damages you have to *know* you were filing a false claim.
And at this point the difference between a self-represented indie musician (who accidentally flagged a single fair-use video in a long list of infringing ones) and a team of lawyers specializing in copyright law (who flag every video using any part of "their" songs, with no apparent effort to identify fair use) becomes important.
One can argue that they missed some nuance of "fair use".
The other really can't.
Especially when they do it over and over again with no apparent effort reduce the number of falsely flagged videos.
The point of asking for penalties in this case is not to set a precedent of penalizing every mistakenly sent DMCA claim, it's to change the attitude of "we'll take down every possibly infringing video and let people who think they have fair use file counter-notices" into "hey, lets only file DMCA complaints against videos that are actually infringing.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1264443240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laws are written by lawyers, voted in by politicians (80\% of which are/were lawyers), and judged by judges who were lawyers.</p><p>Loopholes and vague wording are things that lawyers are GOOD at creating in our system.  They are lawyers, they are supposed to be smart enough to make laws very clear; yet wherever you look, laws are written with loopholes and vague wording that permit loads of points of contention to which lawyers must be hired to resolve....</p><p>The saddest part of the whole construct being that it is impossible to remove without revolution, impossible to prevent with any form of government, and that many/most lawyers feel some form of 'good' for their part in the system.   I'll never forget the wonderful response I got from a lawyer about my criticism of the participation of lawyers in obvious frivilous/wrongful lawsuits....   Her response was what I've heard many times, and never fails to amaze me:  "I am a lawyer.  It is the person I represent who is asking me to do these things.  I am doing nothing wrong; I am doing my job.  Blame the person I represent."    Right (sarcasm).  Like your participation in the whole thing has *nothing* to do with what most would agree to be a heinous act of harassment/blackmail.    No... You've done nothing wrong... You're just the tool...</p><p>I'd like to compare it to the idea that guns don't kill people... people kill people.... and that would make sense (which is basically her argument), except for the glaring fact that in the lawyer's case, the gun has an educated and possibly moral brain of it's own and is able to freely choose whose hands it is placed in and what targets it would be aimed at, how much damage it would do, etc.</p><p>I recall she then argued that I'd be 'sucking her d***' (yes, it didn't make senese) some day when I actually needed a lawyer.  This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually *need* one.  That would be, at least, a case where it isn't so obviously frivolous/wrongful --- a case where most people would agree a lawyer is needed.   And so this is horrible because she thought that because I (or others) would *need* her someday, and that she convinced herself to be morally distanced from her participation in wrongful lawsuits, she ultimately expressed that she (lawyers) is of the requisite benevolent gatekeepers to justice.</p><p>Sure... lawyers can do no harm... (sarcasm).  I wonder how many law school graduates creamed their pants when they saw how vague the Americans with Disabilities Act was when it passed.  Clearly written laws give no room for lawyers because the people know what is expected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laws are written by lawyers , voted in by politicians ( 80 \ % of which are/were lawyers ) , and judged by judges who were lawyers.Loopholes and vague wording are things that lawyers are GOOD at creating in our system .
They are lawyers , they are supposed to be smart enough to make laws very clear ; yet wherever you look , laws are written with loopholes and vague wording that permit loads of points of contention to which lawyers must be hired to resolve....The saddest part of the whole construct being that it is impossible to remove without revolution , impossible to prevent with any form of government , and that many/most lawyers feel some form of 'good ' for their part in the system .
I 'll never forget the wonderful response I got from a lawyer about my criticism of the participation of lawyers in obvious frivilous/wrongful lawsuits.... Her response was what I 've heard many times , and never fails to amaze me : " I am a lawyer .
It is the person I represent who is asking me to do these things .
I am doing nothing wrong ; I am doing my job .
Blame the person I represent .
" Right ( sarcasm ) .
Like your participation in the whole thing has * nothing * to do with what most would agree to be a heinous act of harassment/blackmail .
No... You 've done nothing wrong... You 're just the tool...I 'd like to compare it to the idea that guns do n't kill people... people kill people.... and that would make sense ( which is basically her argument ) , except for the glaring fact that in the lawyer 's case , the gun has an educated and possibly moral brain of it 's own and is able to freely choose whose hands it is placed in and what targets it would be aimed at , how much damage it would do , etc.I recall she then argued that I 'd be 'sucking her d * * * ' ( yes , it did n't make senese ) some day when I actually needed a lawyer .
This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually * need * one .
That would be , at least , a case where it is n't so obviously frivolous/wrongful --- a case where most people would agree a lawyer is needed .
And so this is horrible because she thought that because I ( or others ) would * need * her someday , and that she convinced herself to be morally distanced from her participation in wrongful lawsuits , she ultimately expressed that she ( lawyers ) is of the requisite benevolent gatekeepers to justice.Sure... lawyers can do no harm... ( sarcasm ) . I wonder how many law school graduates creamed their pants when they saw how vague the Americans with Disabilities Act was when it passed .
Clearly written laws give no room for lawyers because the people know what is expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laws are written by lawyers, voted in by politicians (80\% of which are/were lawyers), and judged by judges who were lawyers.Loopholes and vague wording are things that lawyers are GOOD at creating in our system.
They are lawyers, they are supposed to be smart enough to make laws very clear; yet wherever you look, laws are written with loopholes and vague wording that permit loads of points of contention to which lawyers must be hired to resolve....The saddest part of the whole construct being that it is impossible to remove without revolution, impossible to prevent with any form of government, and that many/most lawyers feel some form of 'good' for their part in the system.
I'll never forget the wonderful response I got from a lawyer about my criticism of the participation of lawyers in obvious frivilous/wrongful lawsuits....   Her response was what I've heard many times, and never fails to amaze me:  "I am a lawyer.
It is the person I represent who is asking me to do these things.
I am doing nothing wrong; I am doing my job.
Blame the person I represent.
"    Right (sarcasm).
Like your participation in the whole thing has *nothing* to do with what most would agree to be a heinous act of harassment/blackmail.
No... You've done nothing wrong... You're just the tool...I'd like to compare it to the idea that guns don't kill people... people kill people.... and that would make sense (which is basically her argument), except for the glaring fact that in the lawyer's case, the gun has an educated and possibly moral brain of it's own and is able to freely choose whose hands it is placed in and what targets it would be aimed at, how much damage it would do, etc.I recall she then argued that I'd be 'sucking her d***' (yes, it didn't make senese) some day when I actually needed a lawyer.
This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually *need* one.
That would be, at least, a case where it isn't so obviously frivolous/wrongful --- a case where most people would agree a lawyer is needed.
And so this is horrible because she thought that because I (or others) would *need* her someday, and that she convinced herself to be morally distanced from her participation in wrongful lawsuits, she ultimately expressed that she (lawyers) is of the requisite benevolent gatekeepers to justice.Sure... lawyers can do no harm... (sarcasm).  I wonder how many law school graduates creamed their pants when they saw how vague the Americans with Disabilities Act was when it passed.
Clearly written laws give no room for lawyers because the people know what is expected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895216</id>
	<title>Reasonable Fees</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1264411920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``This suggests an economics / game theory problem: Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated?''</p><p>In as far as I understand the way things work in the USA, I think this is partially already in place. Fees are not automatically awarded, but rather only awarded for cases in which the outcome should have been obvious. That is, if I sue you, but it should have been obvious that I wasn't going to win, I can expect to have to pay for your fees. Conversely, you can jack up the bill as far as is necessary to win the case that I shouldn't have brought in the first place.</p><p>For cases that don't fall into this category, we can both expect to have to pay the fees on our respective sides. This gives us both an incentive to give our fees low.</p><p>Finally, there is a possible problem where a lawsuit is worth bringing, but one of the sides can't afford to pay the fees. For such cases, there are lawyers who work on a "no cure, no pay" basis, which means you don't pay them anything if they don't win the case for you. Supposedly, if you win the case, you are awarded enough to be able to pay them.</p><p>Now, here is one idea to further limit costs: suppose we limit the fees to be awarded to the minimum of what either party incurred. That is, if I bring a case against you, and you insist on hiring 80 lawyers against my one, then you can expect to be awarded at most what I paid for my lawyer. Supposedly, since I paid that much, I considered it a reasonable cost. Whatever you spent extra is your own choice and comes out of your own pocket regardless. Just an idea to ponder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` This suggests an economics / game theory problem : Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides , and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated ?
''In as far as I understand the way things work in the USA , I think this is partially already in place .
Fees are not automatically awarded , but rather only awarded for cases in which the outcome should have been obvious .
That is , if I sue you , but it should have been obvious that I was n't going to win , I can expect to have to pay for your fees .
Conversely , you can jack up the bill as far as is necessary to win the case that I should n't have brought in the first place.For cases that do n't fall into this category , we can both expect to have to pay the fees on our respective sides .
This gives us both an incentive to give our fees low.Finally , there is a possible problem where a lawsuit is worth bringing , but one of the sides ca n't afford to pay the fees .
For such cases , there are lawyers who work on a " no cure , no pay " basis , which means you do n't pay them anything if they do n't win the case for you .
Supposedly , if you win the case , you are awarded enough to be able to pay them.Now , here is one idea to further limit costs : suppose we limit the fees to be awarded to the minimum of what either party incurred .
That is , if I bring a case against you , and you insist on hiring 80 lawyers against my one , then you can expect to be awarded at most what I paid for my lawyer .
Supposedly , since I paid that much , I considered it a reasonable cost .
Whatever you spent extra is your own choice and comes out of your own pocket regardless .
Just an idea to ponder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``This suggests an economics / game theory problem: Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated?
''In as far as I understand the way things work in the USA, I think this is partially already in place.
Fees are not automatically awarded, but rather only awarded for cases in which the outcome should have been obvious.
That is, if I sue you, but it should have been obvious that I wasn't going to win, I can expect to have to pay for your fees.
Conversely, you can jack up the bill as far as is necessary to win the case that I shouldn't have brought in the first place.For cases that don't fall into this category, we can both expect to have to pay the fees on our respective sides.
This gives us both an incentive to give our fees low.Finally, there is a possible problem where a lawsuit is worth bringing, but one of the sides can't afford to pay the fees.
For such cases, there are lawyers who work on a "no cure, no pay" basis, which means you don't pay them anything if they don't win the case for you.
Supposedly, if you win the case, you are awarded enough to be able to pay them.Now, here is one idea to further limit costs: suppose we limit the fees to be awarded to the minimum of what either party incurred.
That is, if I bring a case against you, and you insist on hiring 80 lawyers against my one, then you can expect to be awarded at most what I paid for my lawyer.
Supposedly, since I paid that much, I considered it a reasonable cost.
Whatever you spent extra is your own choice and comes out of your own pocket regardless.
Just an idea to ponder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898280</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264425000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but if they are mailing off notices indiscriminantly, just based off what a computer algorithm spits out, they deserved to be bit in ass, and hard. How much labour does it really take to do a quick review of what your computer algorithm has flagged? We're not talking about humans looking at every Youtube video ever posted; Just what your "automated system" has posted. Human eyes should be part of that equation somewhere before accusations are made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but if they are mailing off notices indiscriminantly , just based off what a computer algorithm spits out , they deserved to be bit in ass , and hard .
How much labour does it really take to do a quick review of what your computer algorithm has flagged ?
We 're not talking about humans looking at every Youtube video ever posted ; Just what your " automated system " has posted .
Human eyes should be part of that equation somewhere before accusations are made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but if they are mailing off notices indiscriminantly, just based off what a computer algorithm spits out, they deserved to be bit in ass, and hard.
How much labour does it really take to do a quick review of what your computer algorithm has flagged?
We're not talking about humans looking at every Youtube video ever posted; Just what your "automated system" has posted.
Human eyes should be part of that equation somewhere before accusations are made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895282</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>LoverOfJoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264412220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I recall she then argued that I'd be 'sucking her d***' (yes, it didn't make senese) some day when I actually needed a lawyer.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It makes perfect sense. Lawyers are so universally evil that even the female ones are d***s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall she then argued that I 'd be 'sucking her d * * * ' ( yes , it did n't make senese ) some day when I actually needed a lawyer .
It makes perfect sense .
Lawyers are so universally evil that even the female ones are d * * * s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall she then argued that I'd be 'sucking her d***' (yes, it didn't make senese) some day when I actually needed a lawyer.
It makes perfect sense.
Lawyers are so universally evil that even the female ones are d***s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891932</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1264441500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement? </i>
<br>
<br>
You're missing the point, it wasn't "accidental," it was purposeful.  The question then becomes was it a knowing misrepresentation, in other words that the use of the song was clearly fair use.  Honestly, it wasn't.  So they're probably not liable.<br>
<br>
The only knowing misrepresentation I see here is EFF's ridiculous $400,000 legal bill.  The attorneys who signed any legal filings requesting or supporting this should be sanctioned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ?
You 're missing the point , it was n't " accidental , " it was purposeful .
The question then becomes was it a knowing misrepresentation , in other words that the use of the song was clearly fair use .
Honestly , it was n't .
So they 're probably not liable .
The only knowing misrepresentation I see here is EFF 's ridiculous $ 400,000 legal bill .
The attorneys who signed any legal filings requesting or supporting this should be sanctioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?
You're missing the point, it wasn't "accidental," it was purposeful.
The question then becomes was it a knowing misrepresentation, in other words that the use of the song was clearly fair use.
Honestly, it wasn't.
So they're probably not liable.
The only knowing misrepresentation I see here is EFF's ridiculous $400,000 legal bill.
The attorneys who signed any legal filings requesting or supporting this should be sanctioned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894774</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264410120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IAAL.</p><p>I used to think the same thing-- that laws could be crafted in such a way that they are clear and effective, with no wiggle room or room for discretion, yet still be effective laws.  This is false.</p><p>No matter what law you have, and no matter how simple it is, it will never be perfect.</p><p>Try an exercise.  Try to think of the simplest law you can, and codify it (e.g., driving over 50 mph is a violation.).  Now try to think of some exceptions when that particular rule should not apply (e.g., driving over 50 mph is a violation except in cases of an emergency). Now try to define emergency.  See all those gaps?  Those are all the "loopholes".</p><p>Make no mistake, some will be inserted intentionally.  Most, however, are not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IAAL.I used to think the same thing-- that laws could be crafted in such a way that they are clear and effective , with no wiggle room or room for discretion , yet still be effective laws .
This is false.No matter what law you have , and no matter how simple it is , it will never be perfect.Try an exercise .
Try to think of the simplest law you can , and codify it ( e.g. , driving over 50 mph is a violation. ) .
Now try to think of some exceptions when that particular rule should not apply ( e.g. , driving over 50 mph is a violation except in cases of an emergency ) .
Now try to define emergency .
See all those gaps ?
Those are all the " loopholes " .Make no mistake , some will be inserted intentionally .
Most , however , are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IAAL.I used to think the same thing-- that laws could be crafted in such a way that they are clear and effective, with no wiggle room or room for discretion, yet still be effective laws.
This is false.No matter what law you have, and no matter how simple it is, it will never be perfect.Try an exercise.
Try to think of the simplest law you can, and codify it (e.g., driving over 50 mph is a violation.).
Now try to think of some exceptions when that particular rule should not apply (e.g., driving over 50 mph is a violation except in cases of an emergency).
Now try to define emergency.
See all those gaps?
Those are all the "loopholes".Make no mistake, some will be inserted intentionally.
Most, however, are not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893986</id>
	<title>Screw Universal</title>
	<author>handfullofsausage</author>
	<datestamp>1264450020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>EFF should be asking for $5,000,000. Screw Universal!!! If their lawyers are that incompetent, they deserve to be bled. If we all believe in that little fantasy of how "the market takes care of itself" then Universal would then penalize it's own lawyers for their screw ups. But we know that ain't going to happen to any lawyer so screw em and bleed em!</htmltext>
<tokenext>EFF should be asking for $ 5,000,000 .
Screw Universal ! ! !
If their lawyers are that incompetent , they deserve to be bled .
If we all believe in that little fantasy of how " the market takes care of itself " then Universal would then penalize it 's own lawyers for their screw ups .
But we know that ai n't going to happen to any lawyer so screw em and bleed em !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EFF should be asking for $5,000,000.
Screw Universal!!!
If their lawyers are that incompetent, they deserve to be bled.
If we all believe in that little fantasy of how "the market takes care of itself" then Universal would then penalize it's own lawyers for their screw ups.
But we know that ain't going to happen to any lawyer so screw em and bleed em!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891612</id>
	<title>Fair Punishment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should the punishment for depriving a person of their right to fair use be any less severe than violating a copyright?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the punishment for depriving a person of their right to fair use be any less severe than violating a copyright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the punishment for depriving a person of their right to fair use be any less severe than violating a copyright?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898310</id>
	<title>And the moral of the story is</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1264425180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't abuse the DMCA.</p><p>There is a definite chilling effect arising from the indiscriminate use of takedown notices on Youtube, which can serve to effectively censor legitimate content by anyone who disagrees with it. The only way to prevent it is to attach some cost to this behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't abuse the DMCA.There is a definite chilling effect arising from the indiscriminate use of takedown notices on Youtube , which can serve to effectively censor legitimate content by anyone who disagrees with it .
The only way to prevent it is to attach some cost to this behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't abuse the DMCA.There is a definite chilling effect arising from the indiscriminate use of takedown notices on Youtube, which can serve to effectively censor legitimate content by anyone who disagrees with it.
The only way to prevent it is to attach some cost to this behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892562</id>
	<title>Re:Knowingly misrepresents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264443540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess is that they're using this as an opportunity to make a point about excessive awards and fees.</p><p>I'd further suggest that they don't actually expect to see any of that $400K. The aim in asking for it is to dissuade Universal from sending further spurious takedown notices.</p><p>The idea being that Universal won't want to pay it, but if they don't, they'll need to spend a fair amount of money paying their own lawyers to contest it. In fact, the invoice would have been routed via Universal's lawyers already, who will charge for the time to read it, so the mere act of asking for the money has started costing Universal hard cash already. If this is repeated with other takedown notices, it makes the cost of sending a takedown notice seem much higher, and will cause Universal (and others) to consider it more carefully.</p><p>Whether it's the right approach is open to debate (as seen here), but it certainly makes the point in a language that Universal might actually take notice of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that they 're using this as an opportunity to make a point about excessive awards and fees.I 'd further suggest that they do n't actually expect to see any of that $ 400K .
The aim in asking for it is to dissuade Universal from sending further spurious takedown notices.The idea being that Universal wo n't want to pay it , but if they do n't , they 'll need to spend a fair amount of money paying their own lawyers to contest it .
In fact , the invoice would have been routed via Universal 's lawyers already , who will charge for the time to read it , so the mere act of asking for the money has started costing Universal hard cash already .
If this is repeated with other takedown notices , it makes the cost of sending a takedown notice seem much higher , and will cause Universal ( and others ) to consider it more carefully.Whether it 's the right approach is open to debate ( as seen here ) , but it certainly makes the point in a language that Universal might actually take notice of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that they're using this as an opportunity to make a point about excessive awards and fees.I'd further suggest that they don't actually expect to see any of that $400K.
The aim in asking for it is to dissuade Universal from sending further spurious takedown notices.The idea being that Universal won't want to pay it, but if they don't, they'll need to spend a fair amount of money paying their own lawyers to contest it.
In fact, the invoice would have been routed via Universal's lawyers already, who will charge for the time to read it, so the mere act of asking for the money has started costing Universal hard cash already.
If this is repeated with other takedown notices, it makes the cost of sending a takedown notice seem much higher, and will cause Universal (and others) to consider it more carefully.Whether it's the right approach is open to debate (as seen here), but it certainly makes the point in a language that Universal might actually take notice of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896852</id>
	<title>Re:Knowingly misrepresents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264418040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I owed my local State 36,000 for back taxes for the years 2003-2005.  I disputed that amount and paid an attorney $750 for a call or two to help me.  I also paid a CPA $800.<br>$1550 vs 36K.    The money they asked for and I paid were commensurate with the trouble they removed me from ( I had received a tax lien against my house as well )</p><p>$400K for a letter might very well be the bargain of the year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I owed my local State 36,000 for back taxes for the years 2003-2005 .
I disputed that amount and paid an attorney $ 750 for a call or two to help me .
I also paid a CPA $ 800. $ 1550 vs 36K .
The money they asked for and I paid were commensurate with the trouble they removed me from ( I had received a tax lien against my house as well ) $ 400K for a letter might very well be the bargain of the year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I owed my local State 36,000 for back taxes for the years 2003-2005.
I disputed that amount and paid an attorney $750 for a call or two to help me.
I also paid a CPA $800.$1550 vs 36K.
The money they asked for and I paid were commensurate with the trouble they removed me from ( I had received a tax lien against my house as well )$400K for a letter might very well be the bargain of the year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895762</id>
	<title>Simple solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264414020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lawyer that is requesting the 400,000 should be disbarred for charging excessive fees to the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lawyer that is requesting the 400,000 should be disbarred for charging excessive fees to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lawyer that is requesting the 400,000 should be disbarred for charging excessive fees to the public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893722</id>
	<title>Re:Pay for service, not hours</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as an aside- this is how medicine works in many parts of the world, particularly for elective surgery...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as an aside- this is how medicine works in many parts of the world , particularly for elective surgery.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as an aside- this is how medicine works in many parts of the world, particularly for elective surgery...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897706</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1264422360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps when challenged they will point to other court cases where Universal has taken the position that "damages" have nothing to do with actual work/losses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps when challenged they will point to other court cases where Universal has taken the position that " damages " have nothing to do with actual work/losses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps when challenged they will point to other court cases where Universal has taken the position that "damages" have nothing to do with actual work/losses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896624</id>
	<title>Fair Use</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1264417200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm an EFF member and support their request for attorney's fees, but let's play devil's advocate. Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube. Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use. Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</p></div> </blockquote><p>If there is a question of something being fair use then you shouldn't be sending a DMCA take down notice. What you should do is contact the poster or have the ISP forward a letter to the poster questioning their use and initiating a discussion with them rather than sending legal threats (that's what a DMCA notice is).</p><p>The law is clear, the take down should ONLY be used where you are 100\% sure that you hold the copyright and the use is infringing. I don't have any sympathy for someone that's sending out blanket DMCA notices without oversight or thought. Currently companies are sending notices on stuff with names that are similar without even verifying content and there needs to be punishment for that, even if the route is lawyer fees through civil damages. A few examples and these companies will be far more careful in verifying their rights before sending out DMCA notices and maybe we can return some civility to the process. There has been far too much abuse of the DMCA notice, even where there was no copyright ownership and someone was trying to get embarrassing material removed. The perjury statue on DMCA's needs to be expanded and civil statutory damages added for abuse. Until there is a threat of costs for abusing the process it will continue to be abused.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an EFF member and support their request for attorney 's fees , but let 's play devil 's advocate .
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online , and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission , so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube .
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song , short enough to count as fair use .
Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ?
If there is a question of something being fair use then you should n't be sending a DMCA take down notice .
What you should do is contact the poster or have the ISP forward a letter to the poster questioning their use and initiating a discussion with them rather than sending legal threats ( that 's what a DMCA notice is ) .The law is clear , the take down should ONLY be used where you are 100 \ % sure that you hold the copyright and the use is infringing .
I do n't have any sympathy for someone that 's sending out blanket DMCA notices without oversight or thought .
Currently companies are sending notices on stuff with names that are similar without even verifying content and there needs to be punishment for that , even if the route is lawyer fees through civil damages .
A few examples and these companies will be far more careful in verifying their rights before sending out DMCA notices and maybe we can return some civility to the process .
There has been far too much abuse of the DMCA notice , even where there was no copyright ownership and someone was trying to get embarrassing material removed .
The perjury statue on DMCA 's needs to be expanded and civil statutory damages added for abuse .
Until there is a threat of costs for abusing the process it will continue to be abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an EFF member and support their request for attorney's fees, but let's play devil's advocate.
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube.
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use.
Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?
If there is a question of something being fair use then you shouldn't be sending a DMCA take down notice.
What you should do is contact the poster or have the ISP forward a letter to the poster questioning their use and initiating a discussion with them rather than sending legal threats (that's what a DMCA notice is).The law is clear, the take down should ONLY be used where you are 100\% sure that you hold the copyright and the use is infringing.
I don't have any sympathy for someone that's sending out blanket DMCA notices without oversight or thought.
Currently companies are sending notices on stuff with names that are similar without even verifying content and there needs to be punishment for that, even if the route is lawyer fees through civil damages.
A few examples and these companies will be far more careful in verifying their rights before sending out DMCA notices and maybe we can return some civility to the process.
There has been far too much abuse of the DMCA notice, even where there was no copyright ownership and someone was trying to get embarrassing material removed.
The perjury statue on DMCA's needs to be expanded and civil statutory damages added for abuse.
Until there is a threat of costs for abusing the process it will continue to be abused.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899562</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1264434480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I recall she then argued that I'd be <b>'sucking her d***'</b> (yes, it didn't make sense) some day when I actually needed a lawyer.  This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually *need* one.</p>  </div><p>Damn! That's wonderful news! That means all we each have to do when we need lawyers, is find the lawyer of the right gender, make sure they are cute, and pay for their services with sex!

</p><p>Of course, next time, if I were you, I wouldnt select a she-male... unless you are into that of course...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall she then argued that I 'd be 'sucking her d * * * ' ( yes , it did n't make sense ) some day when I actually needed a lawyer .
This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually * need * one .
Damn ! That 's wonderful news !
That means all we each have to do when we need lawyers , is find the lawyer of the right gender , make sure they are cute , and pay for their services with sex !
Of course , next time , if I were you , I wouldnt select a she-male... unless you are into that of course... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall she then argued that I'd be 'sucking her d***' (yes, it didn't make sense) some day when I actually needed a lawyer.
This is horrible because of course I would want a lawyer when I actually *need* one.
Damn! That's wonderful news!
That means all we each have to do when we need lawyers, is find the lawyer of the right gender, make sure they are cute, and pay for their services with sex!
Of course, next time, if I were you, I wouldnt select a she-male... unless you are into that of course... ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899812</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1264436700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> A top-of-the-line civil litigator bills maybe $600 an hour, and as much as we like the EFF people they are not top-of-the-line civil litigators.</p></div><p>The lawyers on this case are from Keker Van Nest.  That is a top firm with top litigators.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A top-of-the-line civil litigator bills maybe $ 600 an hour , and as much as we like the EFF people they are not top-of-the-line civil litigators.The lawyers on this case are from Keker Van Nest .
That is a top firm with top litigators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A top-of-the-line civil litigator bills maybe $600 an hour, and as much as we like the EFF people they are not top-of-the-line civil litigators.The lawyers on this case are from Keker Van Nest.
That is a top firm with top litigators.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894716</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264453140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope they win $10,000 or whatever the minimum is to make it profitable for the EFF to defend the common person.</p></div><p>The EFF is a non-profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they win $ 10,000 or whatever the minimum is to make it profitable for the EFF to defend the common person.The EFF is a non-profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they win $10,000 or whatever the minimum is to make it profitable for the EFF to defend the common person.The EFF is a non-profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896806</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Delkster</author>
	<datestamp>1264417800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a good point. It's actually very difficult to both make a law exact and still take into account all kinds of special cases where the general rule just wouldn't make justice -- and if you somehow managed to make that kind of a law, in most cases all the special cases and exceptions would make it so abhorrently complex that a layperson would have even less of a chance at knowing and understanding it than now. Of course that doesn't mean exactness isn't valuable, and it should be pursued as far as reasonably possible within the other limiting factors, but you can never close all the loopholes.</p><p>IANAL, but I thought this was common knowledge, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a good point .
It 's actually very difficult to both make a law exact and still take into account all kinds of special cases where the general rule just would n't make justice -- and if you somehow managed to make that kind of a law , in most cases all the special cases and exceptions would make it so abhorrently complex that a layperson would have even less of a chance at knowing and understanding it than now .
Of course that does n't mean exactness is n't valuable , and it should be pursued as far as reasonably possible within the other limiting factors , but you can never close all the loopholes.IANAL , but I thought this was common knowledge , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a good point.
It's actually very difficult to both make a law exact and still take into account all kinds of special cases where the general rule just wouldn't make justice -- and if you somehow managed to make that kind of a law, in most cases all the special cases and exceptions would make it so abhorrently complex that a layperson would have even less of a chance at knowing and understanding it than now.
Of course that doesn't mean exactness isn't valuable, and it should be pursued as far as reasonably possible within the other limiting factors, but you can never close all the loopholes.IANAL, but I thought this was common knowledge, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895166</id>
	<title>TLDR</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1264411680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man this whole article, comments, and related are all TLDR; I need a summary. Do I need to update my Linux kernel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man this whole article , comments , and related are all TLDR ; I need a summary .
Do I need to update my Linux kernel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man this whole article, comments, and related are all TLDR; I need a summary.
Do I need to update my Linux kernel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892332</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Smallpond</author>
	<datestamp>1264442940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$400,000 for writing a letter? I like the EFF and I sort of agree that it's not fair they have to eat the costs of defending a fraudulent claim. But it was their choice to send the notice chiseled on a solid gold tablet.</p></div><p>The RIAA made multiple copies of the letter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 400,000 for writing a letter ?
I like the EFF and I sort of agree that it 's not fair they have to eat the costs of defending a fraudulent claim .
But it was their choice to send the notice chiseled on a solid gold tablet.The RIAA made multiple copies of the letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$400,000 for writing a letter?
I like the EFF and I sort of agree that it's not fair they have to eat the costs of defending a fraudulent claim.
But it was their choice to send the notice chiseled on a solid gold tablet.The RIAA made multiple copies of the letter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898104</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1264424220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The takedown notice is for media-hosting sites who are unable to check all the content its users upload. The counter-claim is so that the site can offload liability and so that the uploader puts his money where his mouth is at the risk of being sued.</p><p>From then on the copyright holders can properly sue the user who has uploaded and published the content, and that's when the case starts to resemble a classic infringement case. Up until this point there is basically no need for lawyers to be involved.</p><p>But in the U.S. system lawyers always exaggerate to seek maximum damages in the hope of acting as a deterrent. In this way the EFF is not acting any different from the ridiculous claims media companies usually make.<br>In a sane system this should have resulted in a small price for an attorney's letter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The takedown notice is for media-hosting sites who are unable to check all the content its users upload .
The counter-claim is so that the site can offload liability and so that the uploader puts his money where his mouth is at the risk of being sued.From then on the copyright holders can properly sue the user who has uploaded and published the content , and that 's when the case starts to resemble a classic infringement case .
Up until this point there is basically no need for lawyers to be involved.But in the U.S. system lawyers always exaggerate to seek maximum damages in the hope of acting as a deterrent .
In this way the EFF is not acting any different from the ridiculous claims media companies usually make.In a sane system this should have resulted in a small price for an attorney 's letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The takedown notice is for media-hosting sites who are unable to check all the content its users upload.
The counter-claim is so that the site can offload liability and so that the uploader puts his money where his mouth is at the risk of being sued.From then on the copyright holders can properly sue the user who has uploaded and published the content, and that's when the case starts to resemble a classic infringement case.
Up until this point there is basically no need for lawyers to be involved.But in the U.S. system lawyers always exaggerate to seek maximum damages in the hope of acting as a deterrent.
In this way the EFF is not acting any different from the ridiculous claims media companies usually make.In a sane system this should have resulted in a small price for an attorney's letter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892732</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>virtualXTC</author>
	<datestamp>1264444200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...By the time they get any money out of Universal, it's going to have cost them $400,000 in legal feels.  Besides, how is this any different than $150,000 per song infringement fees?  They had it coming to them...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...By the time they get any money out of Universal , it 's going to have cost them $ 400,000 in legal feels .
Besides , how is this any different than $ 150,000 per song infringement fees ?
They had it coming to them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...By the time they get any money out of Universal, it's going to have cost them $400,000 in legal feels.
Besides, how is this any different than $150,000 per song infringement fees?
They had it coming to them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30913496</id>
	<title>error in the text?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264526220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, any argument about the legal system usually raises two kinds of objections. The first is that the existing system "works". Well, in many ways it does, but everybody also knows that wealthy corporations and individuals enjoy a huge advantage in the court system, even though courts are supposed to treat all parties equally. So at least in that respect it doesn't "work" the way it's supposed to.</p></div><p>Shouldn't that read:</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but everybody also knows that wealthy corporations not individuals enjoy a huge advantage in the court system, even though courts are supposed to treat all parties equally. So at least in that respect it doesn't "work" the way it's supposed to.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , any argument about the legal system usually raises two kinds of objections .
The first is that the existing system " works " .
Well , in many ways it does , but everybody also knows that wealthy corporations and individuals enjoy a huge advantage in the court system , even though courts are supposed to treat all parties equally .
So at least in that respect it does n't " work " the way it 's supposed to.Should n't that read : ...but everybody also knows that wealthy corporations not individuals enjoy a huge advantage in the court system , even though courts are supposed to treat all parties equally .
So at least in that respect it does n't " work " the way it 's supposed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, any argument about the legal system usually raises two kinds of objections.
The first is that the existing system "works".
Well, in many ways it does, but everybody also knows that wealthy corporations and individuals enjoy a huge advantage in the court system, even though courts are supposed to treat all parties equally.
So at least in that respect it doesn't "work" the way it's supposed to.Shouldn't that read: ...but everybody also knows that wealthy corporations not individuals enjoy a huge advantage in the court system, even though courts are supposed to treat all parties equally.
So at least in that respect it doesn't "work" the way it's supposed to.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1264441140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forgive me if you've heard this put better, but...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A manufacturing plant sees one of its production machines seize up in the middle of a work day, bringing the entire plant to a halt.  Knowing they were in deep trouble, they call in the best repair technician they can get.  The man arrives on scene, assesses the situation, and moments later produces a hammer from his tool bag.  With one sharp rap on the side, the machine returns to life and the plant gets to go back to production.  The technician leaves, promising to send an invoice later.</p><p>The original invoice arrives and reads like so:</p><p>Emergency Equipment Maintenance - $2000</p><p>The accounting department is, understandably, disappointed by this amount and presses back for a 'detailed invoice' that can describe how the amount of $2000 was determined.  The technician was only happy to oblige:</p><p>Hitting the seized machine with a hammer - $1<br>Knowing where to hit it - $1999</p></div><p>So while the cost of writing a letter is insignificant, the cost of being an attorney, running a firm, and generally being available to take up this sort of case is likely not so trivial.  We could compare similar firms' rates, but stating that 'attorneys charge a lot' is sort of a non-starter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive me if you 've heard this put better , but...A manufacturing plant sees one of its production machines seize up in the middle of a work day , bringing the entire plant to a halt .
Knowing they were in deep trouble , they call in the best repair technician they can get .
The man arrives on scene , assesses the situation , and moments later produces a hammer from his tool bag .
With one sharp rap on the side , the machine returns to life and the plant gets to go back to production .
The technician leaves , promising to send an invoice later.The original invoice arrives and reads like so : Emergency Equipment Maintenance - $ 2000The accounting department is , understandably , disappointed by this amount and presses back for a 'detailed invoice ' that can describe how the amount of $ 2000 was determined .
The technician was only happy to oblige : Hitting the seized machine with a hammer - $ 1Knowing where to hit it - $ 1999So while the cost of writing a letter is insignificant , the cost of being an attorney , running a firm , and generally being available to take up this sort of case is likely not so trivial .
We could compare similar firms ' rates , but stating that 'attorneys charge a lot ' is sort of a non-starter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive me if you've heard this put better, but...A manufacturing plant sees one of its production machines seize up in the middle of a work day, bringing the entire plant to a halt.
Knowing they were in deep trouble, they call in the best repair technician they can get.
The man arrives on scene, assesses the situation, and moments later produces a hammer from his tool bag.
With one sharp rap on the side, the machine returns to life and the plant gets to go back to production.
The technician leaves, promising to send an invoice later.The original invoice arrives and reads like so:Emergency Equipment Maintenance - $2000The accounting department is, understandably, disappointed by this amount and presses back for a 'detailed invoice' that can describe how the amount of $2000 was determined.
The technician was only happy to oblige:Hitting the seized machine with a hammer - $1Knowing where to hit it - $1999So while the cost of writing a letter is insignificant, the cost of being an attorney, running a firm, and generally being available to take up this sort of case is likely not so trivial.
We could compare similar firms' rates, but stating that 'attorneys charge a lot' is sort of a non-starter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893060</id>
	<title>Some background on the this issue in the case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EFF actually made a claim for attorney's fees earlier in the case, and the claim was denied.  The court found that a violation of 512(f) requires either actual knowledge that the material is not infringing or that the fair use be self-evident.  Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P29,540, 8  (N.D. Cal. 2008).  The court then found that the plaintiff had neither alleged facts from which actual knowledge could be inferred nor facts showing that the fair use was self-evident.  <em>Id</em>. at 9.  The plaintiff was given leave to amend the claim to correct these issues, which she did.</p><p>The amended version of the complaint alleged that Universal acted in bad faith and deliberate ignorance of fair use. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2008).  It further alleges that Universal is acting solely to satisfy Prince's personal agenda.  <em>Id</em>.  Those allegations were held sufficient to deny a motion to dismiss the claim.  <em>Id</em> at 1157.  The court ruled that copyright holders must undertake a good faith consideration of fair use but they are not required to make a full investigation. <em>Id</em> at 1155-56.  The court noted that cases of bad faith are likely to be rare. <em>Id</em> at 1155.</p><p>So the outcome here hinges on whether Universal considered fair use and decided in good faith that it did not apply.  Normally it would be difficult to prove that Universal ignored fair use as a possible defense or considered it only in bad faith (e.g., had its lawyers tell it what it wanted to hear).  The evidence would normally be protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product privilege.  In this case, however, the EFF won significant parts of a motion to discover such evidence. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105180 (N.D. Cal. 2009).  Unfortunately, I can't find a link to the EFF's argument for this motion, so it's hard to say how strong their case actually is (e.g., whether they uncovered a smoking gun memo).</p><p>As for Mr. Haselton's extensive discussion of the best way to apportion the cost of litigation between parties I will say this: It is remarkable only for its complete lack of citation to or recognition of the numerous legal and economic studies that have been made of the subject over the past couple of centuries.  It is the law and economics version of the phenomenon described in <a href="http://www.xkcd.com/592/" title="xkcd.com">this XKCD comic</a> [xkcd.com] and its accompanying alt-text.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EFF actually made a claim for attorney 's fees earlier in the case , and the claim was denied .
The court found that a violation of 512 ( f ) requires either actual knowledge that the material is not infringing or that the fair use be self-evident .
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. , Copy .
L. Rep. ( CCH ) P29,540 , 8 ( N.D. Cal. 2008 ) .
The court then found that the plaintiff had neither alleged facts from which actual knowledge could be inferred nor facts showing that the fair use was self-evident .
Id. at 9 .
The plaintiff was given leave to amend the claim to correct these issues , which she did.The amended version of the complaint alleged that Universal acted in bad faith and deliberate ignorance of fair use .
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. , 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 , 1156 ( N.D. Cal. 2008 ) .
It further alleges that Universal is acting solely to satisfy Prince 's personal agenda .
Id. Those allegations were held sufficient to deny a motion to dismiss the claim .
Id at 1157 .
The court ruled that copyright holders must undertake a good faith consideration of fair use but they are not required to make a full investigation .
Id at 1155-56 .
The court noted that cases of bad faith are likely to be rare .
Id at 1155.So the outcome here hinges on whether Universal considered fair use and decided in good faith that it did not apply .
Normally it would be difficult to prove that Universal ignored fair use as a possible defense or considered it only in bad faith ( e.g. , had its lawyers tell it what it wanted to hear ) .
The evidence would normally be protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product privilege .
In this case , however , the EFF won significant parts of a motion to discover such evidence .
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105180 ( N.D. Cal. 2009 ) .
Unfortunately , I ca n't find a link to the EFF 's argument for this motion , so it 's hard to say how strong their case actually is ( e.g. , whether they uncovered a smoking gun memo ) .As for Mr. Haselton 's extensive discussion of the best way to apportion the cost of litigation between parties I will say this : It is remarkable only for its complete lack of citation to or recognition of the numerous legal and economic studies that have been made of the subject over the past couple of centuries .
It is the law and economics version of the phenomenon described in this XKCD comic [ xkcd.com ] and its accompanying alt-text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EFF actually made a claim for attorney's fees earlier in the case, and the claim was denied.
The court found that a violation of 512(f) requires either actual knowledge that the material is not infringing or that the fair use be self-evident.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., Copy.
L. Rep. (CCH) P29,540, 8  (N.D. Cal. 2008).
The court then found that the plaintiff had neither alleged facts from which actual knowledge could be inferred nor facts showing that the fair use was self-evident.
Id. at 9.
The plaintiff was given leave to amend the claim to correct these issues, which she did.The amended version of the complaint alleged that Universal acted in bad faith and deliberate ignorance of fair use.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
It further alleges that Universal is acting solely to satisfy Prince's personal agenda.
Id.  Those allegations were held sufficient to deny a motion to dismiss the claim.
Id at 1157.
The court ruled that copyright holders must undertake a good faith consideration of fair use but they are not required to make a full investigation.
Id at 1155-56.
The court noted that cases of bad faith are likely to be rare.
Id at 1155.So the outcome here hinges on whether Universal considered fair use and decided in good faith that it did not apply.
Normally it would be difficult to prove that Universal ignored fair use as a possible defense or considered it only in bad faith (e.g., had its lawyers tell it what it wanted to hear).
The evidence would normally be protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product privilege.
In this case, however, the EFF won significant parts of a motion to discover such evidence.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105180 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Unfortunately, I can't find a link to the EFF's argument for this motion, so it's hard to say how strong their case actually is (e.g., whether they uncovered a smoking gun memo).As for Mr. Haselton's extensive discussion of the best way to apportion the cost of litigation between parties I will say this: It is remarkable only for its complete lack of citation to or recognition of the numerous legal and economic studies that have been made of the subject over the past couple of centuries.
It is the law and economics version of the phenomenon described in this XKCD comic [xkcd.com] and its accompanying alt-text.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891986</id>
	<title>It was not just 30s</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1264441680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The song was barely audible, so much so that I (and I guess many others) wondered how they found out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The song was barely audible , so much so that I ( and I guess many others ) wondered how they found out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The song was barely audible, so much so that I (and I guess many others) wondered how they found out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892618</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1264443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The question is -- given the above -- were they really?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's a video of a baby jumping up and down with awful sound quality. Frankly, I'm disgusted that the lawyers involved were not reprimanded for wasting the courts time.</p><p>As I see it, the biggest problem with DMCA takedowns is that they don't involve the courts. Takedowns become a giant bluffing game with lawyers puffing up arguments with legalese and threats in an effort to browbeat their victims. It should be up to the courts to reign in this sort of behavior before all respect for the legal system falls apart. Unfortunately, judges appear to be all too willing to condone and even support such nonsense. There is a great rot in Western judiciaries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is -- given the above -- were they really ? It 's a video of a baby jumping up and down with awful sound quality .
Frankly , I 'm disgusted that the lawyers involved were not reprimanded for wasting the courts time.As I see it , the biggest problem with DMCA takedowns is that they do n't involve the courts .
Takedowns become a giant bluffing game with lawyers puffing up arguments with legalese and threats in an effort to browbeat their victims .
It should be up to the courts to reign in this sort of behavior before all respect for the legal system falls apart .
Unfortunately , judges appear to be all too willing to condone and even support such nonsense .
There is a great rot in Western judiciaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is -- given the above -- were they really?It's a video of a baby jumping up and down with awful sound quality.
Frankly, I'm disgusted that the lawyers involved were not reprimanded for wasting the courts time.As I see it, the biggest problem with DMCA takedowns is that they don't involve the courts.
Takedowns become a giant bluffing game with lawyers puffing up arguments with legalese and threats in an effort to browbeat their victims.
It should be up to the courts to reign in this sort of behavior before all respect for the legal system falls apart.
Unfortunately, judges appear to be all too willing to condone and even support such nonsense.
There is a great rot in Western judiciaries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897308</id>
	<title>Re:Here'e my well-thought scheme :-)</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1264420500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I hate the fact that money perverts justice.</i> </p><p>I think that this is what you meant to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate the fact that money perverts justice .
I think that this is what you meant to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I hate the fact that money perverts justice.
I think that this is what you meant to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892366</id>
	<title>I'm of two minds about this...</title>
	<author>jockeys</author>
	<datestamp>1264443000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>on the one hand, the part of me that despises RIAA tactics and obscene punitive damages thinks this is great: smack those bastards right where they'll notice, in the wallet.
<br> <br>
on the other hand, talk of future discouragement aside, is the EFF becoming that which they hate?  400 grand for a letter of non-infringement?  that's RIAAesque in its unreasonableness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>on the one hand , the part of me that despises RIAA tactics and obscene punitive damages thinks this is great : smack those bastards right where they 'll notice , in the wallet .
on the other hand , talk of future discouragement aside , is the EFF becoming that which they hate ?
400 grand for a letter of non-infringement ?
that 's RIAAesque in its unreasonableness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on the one hand, the part of me that despises RIAA tactics and obscene punitive damages thinks this is great: smack those bastards right where they'll notice, in the wallet.
on the other hand, talk of future discouragement aside, is the EFF becoming that which they hate?
400 grand for a letter of non-infringement?
that's RIAAesque in its unreasonableness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895368</id>
	<title>So sayeth Peanut</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1264412520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> And if the legal system encourages lawyers to rack up billable hours arguing other points, then the system is wasteful.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA-KBIjGYzk" title="youtube.com">Go here</a> [youtube.com], and skip in 2:44.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if the legal system encourages lawyers to rack up billable hours arguing other points , then the system is wasteful .
Go here [ youtube.com ] , and skip in 2 : 44 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And if the legal system encourages lawyers to rack up billable hours arguing other points, then the system is wasteful.
Go here [youtube.com], and skip in 2:44.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894020</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1264450200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Jail time is not an option in civil cases, and thus, punitive damages are used instead to deter future offenses.</p></div></blockquote><p>A takedown notice requires a statement under oath that the information contained therein is accurate.  Ergo, filing a false one is perjury.  You can certainly end up as a guest at the Hotel PMITA for that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jail time is not an option in civil cases , and thus , punitive damages are used instead to deter future offenses.A takedown notice requires a statement under oath that the information contained therein is accurate .
Ergo , filing a false one is perjury .
You can certainly end up as a guest at the Hotel PMITA for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jail time is not an option in civil cases, and thus, punitive damages are used instead to deter future offenses.A takedown notice requires a statement under oath that the information contained therein is accurate.
Ergo, filing a false one is perjury.
You can certainly end up as a guest at the Hotel PMITA for that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891914</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1264441440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, the RIAA claims that they need to deter downloaders by imposing excessive fees; this is just more of the same, but in the other direction.  The EFF's demand for that much money is a deterrent to people who think that it is OK to abuse the legal system and issue unfair takedown notices.  Hopefully, this will have the effect of shocking the government into action and reducing the damages in copyright cases (once they start targeting individuals, the damages should be much, much smaller), but I have a feeling that this sort of activity will continue for many more years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , the RIAA claims that they need to deter downloaders by imposing excessive fees ; this is just more of the same , but in the other direction .
The EFF 's demand for that much money is a deterrent to people who think that it is OK to abuse the legal system and issue unfair takedown notices .
Hopefully , this will have the effect of shocking the government into action and reducing the damages in copyright cases ( once they start targeting individuals , the damages should be much , much smaller ) , but I have a feeling that this sort of activity will continue for many more years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, the RIAA claims that they need to deter downloaders by imposing excessive fees; this is just more of the same, but in the other direction.
The EFF's demand for that much money is a deterrent to people who think that it is OK to abuse the legal system and issue unfair takedown notices.
Hopefully, this will have the effect of shocking the government into action and reducing the damages in copyright cases (once they start targeting individuals, the damages should be much, much smaller), but I have a feeling that this sort of activity will continue for many more years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892590</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Punishment?</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1264443660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should the punishment for depriving a person of their right to fair use be any less severe than violating a copyright?</p></div><p>Good point!  (I would mod you up, but I wrote in this post and don't wanna lose it)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the punishment for depriving a person of their right to fair use be any less severe than violating a copyright ? Good point !
( I would mod you up , but I wrote in this post and do n't wan na lose it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the punishment for depriving a person of their right to fair use be any less severe than violating a copyright?Good point!
(I would mod you up, but I wrote in this post and don't wanna lose it)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892546</id>
	<title>Re:Single payer, with penalties</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1264443480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking as a lawyer, I'd love that.  Cap my salary, take away my law school loans, and give me a reasonable work schedule and I'll be good, even if I'm making a third of what I could without the cap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a lawyer , I 'd love that .
Cap my salary , take away my law school loans , and give me a reasonable work schedule and I 'll be good , even if I 'm making a third of what I could without the cap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a lawyer, I'd love that.
Cap my salary, take away my law school loans, and give me a reasonable work schedule and I'll be good, even if I'm making a third of what I could without the cap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891938</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>inKubus</author>
	<datestamp>1264441500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, to make it fair, the punative damages should be assessed based on the annual income of the defendant.  Punative damages are the punishment for wasting everyone's time.  If it was the little guy wasting Sony's time, they would then feel the same level of sting as if Sony was wasting the little guy's time.</p><p>They do this with speeding tickets in Switzerland--the fine is assessed as a percentage of annual income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , to make it fair , the punative damages should be assessed based on the annual income of the defendant .
Punative damages are the punishment for wasting everyone 's time .
If it was the little guy wasting Sony 's time , they would then feel the same level of sting as if Sony was wasting the little guy 's time.They do this with speeding tickets in Switzerland--the fine is assessed as a percentage of annual income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, to make it fair, the punative damages should be assessed based on the annual income of the defendant.
Punative damages are the punishment for wasting everyone's time.
If it was the little guy wasting Sony's time, they would then feel the same level of sting as if Sony was wasting the little guy's time.They do this with speeding tickets in Switzerland--the fine is assessed as a percentage of annual income.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484</id>
	<title>The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$400,000 for writing a letter? I like the EFF and I sort of agree that it's not fair they have to eat the costs of defending a fraudulent claim. But it was their choice to send the notice chiseled on a solid gold tablet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 400,000 for writing a letter ?
I like the EFF and I sort of agree that it 's not fair they have to eat the costs of defending a fraudulent claim .
But it was their choice to send the notice chiseled on a solid gold tablet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$400,000 for writing a letter?
I like the EFF and I sort of agree that it's not fair they have to eat the costs of defending a fraudulent claim.
But it was their choice to send the notice chiseled on a solid gold tablet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652</id>
	<title>Pay for service, not hours</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1264440540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with attorneys' fees is not unlike the problem in the medical profession.  They usually get paid per hour. This gives them incentives to drag cases out and not do their best work up front. After all, if you end the case fast, you don't get much money.
</p><p>I've seen advocation from some (including in Forbes in a column by a lawyer) that hiring an attorney should be more of a flat fee model. Based on previous cases, your law firm should be able to guess how much it will cost to run your case. So you pay them $10k (for example) and they try it. If they are good and get it done faster than expected, they've made more profit. If they underbid, they'll pay the price and have to eat a bunch of extra time.
</p><p>Now you would have to have some provisions in there to revisit the fee every 6 months, or that fee only covers up to 2000 hours (on an expected 500 hour case), or something so cases that go to the Supreme Court don't earn the lawyer only $250, but it would at least give lawyers a better incentive to do good work.
</p><p>That would lower legal costs, making fees returned for frivolous lawsuits lower.
</p><p>As a bonus, if fees are lower, judges are more likely to make one side pay for the other's legal expenses in pointless cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with attorneys ' fees is not unlike the problem in the medical profession .
They usually get paid per hour .
This gives them incentives to drag cases out and not do their best work up front .
After all , if you end the case fast , you do n't get much money .
I 've seen advocation from some ( including in Forbes in a column by a lawyer ) that hiring an attorney should be more of a flat fee model .
Based on previous cases , your law firm should be able to guess how much it will cost to run your case .
So you pay them $ 10k ( for example ) and they try it .
If they are good and get it done faster than expected , they 've made more profit .
If they underbid , they 'll pay the price and have to eat a bunch of extra time .
Now you would have to have some provisions in there to revisit the fee every 6 months , or that fee only covers up to 2000 hours ( on an expected 500 hour case ) , or something so cases that go to the Supreme Court do n't earn the lawyer only $ 250 , but it would at least give lawyers a better incentive to do good work .
That would lower legal costs , making fees returned for frivolous lawsuits lower .
As a bonus , if fees are lower , judges are more likely to make one side pay for the other 's legal expenses in pointless cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with attorneys' fees is not unlike the problem in the medical profession.
They usually get paid per hour.
This gives them incentives to drag cases out and not do their best work up front.
After all, if you end the case fast, you don't get much money.
I've seen advocation from some (including in Forbes in a column by a lawyer) that hiring an attorney should be more of a flat fee model.
Based on previous cases, your law firm should be able to guess how much it will cost to run your case.
So you pay them $10k (for example) and they try it.
If they are good and get it done faster than expected, they've made more profit.
If they underbid, they'll pay the price and have to eat a bunch of extra time.
Now you would have to have some provisions in there to revisit the fee every 6 months, or that fee only covers up to 2000 hours (on an expected 500 hour case), or something so cases that go to the Supreme Court don't earn the lawyer only $250, but it would at least give lawyers a better incentive to do good work.
That would lower legal costs, making fees returned for frivolous lawsuits lower.
As a bonus, if fees are lower, judges are more likely to make one side pay for the other's legal expenses in pointless cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892012</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1264441740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact remains that when I hired a lawyer a few years back, he wrote two - count them, <b>two</b> - letters on my behalf, and the total bill was only a couple hundred bucks.  The issue was considerably more complex than an "obvious" abuse of copyright on fair use grounds.</p><p>Note - I put "obvious" in quotes because I don't believe fair use as a defense is often all that clear-cut.  This comes down to <i>you can't have it both ways</i>.  If they claim the case is obvious enough that Universal was abusing the system - i.e. that the "obvious misrepresentation" clause comes into effect - then it must also be obvious enough that they shouldn't have racked up major research hours on it.  That means they only get to bill for the time it took to literally write the letter.</p><p>They are trying to stick it to the man, end of story.  To get a feel for how outraged you should be, ask yourself whether the EFF will charge their client $400,000 should the award be denied.  If so, they'd be screwing the little guy; if not, then requesting the award is an abuse of the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact remains that when I hired a lawyer a few years back , he wrote two - count them , two - letters on my behalf , and the total bill was only a couple hundred bucks .
The issue was considerably more complex than an " obvious " abuse of copyright on fair use grounds.Note - I put " obvious " in quotes because I do n't believe fair use as a defense is often all that clear-cut .
This comes down to you ca n't have it both ways .
If they claim the case is obvious enough that Universal was abusing the system - i.e .
that the " obvious misrepresentation " clause comes into effect - then it must also be obvious enough that they should n't have racked up major research hours on it .
That means they only get to bill for the time it took to literally write the letter.They are trying to stick it to the man , end of story .
To get a feel for how outraged you should be , ask yourself whether the EFF will charge their client $ 400,000 should the award be denied .
If so , they 'd be screwing the little guy ; if not , then requesting the award is an abuse of the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact remains that when I hired a lawyer a few years back, he wrote two - count them, two - letters on my behalf, and the total bill was only a couple hundred bucks.
The issue was considerably more complex than an "obvious" abuse of copyright on fair use grounds.Note - I put "obvious" in quotes because I don't believe fair use as a defense is often all that clear-cut.
This comes down to you can't have it both ways.
If they claim the case is obvious enough that Universal was abusing the system - i.e.
that the "obvious misrepresentation" clause comes into effect - then it must also be obvious enough that they shouldn't have racked up major research hours on it.
That means they only get to bill for the time it took to literally write the letter.They are trying to stick it to the man, end of story.
To get a feel for how outraged you should be, ask yourself whether the EFF will charge their client $400,000 should the award be denied.
If so, they'd be screwing the little guy; if not, then requesting the award is an abuse of the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891618</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lawyers $100K<br>mental duress $100k<br>lost work wages and triple damages $200K</p><p>or anything else one can think of.</p><p>if the movie/song industry can charge and get outlandish money in the millions, why not the poor fair use client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lawyers $ 100Kmental duress $ 100klost work wages and triple damages $ 200Kor anything else one can think of.if the movie/song industry can charge and get outlandish money in the millions , why not the poor fair use client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lawyers $100Kmental duress $100klost work wages and triple damages $200Kor anything else one can think of.if the movie/song industry can charge and get outlandish money in the millions, why not the poor fair use client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894340</id>
	<title>Smart people shouldn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264451460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, what's the tolerance on that 10\% guideline?  If my lab students turned in a report that said 27.9/279 is different from 30/270, I'd ding 'em a couple of points because, to one significant figure (which is all that is specified by writing "10\%" they are indistinguishable.</p><p>Now, if it's specified somewhere as (1.0E1)\% or 10.0\%, those numbers are distinguishable.  But somehow I doubt that a "rule of thumb" guideline is specified anywhere in that kind of precision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , what 's the tolerance on that 10 \ % guideline ?
If my lab students turned in a report that said 27.9/279 is different from 30/270 , I 'd ding 'em a couple of points because , to one significant figure ( which is all that is specified by writing " 10 \ % " they are indistinguishable.Now , if it 's specified somewhere as ( 1.0E1 ) \ % or 10.0 \ % , those numbers are distinguishable .
But somehow I doubt that a " rule of thumb " guideline is specified anywhere in that kind of precision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, what's the tolerance on that 10\% guideline?
If my lab students turned in a report that said 27.9/279 is different from 30/270, I'd ding 'em a couple of points because, to one significant figure (which is all that is specified by writing "10\%" they are indistinguishable.Now, if it's specified somewhere as (1.0E1)\% or 10.0\%, those numbers are distinguishable.
But somehow I doubt that a "rule of thumb" guideline is specified anywhere in that kind of precision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892112</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>adamstew</author>
	<datestamp>1264442160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about $1,000 for writing the letter and the work involved in that.  Then when they asked for that money, Universal declined.  So they had to file a lawsuit which racks up much more legal expenses.  So, $1,000 for the original letter (about 4-5 hours of an attorney's time), and $399,000 for the cost of pursuing the original $1,000 in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about $ 1,000 for writing the letter and the work involved in that .
Then when they asked for that money , Universal declined .
So they had to file a lawsuit which racks up much more legal expenses .
So , $ 1,000 for the original letter ( about 4-5 hours of an attorney 's time ) , and $ 399,000 for the cost of pursuing the original $ 1,000 in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about $1,000 for writing the letter and the work involved in that.
Then when they asked for that money, Universal declined.
So they had to file a lawsuit which racks up much more legal expenses.
So, $1,000 for the original letter (about 4-5 hours of an attorney's time), and $399,000 for the cost of pursuing the original $1,000 in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892398</id>
	<title>Re:Knowingly misrepresents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264443060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who are the retards harping on the $400,000 figure? Hell, they should ask for $500,000 or a cool million. After all, they're gouging UNIVERSAL, which is good, right??!!?? They're one of the evil corporations slamming the little guy making little fair use videos so pay back is a bitch, right?</p><p>I for one think it's about time somebody slammed a music conglomerate with ridiculous fees.</p><p>I bet you people claiming $400,000 is insane are the same idiots that drive under the speed limit in the passing lane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who are the retards harping on the $ 400,000 figure ?
Hell , they should ask for $ 500,000 or a cool million .
After all , they 're gouging UNIVERSAL , which is good , right ? ? ! ! ? ?
They 're one of the evil corporations slamming the little guy making little fair use videos so pay back is a bitch , right ? I for one think it 's about time somebody slammed a music conglomerate with ridiculous fees.I bet you people claiming $ 400,000 is insane are the same idiots that drive under the speed limit in the passing lane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who are the retards harping on the $400,000 figure?
Hell, they should ask for $500,000 or a cool million.
After all, they're gouging UNIVERSAL, which is good, right??!!??
They're one of the evil corporations slamming the little guy making little fair use videos so pay back is a bitch, right?I for one think it's about time somebody slammed a music conglomerate with ridiculous fees.I bet you people claiming $400,000 is insane are the same idiots that drive under the speed limit in the passing lane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896218</id>
	<title>Q?</title>
	<author>bdabautcb</author>
	<datestamp>1264415700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has anybody asked the musicians if they care about this? I thought this whole DRM thing was about the creators of the media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anybody asked the musicians if they care about this ?
I thought this whole DRM thing was about the creators of the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anybody asked the musicians if they care about this?
I thought this whole DRM thing was about the creators of the media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892136</id>
	<title>Lawyers VS $bigcorp or $joebloe</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1264442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me that dealing with $bigcorp might be quite a bit more expensive in terms of lawyer work than dealing with $joebloe. If you need to contact $joebloe, you get his phone number.</p><p>If you need to contact $bigcorp, you go through a gazillion channels, find their legal department, possibly first finding the right division of the company, and then finding the *right* legal department, before you can get anywhere.</p><p>Writing the letter may be a small slice of the pie.</p><p>For the final sum though, I'd expect to see some form of estimate reasonably justifying the $400,000 as opposed to a flat fee. Likely enough though, $400,000 is a magic number intended more to matter enough to gain attention. I wonder if you could bill it as:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; local contact: $1500<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; draft of legal letters: $1000<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; submission of legal letters: $1000<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; getting universal's bloody attention: $395500</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that dealing with $ bigcorp might be quite a bit more expensive in terms of lawyer work than dealing with $ joebloe .
If you need to contact $ joebloe , you get his phone number.If you need to contact $ bigcorp , you go through a gazillion channels , find their legal department , possibly first finding the right division of the company , and then finding the * right * legal department , before you can get anywhere.Writing the letter may be a small slice of the pie.For the final sum though , I 'd expect to see some form of estimate reasonably justifying the $ 400,000 as opposed to a flat fee .
Likely enough though , $ 400,000 is a magic number intended more to matter enough to gain attention .
I wonder if you could bill it as :     local contact : $ 1500     draft of legal letters : $ 1000     submission of legal letters : $ 1000     getting universal 's bloody attention : $ 395500</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that dealing with $bigcorp might be quite a bit more expensive in terms of lawyer work than dealing with $joebloe.
If you need to contact $joebloe, you get his phone number.If you need to contact $bigcorp, you go through a gazillion channels, find their legal department, possibly first finding the right division of the company, and then finding the *right* legal department, before you can get anywhere.Writing the letter may be a small slice of the pie.For the final sum though, I'd expect to see some form of estimate reasonably justifying the $400,000 as opposed to a flat fee.
Likely enough though, $400,000 is a magic number intended more to matter enough to gain attention.
I wonder if you could bill it as:
    local contact: $1500
    draft of legal letters: $1000
    submission of legal letters: $1000
    getting universal's bloody attention: $395500</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893558</id>
	<title>A long winded argument about ... nothing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264447800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The corporations were in the room as the DMCA was being written. They thought<br>they were crafting the legislation in their favour.</p><p>Now the shoe is on the other foot; they find it's not quite so one sided.</p><p>The fix is obvious, but will not be taken. Change the fines for infringement<br>into something more reasonable and enforceable in say small claims court (say<br>average price of product at three local retailers + times three for damages + filing fee and/or attorney fee if court time is required).</p><p>At that point the corporation lawyers become junior or paralegals. People who<br>wouldn't waste time on DMCA takedowns they know are opposable. The desire<br>to go after a single product infringement goes away. But the incentive to go<br>after big (hundreds or more) bootleggers goes up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The corporations were in the room as the DMCA was being written .
They thoughtthey were crafting the legislation in their favour.Now the shoe is on the other foot ; they find it 's not quite so one sided.The fix is obvious , but will not be taken .
Change the fines for infringementinto something more reasonable and enforceable in say small claims court ( sayaverage price of product at three local retailers + times three for damages + filing fee and/or attorney fee if court time is required ) .At that point the corporation lawyers become junior or paralegals .
People whowould n't waste time on DMCA takedowns they know are opposable .
The desireto go after a single product infringement goes away .
But the incentive to goafter big ( hundreds or more ) bootleggers goes up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The corporations were in the room as the DMCA was being written.
They thoughtthey were crafting the legislation in their favour.Now the shoe is on the other foot; they find it's not quite so one sided.The fix is obvious, but will not be taken.
Change the fines for infringementinto something more reasonable and enforceable in say small claims court (sayaverage price of product at three local retailers + times three for damages + filing fee and/or attorney fee if court time is required).At that point the corporation lawyers become junior or paralegals.
People whowouldn't waste time on DMCA takedowns they know are opposable.
The desireto go after a single product infringement goes away.
But the incentive to goafter big (hundreds or more) bootleggers goes up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892896</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>DeadPixels</author>
	<datestamp>1264444980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I know, you're correct in that those figures aren't specified by law. The really sad part here is that if the video had been 2.1 seconds shorter, she would have been well within the widely-accepted standard for fair use - perhaps she's still legally in the right, but it would have been a whole lot easier to argue if she could use the 30-second/10\% guideline to support herself.<br> <br>Generally, I would say that this still falls under fair use, because she isn't attempting to profit from the song in any way. It's a clip of a baby dancing for thirty seconds; have we really gotten so crazy that we're breaking out the lawyers and gearing up for lawsuits over thirty seconds of a dancing baby?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , you 're correct in that those figures are n't specified by law .
The really sad part here is that if the video had been 2.1 seconds shorter , she would have been well within the widely-accepted standard for fair use - perhaps she 's still legally in the right , but it would have been a whole lot easier to argue if she could use the 30-second/10 \ % guideline to support herself .
Generally , I would say that this still falls under fair use , because she is n't attempting to profit from the song in any way .
It 's a clip of a baby dancing for thirty seconds ; have we really gotten so crazy that we 're breaking out the lawyers and gearing up for lawsuits over thirty seconds of a dancing baby ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know, you're correct in that those figures aren't specified by law.
The really sad part here is that if the video had been 2.1 seconds shorter, she would have been well within the widely-accepted standard for fair use - perhaps she's still legally in the right, but it would have been a whole lot easier to argue if she could use the 30-second/10\% guideline to support herself.
Generally, I would say that this still falls under fair use, because she isn't attempting to profit from the song in any way.
It's a clip of a baby dancing for thirty seconds; have we really gotten so crazy that we're breaking out the lawyers and gearing up for lawsuits over thirty seconds of a dancing baby?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893272</id>
	<title>No, they're not</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1264446780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are most certainly not talking about punitive damages here. Punitive damages happen as a result of a lawsuit, when a judge awards money from the defendant to the plaintiff because of some kind of bad behavior on the defendant's part. That's not at all what this is. This is purely asking the judge to award funds from the defendant to cover the actual costs of the legal work that had to go on to press the claim, as provided for in the DMCA. As far as I can tell, a lawsuit never even happened. And I really have a hard time believing that reasonable attorney's fees could amount to $400k for something like this - it involved a little research and then writing a letter. A friend of mine has been trying to get divorced for over four years, with regular attorney consultations, court appearances, etc, etc... and his total bill is about a tenth of this. Certainly we're talking about a much less high-power attorney here, but still - $400k is ridiculous, no matter how much you dislike the RIAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are most certainly not talking about punitive damages here .
Punitive damages happen as a result of a lawsuit , when a judge awards money from the defendant to the plaintiff because of some kind of bad behavior on the defendant 's part .
That 's not at all what this is .
This is purely asking the judge to award funds from the defendant to cover the actual costs of the legal work that had to go on to press the claim , as provided for in the DMCA .
As far as I can tell , a lawsuit never even happened .
And I really have a hard time believing that reasonable attorney 's fees could amount to $ 400k for something like this - it involved a little research and then writing a letter .
A friend of mine has been trying to get divorced for over four years , with regular attorney consultations , court appearances , etc , etc... and his total bill is about a tenth of this .
Certainly we 're talking about a much less high-power attorney here , but still - $ 400k is ridiculous , no matter how much you dislike the RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are most certainly not talking about punitive damages here.
Punitive damages happen as a result of a lawsuit, when a judge awards money from the defendant to the plaintiff because of some kind of bad behavior on the defendant's part.
That's not at all what this is.
This is purely asking the judge to award funds from the defendant to cover the actual costs of the legal work that had to go on to press the claim, as provided for in the DMCA.
As far as I can tell, a lawsuit never even happened.
And I really have a hard time believing that reasonable attorney's fees could amount to $400k for something like this - it involved a little research and then writing a letter.
A friend of mine has been trying to get divorced for over four years, with regular attorney consultations, court appearances, etc, etc... and his total bill is about a tenth of this.
Certainly we're talking about a much less high-power attorney here, but still - $400k is ridiculous, no matter how much you dislike the RIAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894190</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264450920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the article said Universal submitted the DMCA claim for the Prince music.</p><p>I may be wrong, but I believe that RIAA does not represent any of Prince's music and they cannot file any DMCA claims on his behalf.  More importantly their representatives cannot legally download his music under the DMCA in their quest to find illegal music for which they are a representative.</p><p>It is clearly obvious to me that the RIAA and/or its representatives have to have violated the DMCA many times to be able to find so many illegal versions of music that they do represent.  I am certain that artists not represented by the RIAA have on occasion sent the RIAA DMCA notices, etc. as a form of silent protest, but the public will never know about it. The RIAA cannot break any laws they want to defend their customer&rsquo;s rights under a specific law.</p><p>It is a violation for the RIAA to illegally download other&rsquo;s music under the DMCA, but the owner that is violated by the RIAA must file a complaint.  Let them continue to break the law; they will eventually get busted by the DMCA.  I love irony.</p><p>RIAA Please Stop Illegally Downloading DMCA Protected Content Or Start Paying The Fines Like Everyone Else!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the article said Universal submitted the DMCA claim for the Prince music.I may be wrong , but I believe that RIAA does not represent any of Prince 's music and they can not file any DMCA claims on his behalf .
More importantly their representatives can not legally download his music under the DMCA in their quest to find illegal music for which they are a representative.It is clearly obvious to me that the RIAA and/or its representatives have to have violated the DMCA many times to be able to find so many illegal versions of music that they do represent .
I am certain that artists not represented by the RIAA have on occasion sent the RIAA DMCA notices , etc .
as a form of silent protest , but the public will never know about it .
The RIAA can not break any laws they want to defend their customer    s rights under a specific law.It is a violation for the RIAA to illegally download other    s music under the DMCA , but the owner that is violated by the RIAA must file a complaint .
Let them continue to break the law ; they will eventually get busted by the DMCA .
I love irony.RIAA Please Stop Illegally Downloading DMCA Protected Content Or Start Paying The Fines Like Everyone Else !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the article said Universal submitted the DMCA claim for the Prince music.I may be wrong, but I believe that RIAA does not represent any of Prince's music and they cannot file any DMCA claims on his behalf.
More importantly their representatives cannot legally download his music under the DMCA in their quest to find illegal music for which they are a representative.It is clearly obvious to me that the RIAA and/or its representatives have to have violated the DMCA many times to be able to find so many illegal versions of music that they do represent.
I am certain that artists not represented by the RIAA have on occasion sent the RIAA DMCA notices, etc.
as a form of silent protest, but the public will never know about it.
The RIAA cannot break any laws they want to defend their customer’s rights under a specific law.It is a violation for the RIAA to illegally download other’s music under the DMCA, but the owner that is violated by the RIAA must file a complaint.
Let them continue to break the law; they will eventually get busted by the DMCA.
I love irony.RIAA Please Stop Illegally Downloading DMCA Protected Content Or Start Paying The Fines Like Everyone Else!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899422</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264433100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To get a feel for how outraged you should be, ask yourself whether the EFF will charge their client $400,000 should the award be denied. If so, they'd be screwing the little guy; if not, then requesting the award is an abuse of the system.</p></div><p>This is nonsense. The EFF is not going to charge their client $400,000 because if the client knew they would be paying that much to <i>win</i> they would have never proceeded. The purpose of the case is to set a precedent and demonstrate to the defendants that their behavior is unacceptable. But that doesn't mean the EFF didn't have to spend $400,000 in order to secure a win.</p><p>Put the shoe on the other foot: Should Universal be able to abuse the system all they like because they know it costs $400,000 to win a lawsuit? The EFF may be willing to lose that much money once, but what about next time? If they can't recover their costs the Universal can just bleed them dry and go on abusing the system with impunity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To get a feel for how outraged you should be , ask yourself whether the EFF will charge their client $ 400,000 should the award be denied .
If so , they 'd be screwing the little guy ; if not , then requesting the award is an abuse of the system.This is nonsense .
The EFF is not going to charge their client $ 400,000 because if the client knew they would be paying that much to win they would have never proceeded .
The purpose of the case is to set a precedent and demonstrate to the defendants that their behavior is unacceptable .
But that does n't mean the EFF did n't have to spend $ 400,000 in order to secure a win.Put the shoe on the other foot : Should Universal be able to abuse the system all they like because they know it costs $ 400,000 to win a lawsuit ?
The EFF may be willing to lose that much money once , but what about next time ?
If they ca n't recover their costs the Universal can just bleed them dry and go on abusing the system with impunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get a feel for how outraged you should be, ask yourself whether the EFF will charge their client $400,000 should the award be denied.
If so, they'd be screwing the little guy; if not, then requesting the award is an abuse of the system.This is nonsense.
The EFF is not going to charge their client $400,000 because if the client knew they would be paying that much to win they would have never proceeded.
The purpose of the case is to set a precedent and demonstrate to the defendants that their behavior is unacceptable.
But that doesn't mean the EFF didn't have to spend $400,000 in order to secure a win.Put the shoe on the other foot: Should Universal be able to abuse the system all they like because they know it costs $400,000 to win a lawsuit?
The EFF may be willing to lose that much money once, but what about next time?
If they can't recover their costs the Universal can just bleed them dry and go on abusing the system with impunity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891850</id>
	<title>turnabout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its fair play</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its fair play</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its fair play</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894238</id>
	<title>Pot, meet kettle.</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1264451040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just a money grab by the EFF. Somehow, I am not surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a money grab by the EFF .
Somehow , I am not surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a money grab by the EFF.
Somehow, I am not surprised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896440</id>
	<title>EFF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i heard the EFF raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. sounds like they're giving Universal a taste of their own medicine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i heard the EFF raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. sounds like they 're giving Universal a taste of their own medicine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i heard the EFF raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. sounds like they're giving Universal a taste of their own medicine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891818</id>
	<title>Equal and Opposite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube. Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use. Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</p></div><p>This can be answered by creating a "Newton's Second Law of Lawsuits", where one legal maneuver can only be countered by a reasonably equal and opposite reaction.
<br>
i.e.  If you as an independent musician, use your own time and stationary to send a letter, the defendant should do the same, thus can only recover what your time and materials are worth.  If you hire a $400,000 legal team to send the letters, it's reasonable to counter that with a $400,000 team, thus you could recover your expenses.
<br> <br>
If you really want to go out on a limb, the system could measure the amount of frivolous lawsuits were filed last year and introduce a multiplier in the equation.  Thus if there were twice as many bogus lawsuits filed last year as there should be, the plaitifs could recover 2x legal fees, if there half as many, then they can only recover 1/2 of their legal fees.  (Leave it up to the law school debate teams to determine how many bogus suits the system should allow.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online , and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission , so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube .
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song , short enough to count as fair use .
Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ? This can be answered by creating a " Newton 's Second Law of Lawsuits " , where one legal maneuver can only be countered by a reasonably equal and opposite reaction .
i.e. If you as an independent musician , use your own time and stationary to send a letter , the defendant should do the same , thus can only recover what your time and materials are worth .
If you hire a $ 400,000 legal team to send the letters , it 's reasonable to counter that with a $ 400,000 team , thus you could recover your expenses .
If you really want to go out on a limb , the system could measure the amount of frivolous lawsuits were filed last year and introduce a multiplier in the equation .
Thus if there were twice as many bogus lawsuits filed last year as there should be , the plaitifs could recover 2x legal fees , if there half as many , then they can only recover 1/2 of their legal fees .
( Leave it up to the law school debate teams to determine how many bogus suits the system should allow .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube.
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use.
Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?This can be answered by creating a "Newton's Second Law of Lawsuits", where one legal maneuver can only be countered by a reasonably equal and opposite reaction.
i.e.  If you as an independent musician, use your own time and stationary to send a letter, the defendant should do the same, thus can only recover what your time and materials are worth.
If you hire a $400,000 legal team to send the letters, it's reasonable to counter that with a $400,000 team, thus you could recover your expenses.
If you really want to go out on a limb, the system could measure the amount of frivolous lawsuits were filed last year and introduce a multiplier in the equation.
Thus if there were twice as many bogus lawsuits filed last year as there should be, the plaitifs could recover 2x legal fees, if there half as many, then they can only recover 1/2 of their legal fees.
(Leave it up to the law school debate teams to determine how many bogus suits the system should allow.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894636</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1264452840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a joke, it's just more proof of who the lawyers are really working with...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a joke , it 's just more proof of who the lawyers are really working with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a joke, it's just more proof of who the lawyers are really working with...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898188</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Punishment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264424640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is no "right" to fair use. Why do you keep propagating this myth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no " right " to fair use .
Why do you keep propagating this myth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no "right" to fair use.
Why do you keep propagating this myth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893158</id>
	<title>I can't help it...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1264446240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, yeah, $400,000 is a pretty insane sum of money. But you have to feel at least a little schadenfreude at Universal having to pay this. After all, they're part of the music industry machine that has worked tirelessly to erode and obfuscate Fair Use laws. Most of these laws are random exclusions in otherwise restrictive copyright laws. Any time there's a push for a true proactive Fair Use bill... a Fair Use Bill of Rights that really needs to be written<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... these guys are spending millions in lobbying money to such that down, pronto. So a little of what goes around finally did come around. I can't be even a little bit disturbed at this outcome... if the law were crystal clear, the bill would have been much, much smaller I'm sure.</p><p>Plus, if Universal's equally-ultra-expensive lawyers are at all good, Universal will spend even more money in legal hours trying to delay the payout as long as they possibly can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , yeah , $ 400,000 is a pretty insane sum of money .
But you have to feel at least a little schadenfreude at Universal having to pay this .
After all , they 're part of the music industry machine that has worked tirelessly to erode and obfuscate Fair Use laws .
Most of these laws are random exclusions in otherwise restrictive copyright laws .
Any time there 's a push for a true proactive Fair Use bill... a Fair Use Bill of Rights that really needs to be written ... these guys are spending millions in lobbying money to such that down , pronto .
So a little of what goes around finally did come around .
I ca n't be even a little bit disturbed at this outcome... if the law were crystal clear , the bill would have been much , much smaller I 'm sure.Plus , if Universal 's equally-ultra-expensive lawyers are at all good , Universal will spend even more money in legal hours trying to delay the payout as long as they possibly can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, yeah, $400,000 is a pretty insane sum of money.
But you have to feel at least a little schadenfreude at Universal having to pay this.
After all, they're part of the music industry machine that has worked tirelessly to erode and obfuscate Fair Use laws.
Most of these laws are random exclusions in otherwise restrictive copyright laws.
Any time there's a push for a true proactive Fair Use bill... a Fair Use Bill of Rights that really needs to be written ... these guys are spending millions in lobbying money to such that down, pronto.
So a little of what goes around finally did come around.
I can't be even a little bit disturbed at this outcome... if the law were crystal clear, the bill would have been much, much smaller I'm sure.Plus, if Universal's equally-ultra-expensive lawyers are at all good, Universal will spend even more money in legal hours trying to delay the payout as long as they possibly can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893994</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1264450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, that number makes perfect sense:<br>
$1000 writing the letter<br>
$600/hr for 40 hours (gotta stretch it).  You know, research, hit youtube to watch other dancing toddlers for "research"; stumble across "sittin on da toilet" and watch because it is stupid, but funny and you boss is not looking; decide that it is time to hit up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. since boss is not working the rest of the day; etc for 40 hours<br>
And then $375,000 for douche bag tax on Universial for being a bunch of dirty douches.<br>
<br>
Yeah, all the numbers work out perfect.<br>
<br>
If these big companies think it is cool to charge the &amp;@\%^# out of the small time people, especially with this situation on YouTube, i.e. the people that made the video, not YouTube, than the lawyers are going to do it right back at them.  I think it is stupid, but hey, I am hoping they get it, since at least somebody has figured out a way to smack these big companies in the face for overcharging people.  If iTunes charges 0.99 a song, I will pay you 0.99 if you find my pirated music.  It is not my problem you have a huge legal department.  Don't charge me when you decided to hire 75 lawyers to write a letter, that was your dumb choice, not mine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that number makes perfect sense : $ 1000 writing the letter $ 600/hr for 40 hours ( got ta stretch it ) .
You know , research , hit youtube to watch other dancing toddlers for " research " ; stumble across " sittin on da toilet " and watch because it is stupid , but funny and you boss is not looking ; decide that it is time to hit up / .
since boss is not working the rest of the day ; etc for 40 hours And then $ 375,000 for douche bag tax on Universial for being a bunch of dirty douches .
Yeah , all the numbers work out perfect .
If these big companies think it is cool to charge the &amp; @ \ % ^ # out of the small time people , especially with this situation on YouTube , i.e .
the people that made the video , not YouTube , than the lawyers are going to do it right back at them .
I think it is stupid , but hey , I am hoping they get it , since at least somebody has figured out a way to smack these big companies in the face for overcharging people .
If iTunes charges 0.99 a song , I will pay you 0.99 if you find my pirated music .
It is not my problem you have a huge legal department .
Do n't charge me when you decided to hire 75 lawyers to write a letter , that was your dumb choice , not mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that number makes perfect sense:
$1000 writing the letter
$600/hr for 40 hours (gotta stretch it).
You know, research, hit youtube to watch other dancing toddlers for "research"; stumble across "sittin on da toilet" and watch because it is stupid, but funny and you boss is not looking; decide that it is time to hit up /.
since boss is not working the rest of the day; etc for 40 hours
And then $375,000 for douche bag tax on Universial for being a bunch of dirty douches.
Yeah, all the numbers work out perfect.
If these big companies think it is cool to charge the &amp;@\%^# out of the small time people, especially with this situation on YouTube, i.e.
the people that made the video, not YouTube, than the lawyers are going to do it right back at them.
I think it is stupid, but hey, I am hoping they get it, since at least somebody has figured out a way to smack these big companies in the face for overcharging people.
If iTunes charges 0.99 a song, I will pay you 0.99 if you find my pirated music.
It is not my problem you have a huge legal department.
Don't charge me when you decided to hire 75 lawyers to write a letter, that was your dumb choice, not mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892040</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Microsift</author>
	<datestamp>1264441860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or is it 27.9 seconds from the movie Purple Rain, my recollection of the Let's Go Crazy video is that it is a bunch of clips from the movie. Can a movie reviewer show 30 seconds of a movie that includes 30 seconds of a song playing in the background?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is it 27.9 seconds from the movie Purple Rain , my recollection of the Let 's Go Crazy video is that it is a bunch of clips from the movie .
Can a movie reviewer show 30 seconds of a movie that includes 30 seconds of a song playing in the background ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is it 27.9 seconds from the movie Purple Rain, my recollection of the Let's Go Crazy video is that it is a bunch of clips from the movie.
Can a movie reviewer show 30 seconds of a movie that includes 30 seconds of a song playing in the background?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891828</id>
	<title>And the lesson here is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>become an attorney because that's where the real money is. Especially in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>become an attorney because that 's where the real money is .
Especially in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>become an attorney because that's where the real money is.
Especially in the USA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892640</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1264443840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA read the letter without having bought the letter.  They are simply claiming it's value in lost revenue due to RIAA lawyers sharing it to others in their office.  The receptionist read it, then a under lawyer read it, then a senior lawyer read it.   That's illegal sharing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA read the letter without having bought the letter .
They are simply claiming it 's value in lost revenue due to RIAA lawyers sharing it to others in their office .
The receptionist read it , then a under lawyer read it , then a senior lawyer read it .
That 's illegal sharing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA read the letter without having bought the letter.
They are simply claiming it's value in lost revenue due to RIAA lawyers sharing it to others in their office.
The receptionist read it, then a under lawyer read it, then a senior lawyer read it.
That's illegal sharing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891632</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember - these are punitive damages intended to discourage further fraudulent DMCA claims. You know, like the punitive damages of $x,xxx per song that the RIAA collects on a regular basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember - these are punitive damages intended to discourage further fraudulent DMCA claims .
You know , like the punitive damages of $ x,xxx per song that the RIAA collects on a regular basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember - these are punitive damages intended to discourage further fraudulent DMCA claims.
You know, like the punitive damages of $x,xxx per song that the RIAA collects on a regular basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892676</id>
	<title>Wrong questions</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1264443960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</p><p>On the other hand, if the EFF doesn't get their attorneys fees, then they have to eat the cost of the work they did, and that doesn't seem fair either.</p> </div><p>If almost two million dollars for sharing 10 songs is 'fair', then yes many multiples higher than $400,000 for lawyer fees is more than fair.</p><p>As the so called rights holders have been given a tool that allows them to ruin the life of anyone they choose for breaking no laws other than ones granted in that very tool, they need to be held just as accountable and responsible for their use of it.</p><p>If I go through all the work to get a gun permit and legally register a firearm, I seriously doubt the courts would agree with my "Oops, I didn't MEAN to shoot him" defense either (And rightly so.)</p><p>When you have the ability to have someones life ruined and turned into a form of capitalist slavery, nothing short of equal slavery or jail time (Apparently it is a deterrent now) is 'fair' for what should happen to those that use this tool improperly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ? On the other hand , if the EFF does n't get their attorneys fees , then they have to eat the cost of the work they did , and that does n't seem fair either .
If almost two million dollars for sharing 10 songs is 'fair ' , then yes many multiples higher than $ 400,000 for lawyer fees is more than fair.As the so called rights holders have been given a tool that allows them to ruin the life of anyone they choose for breaking no laws other than ones granted in that very tool , they need to be held just as accountable and responsible for their use of it.If I go through all the work to get a gun permit and legally register a firearm , I seriously doubt the courts would agree with my " Oops , I did n't MEAN to shoot him " defense either ( And rightly so .
) When you have the ability to have someones life ruined and turned into a form of capitalist slavery , nothing short of equal slavery or jail time ( Apparently it is a deterrent now ) is 'fair ' for what should happen to those that use this tool improperly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?On the other hand, if the EFF doesn't get their attorneys fees, then they have to eat the cost of the work they did, and that doesn't seem fair either.
If almost two million dollars for sharing 10 songs is 'fair', then yes many multiples higher than $400,000 for lawyer fees is more than fair.As the so called rights holders have been given a tool that allows them to ruin the life of anyone they choose for breaking no laws other than ones granted in that very tool, they need to be held just as accountable and responsible for their use of it.If I go through all the work to get a gun permit and legally register a firearm, I seriously doubt the courts would agree with my "Oops, I didn't MEAN to shoot him" defense either (And rightly so.
)When you have the ability to have someones life ruined and turned into a form of capitalist slavery, nothing short of equal slavery or jail time (Apparently it is a deterrent now) is 'fair' for what should happen to those that use this tool improperly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891710</id>
	<title>I'll save the day (for a modest fee)!</title>
	<author>shabtai87</author>
	<datestamp>1264440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's like a superhero stepping in to save the day... and then demanding monetary compensation. Except $400,000 sounds more appropriate if it was someone's life or limb on the line rather than a video of a kid dancing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like a superhero stepping in to save the day... and then demanding monetary compensation .
Except $ 400,000 sounds more appropriate if it was someone 's life or limb on the line rather than a video of a kid dancing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like a superhero stepping in to save the day... and then demanding monetary compensation.
Except $400,000 sounds more appropriate if it was someone's life or limb on the line rather than a video of a kid dancing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898930</id>
	<title>Re:Here'e my well-thought scheme :-)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264428780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes and kind of the inverse is true as well.</p><p>i live in the UK and unfortunately suffered the death of my mother. unfortunately I was sued by somebody over the will (even though it couldn't be clearer. please note UKers that this bollocks of "make your will so your wishes are respected" is utter bullshit)</p><p>after we knocked out their legal aid (proving they had over the &pound;6k in the bank, over the limit that they claim legal aid) "they" carried on. Well should I say more the solicitor carried on. i mean there is juicy money to be made. And may I just say whenever you hear asshats on the tv/radio talking about the legal aid budget rising, even though we had proved this guy had lied, they did not prosecute him for comitting fraud. no wonder its rising.</p><p>ok, so in this situation my mother left this bloke &pound;6k. and left the balance and the house to me (son).</p><p>after about 12 months of aggro, they were still looking at taking stuff to court. even though we proved they were of ill-repute and various other stuff. legal costs on my side were about &pound;20k at that point. now we had the choice to go to court and win which was estimated at about another &pound;40k in costs - but they had no money. settled with the other side for &pound;15k. lawyers on both side made around &pound;22k each.</p><p>now there should be no way that should have progressed without the other side having some way of paying costs. the other sides lawyer knew that they could threaten that and wait for settlement, in effect guarateeing themselves money (unless we wanted to be beligerant and just shove all the money up our solicitor's nose)</p><p>yes completely wrong in one way but who could take on indie man vs megacorp ?</p><p>bah i don't know. its too complicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes and kind of the inverse is true as well.i live in the UK and unfortunately suffered the death of my mother .
unfortunately I was sued by somebody over the will ( even though it could n't be clearer .
please note UKers that this bollocks of " make your will so your wishes are respected " is utter bullshit ) after we knocked out their legal aid ( proving they had over the   6k in the bank , over the limit that they claim legal aid ) " they " carried on .
Well should I say more the solicitor carried on .
i mean there is juicy money to be made .
And may I just say whenever you hear asshats on the tv/radio talking about the legal aid budget rising , even though we had proved this guy had lied , they did not prosecute him for comitting fraud .
no wonder its rising.ok , so in this situation my mother left this bloke   6k .
and left the balance and the house to me ( son ) .after about 12 months of aggro , they were still looking at taking stuff to court .
even though we proved they were of ill-repute and various other stuff .
legal costs on my side were about   20k at that point .
now we had the choice to go to court and win which was estimated at about another   40k in costs - but they had no money .
settled with the other side for   15k .
lawyers on both side made around   22k each.now there should be no way that should have progressed without the other side having some way of paying costs .
the other sides lawyer knew that they could threaten that and wait for settlement , in effect guarateeing themselves money ( unless we wanted to be beligerant and just shove all the money up our solicitor 's nose ) yes completely wrong in one way but who could take on indie man vs megacorp ? bah i do n't know .
its too complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes and kind of the inverse is true as well.i live in the UK and unfortunately suffered the death of my mother.
unfortunately I was sued by somebody over the will (even though it couldn't be clearer.
please note UKers that this bollocks of "make your will so your wishes are respected" is utter bullshit)after we knocked out their legal aid (proving they had over the £6k in the bank, over the limit that they claim legal aid) "they" carried on.
Well should I say more the solicitor carried on.
i mean there is juicy money to be made.
And may I just say whenever you hear asshats on the tv/radio talking about the legal aid budget rising, even though we had proved this guy had lied, they did not prosecute him for comitting fraud.
no wonder its rising.ok, so in this situation my mother left this bloke £6k.
and left the balance and the house to me (son).after about 12 months of aggro, they were still looking at taking stuff to court.
even though we proved they were of ill-repute and various other stuff.
legal costs on my side were about £20k at that point.
now we had the choice to go to court and win which was estimated at about another £40k in costs - but they had no money.
settled with the other side for £15k.
lawyers on both side made around £22k each.now there should be no way that should have progressed without the other side having some way of paying costs.
the other sides lawyer knew that they could threaten that and wait for settlement, in effect guarateeing themselves money (unless we wanted to be beligerant and just shove all the money up our solicitor's nose)yes completely wrong in one way but who could take on indie man vs megacorp ?bah i don't know.
its too complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892912</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1264445100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...which is exactly why fair-use is a minefield! You can have strictly-defined, easily comprehensible but essentially arbitrary rules, or you can have fairness, but not both at once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...which is exactly why fair-use is a minefield !
You can have strictly-defined , easily comprehensible but essentially arbitrary rules , or you can have fairness , but not both at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...which is exactly why fair-use is a minefield!
You can have strictly-defined, easily comprehensible but essentially arbitrary rules, or you can have fairness, but not both at once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898662</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>krunk4ever</author>
	<datestamp>1264427100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been thinking about this issue and I really liked the posed question:</p><blockquote><div><p>Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated?</p></div></blockquote><p>What if instead of immediately taking down the content, users were given 24 hours to respond that their content is non-infringing. If the users did not respond, it'll be taken down after 24hrs, but the user still has the ability to revoke the takedown notice. Or we can even make it so the content is taken down immediately, but allow the users to revoke the takedown notice and even provide a reason why their content is fair-use/non-infringing.</p><p>The problem today with takedown notices is that there's very little recourse for the user. The user "can" re-upload their content, but most likely will be flagged the next time around with these automated detection systems. I mean do we really need a counter-notice just to restore user content that is fair use?</p><p>With this model, I'm assuming people who know they're infringing will not respond or take down the content immediately (sort of like a cease/desist order). Only those who believe they're not infringing would bother responding to the notice. This would also help further narrow down the number of cases the other side has to verify. (e.g. YouTube will send back a list of content where users have responded to claiming it's fair use/non-infringing.)</p><p>Of course the media companies can still send an immediate take down notice for particular content they're sure are infringing, but for anything using automation to detect infringing content, the user should be given an option to respond before taking down, or a chance to easily restore the content.</p><p>If you're wondering what would deter an infringer from always responding back and saying it's non-infringing when it is? Banning the user and removing all his content could be a deterrent. Another possibility is the media company now has a legit case to actually sue the user for damages.</p><p>Just my 2 cents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking about this issue and I really liked the posed question : Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides , and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated ? What if instead of immediately taking down the content , users were given 24 hours to respond that their content is non-infringing .
If the users did not respond , it 'll be taken down after 24hrs , but the user still has the ability to revoke the takedown notice .
Or we can even make it so the content is taken down immediately , but allow the users to revoke the takedown notice and even provide a reason why their content is fair-use/non-infringing.The problem today with takedown notices is that there 's very little recourse for the user .
The user " can " re-upload their content , but most likely will be flagged the next time around with these automated detection systems .
I mean do we really need a counter-notice just to restore user content that is fair use ? With this model , I 'm assuming people who know they 're infringing will not respond or take down the content immediately ( sort of like a cease/desist order ) .
Only those who believe they 're not infringing would bother responding to the notice .
This would also help further narrow down the number of cases the other side has to verify .
( e.g. YouTube will send back a list of content where users have responded to claiming it 's fair use/non-infringing .
) Of course the media companies can still send an immediate take down notice for particular content they 're sure are infringing , but for anything using automation to detect infringing content , the user should be given an option to respond before taking down , or a chance to easily restore the content.If you 're wondering what would deter an infringer from always responding back and saying it 's non-infringing when it is ?
Banning the user and removing all his content could be a deterrent .
Another possibility is the media company now has a legit case to actually sue the user for damages.Just my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been thinking about this issue and I really liked the posed question:Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated?What if instead of immediately taking down the content, users were given 24 hours to respond that their content is non-infringing.
If the users did not respond, it'll be taken down after 24hrs, but the user still has the ability to revoke the takedown notice.
Or we can even make it so the content is taken down immediately, but allow the users to revoke the takedown notice and even provide a reason why their content is fair-use/non-infringing.The problem today with takedown notices is that there's very little recourse for the user.
The user "can" re-upload their content, but most likely will be flagged the next time around with these automated detection systems.
I mean do we really need a counter-notice just to restore user content that is fair use?With this model, I'm assuming people who know they're infringing will not respond or take down the content immediately (sort of like a cease/desist order).
Only those who believe they're not infringing would bother responding to the notice.
This would also help further narrow down the number of cases the other side has to verify.
(e.g. YouTube will send back a list of content where users have responded to claiming it's fair use/non-infringing.
)Of course the media companies can still send an immediate take down notice for particular content they're sure are infringing, but for anything using automation to detect infringing content, the user should be given an option to respond before taking down, or a chance to easily restore the content.If you're wondering what would deter an infringer from always responding back and saying it's non-infringing when it is?
Banning the user and removing all his content could be a deterrent.
Another possibility is the media company now has a legit case to actually sue the user for damages.Just my 2 cents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893438</id>
	<title>Automatic punishment</title>
	<author>SwedishPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1264447380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An automatic fee of say, $100 000 should be awarded anyone who disproves a DMCA takedown notice. That way, companies like Universal may actually think twice before sending the notice, and lawyers will have an incentive to keep the system fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An automatic fee of say , $ 100 000 should be awarded anyone who disproves a DMCA takedown notice .
That way , companies like Universal may actually think twice before sending the notice , and lawyers will have an incentive to keep the system fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An automatic fee of say, $100 000 should be awarded anyone who disproves a DMCA takedown notice.
That way, companies like Universal may actually think twice before sending the notice, and lawyers will have an incentive to keep the system fair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896414</id>
	<title>Re:Legal insurance ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wouldn't something similar work for legal services?</p></div></blockquote><p>Sounds like a retainer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't something similar work for legal services ? Sounds like a retainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't something similar work for legal services?Sounds like a retainer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899910</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1264437420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case you haven't noticed, there has been a systematic hijacking of the court system in progress since the 80s. Courts have been filled by both sides of the political isle, with ideologues, and political extremists hand picked by equally extreme executives and representatives. The cost of this battle for political turf, has been that sanity, integrity, and proven juris prudence have all but vanished from the U.S. Court Systems.</p><p>Even the highest court in the land, is arguably broken. Look at this weeks news, the Supreme Court has effectively rolled back legislation designed to prevent the wholesale high-jacking of our government by monied interests. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers to set the branches of government against one another such that no single person, or group of people could subvert their goal to serve the interests of liberty and the future. Sadly however, Wealth and Power have systematically succeeded in eroding our civil rights, gutting our middle class, and ignoring science and social interest in the hope gaining ever greater control of the masses. In such an environment, justice is hard to find, and even harder to preserve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case you have n't noticed , there has been a systematic hijacking of the court system in progress since the 80s .
Courts have been filled by both sides of the political isle , with ideologues , and political extremists hand picked by equally extreme executives and representatives .
The cost of this battle for political turf , has been that sanity , integrity , and proven juris prudence have all but vanished from the U.S. Court Systems.Even the highest court in the land , is arguably broken .
Look at this weeks news , the Supreme Court has effectively rolled back legislation designed to prevent the wholesale high-jacking of our government by monied interests .
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers to set the branches of government against one another such that no single person , or group of people could subvert their goal to serve the interests of liberty and the future .
Sadly however , Wealth and Power have systematically succeeded in eroding our civil rights , gutting our middle class , and ignoring science and social interest in the hope gaining ever greater control of the masses .
In such an environment , justice is hard to find , and even harder to preserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case you haven't noticed, there has been a systematic hijacking of the court system in progress since the 80s.
Courts have been filled by both sides of the political isle, with ideologues, and political extremists hand picked by equally extreme executives and representatives.
The cost of this battle for political turf, has been that sanity, integrity, and proven juris prudence have all but vanished from the U.S. Court Systems.Even the highest court in the land, is arguably broken.
Look at this weeks news, the Supreme Court has effectively rolled back legislation designed to prevent the wholesale high-jacking of our government by monied interests.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers to set the branches of government against one another such that no single person, or group of people could subvert their goal to serve the interests of liberty and the future.
Sadly however, Wealth and Power have systematically succeeded in eroding our civil rights, gutting our middle class, and ignoring science and social interest in the hope gaining ever greater control of the masses.
In such an environment, justice is hard to find, and even harder to preserve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897124</id>
	<title>Fair?</title>
	<author>euxneks</author>
	<datestamp>1264419360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use. Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</p></div><p>Fuck yes it is. Do your goddamn homework. This is obviously serious shit you are dipping your toe into - make sure you take the time to actually do it properly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song , short enough to count as fair use .
Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ? Fuck yes it is .
Do your goddamn homework .
This is obviously serious shit you are dipping your toe into - make sure you take the time to actually do it properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use.
Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?Fuck yes it is.
Do your goddamn homework.
This is obviously serious shit you are dipping your toe into - make sure you take the time to actually do it properly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896678</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1264417320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to quote your mother, but two wrongs don't make a right.</p><p>By the way, its not a single song download that costs 80k, its the right to distribute a copyrighted work, which may be worth much more than that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to quote your mother , but two wrongs do n't make a right.By the way , its not a single song download that costs 80k , its the right to distribute a copyrighted work , which may be worth much more than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to quote your mother, but two wrongs don't make a right.By the way, its not a single song download that costs 80k, its the right to distribute a copyrighted work, which may be worth much more than that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891910</id>
	<title>Re:These are the only industries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, can you imagine if Microsoft had an army of lawyers sending DMCA takedown notices to everybody who posted a screenshot with one of their copyrighted wallpaper images? Or people who have videos that include MS sound effects? I wonder how much a Windows screencast license would cost...</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , can you imagine if Microsoft had an army of lawyers sending DMCA takedown notices to everybody who posted a screenshot with one of their copyrighted wallpaper images ?
Or people who have videos that include MS sound effects ?
I wonder how much a Windows screencast license would cost...dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, can you imagine if Microsoft had an army of lawyers sending DMCA takedown notices to everybody who posted a screenshot with one of their copyrighted wallpaper images?
Or people who have videos that include MS sound effects?
I wonder how much a Windows screencast license would cost...dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893048</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1264445760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd actually count filing a false DMCA claim to be worse than infringement.  In the case of the former they're well aware that they are starting something that'll be expensive and consume a lot of people's time.  So the burden of error-checking ought to be a lot higher.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd actually count filing a false DMCA claim to be worse than infringement .
In the case of the former they 're well aware that they are starting something that 'll be expensive and consume a lot of people 's time .
So the burden of error-checking ought to be a lot higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd actually count filing a false DMCA claim to be worse than infringement.
In the case of the former they're well aware that they are starting something that'll be expensive and consume a lot of people's time.
So the burden of error-checking ought to be a lot higher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896740</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264417620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I'm unemployed, I can infringe all I want?</p><p>Should I complete a risk assessment to determine whether I make enough money to buy songs?</p><p>Since I live in the US, I'm glad that if a drunk driver hits my parked car, he/she has to pay to fix it, not punitive costs based on income. That concept is insulting and promotes poverty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I 'm unemployed , I can infringe all I want ? Should I complete a risk assessment to determine whether I make enough money to buy songs ? Since I live in the US , I 'm glad that if a drunk driver hits my parked car , he/she has to pay to fix it , not punitive costs based on income .
That concept is insulting and promotes poverty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I'm unemployed, I can infringe all I want?Should I complete a risk assessment to determine whether I make enough money to buy songs?Since I live in the US, I'm glad that if a drunk driver hits my parked car, he/she has to pay to fix it, not punitive costs based on income.
That concept is insulting and promotes poverty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894116</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>emilper</author>
	<datestamp>1264450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>t's entirely reasonable that Universal try to defend their copyright</p></div><p>You're mixing patent law with copyright law. You don't \_have to defend\_ your copyright unless somebody else claims it's his. You have it no matter what, until it expires. That was a crap lawsuit aimed at making an example out of an "infringer" and scaring the bejesus out housewifes with too much time on their hand who might have uploaded videos to Youtube.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>t 's entirely reasonable that Universal try to defend their copyrightYou 're mixing patent law with copyright law .
You do n't \ _have to defend \ _ your copyright unless somebody else claims it 's his .
You have it no matter what , until it expires .
That was a crap lawsuit aimed at making an example out of an " infringer " and scaring the bejesus out housewifes with too much time on their hand who might have uploaded videos to Youtube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>t's entirely reasonable that Universal try to defend their copyrightYou're mixing patent law with copyright law.
You don't \_have to defend\_ your copyright unless somebody else claims it's his.
You have it no matter what, until it expires.
That was a crap lawsuit aimed at making an example out of an "infringer" and scaring the bejesus out housewifes with too much time on their hand who might have uploaded videos to Youtube.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892784</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1264444440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>EFF's lawyers charged $400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect? That's not legal advice, that's extortion.</p></div><p>All the courts that already have decided and agreed that sticking the plaintiff with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for less than a days work is perfectly legal, fine, and encouraged.</p><p>Courts and judges have called this 'Legal', not 'Extortion'.<br>Not a single one has been reversed on that detail in the past few decades that I've been paying attention either.</p><p>Hard to claim they are committing the crime of extortion when a lot of judges over thousands of cases have stated this act is legal and encouraged it.</p><p>Not to say things SHOULD be this way, but they are, which was the point you were arguing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>EFF 's lawyers charged $ 400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect ?
That 's not legal advice , that 's extortion.All the courts that already have decided and agreed that sticking the plaintiff with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for less than a days work is perfectly legal , fine , and encouraged.Courts and judges have called this 'Legal ' , not 'Extortion'.Not a single one has been reversed on that detail in the past few decades that I 've been paying attention either.Hard to claim they are committing the crime of extortion when a lot of judges over thousands of cases have stated this act is legal and encouraged it.Not to say things SHOULD be this way , but they are , which was the point you were arguing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EFF's lawyers charged $400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect?
That's not legal advice, that's extortion.All the courts that already have decided and agreed that sticking the plaintiff with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for less than a days work is perfectly legal, fine, and encouraged.Courts and judges have called this 'Legal', not 'Extortion'.Not a single one has been reversed on that detail in the past few decades that I've been paying attention either.Hard to claim they are committing the crime of extortion when a lot of judges over thousands of cases have stated this act is legal and encouraged it.Not to say things SHOULD be this way, but they are, which was the point you were arguing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893954</id>
	<title>Simple.</title>
	<author>Zed is not Zee</author>
	<datestamp>1264449840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated?</i>
<br>
<br>Nationalize all the lawyers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides , and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated ?
Nationalize all the lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated?
Nationalize all the lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892284</id>
	<title>Whats the story about?</title>
	<author>Eggbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1264442700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>TL; DR</htmltext>
<tokenext>TL ; DR</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TL; DR</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891868</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The outrageous multi-thousand dollar lawsuits against individuals who have (often unknowingly) shared one or two mp3 files is no more outrageous than this bill.  Taking the lead of the recording industry, maybe they should pay up $3000 for every time they are caught or faced be sued.</p><p>When it comes down to it, fight fire with fire.  Until the music industry trades their nuclear war heads for something a little more civil, they deserve this crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The outrageous multi-thousand dollar lawsuits against individuals who have ( often unknowingly ) shared one or two mp3 files is no more outrageous than this bill .
Taking the lead of the recording industry , maybe they should pay up $ 3000 for every time they are caught or faced be sued.When it comes down to it , fight fire with fire .
Until the music industry trades their nuclear war heads for something a little more civil , they deserve this crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The outrageous multi-thousand dollar lawsuits against individuals who have (often unknowingly) shared one or two mp3 files is no more outrageous than this bill.
Taking the lead of the recording industry, maybe they should pay up $3000 for every time they are caught or faced be sued.When it comes down to it, fight fire with fire.
Until the music industry trades their nuclear war heads for something a little more civil, they deserve this crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892638</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>Comboman</author>
	<datestamp>1264443840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of how you stand of copyright, sending out automated DMCA takedown notices without having a human being at least review the supposed offending material is negligent behavior and should be punished.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of how you stand of copyright , sending out automated DMCA takedown notices without having a human being at least review the supposed offending material is negligent behavior and should be punished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of how you stand of copyright, sending out automated DMCA takedown notices without having a human being at least review the supposed offending material is negligent behavior and should be punished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892270</id>
	<title>Legal insurance ?</title>
	<author>abies</author>
	<datestamp>1264442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a story about Chinese emperor getting ill and calling a doctor. After spending few weeks of not getting better and paying a doctor for constant care, emperor said "I will NOT pay you anything while I'm ill, but you will earn a gold piece for every day I'm healthy". In the story, emperor got better next day and doctor was NOT executed for cheating beforehand, but lived happily afterward, keeping emperor healthy.</p><p>We got the same concept today and it is called health insurance. You are paying constantly, but they are covering medical costs (and often they pay your salary in the period you cannot work). It is broken in most countries, but somehow insurance companies trying to keep hospital costs roughly sane for them.</p><p>Wouldn't something similar work for legal services? Or is it already there in form of state-given-lawyer and everyday taxes which are paying for him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a story about Chinese emperor getting ill and calling a doctor .
After spending few weeks of not getting better and paying a doctor for constant care , emperor said " I will NOT pay you anything while I 'm ill , but you will earn a gold piece for every day I 'm healthy " .
In the story , emperor got better next day and doctor was NOT executed for cheating beforehand , but lived happily afterward , keeping emperor healthy.We got the same concept today and it is called health insurance .
You are paying constantly , but they are covering medical costs ( and often they pay your salary in the period you can not work ) .
It is broken in most countries , but somehow insurance companies trying to keep hospital costs roughly sane for them.Would n't something similar work for legal services ?
Or is it already there in form of state-given-lawyer and everyday taxes which are paying for him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a story about Chinese emperor getting ill and calling a doctor.
After spending few weeks of not getting better and paying a doctor for constant care, emperor said "I will NOT pay you anything while I'm ill, but you will earn a gold piece for every day I'm healthy".
In the story, emperor got better next day and doctor was NOT executed for cheating beforehand, but lived happily afterward, keeping emperor healthy.We got the same concept today and it is called health insurance.
You are paying constantly, but they are covering medical costs (and often they pay your salary in the period you cannot work).
It is broken in most countries, but somehow insurance companies trying to keep hospital costs roughly sane for them.Wouldn't something similar work for legal services?
Or is it already there in form of state-given-lawyer and everyday taxes which are paying for him?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893794</id>
	<title>Geez</title>
	<author>AdmV0rl0n</author>
	<datestamp>1264448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not against file sharing, and I'm averse to the insane fines being handed out. I'm also antagonised by the media industry refusal to realise that business models have to change, and monopoly and control are not maintainable.</p><p>But, and here is my large but, just as I'm averse to insane fines at court level, $400,000 in lawyer fees? No matter what has been done, Its simply not acceptable to have such levels of charges. At the end of the day, at that rate, we are all losing in this insane legal armageddon. I don't especially like media companies right now, but I don't want them destroyed utterly in this any more than I want an end user to be. The only ones rubbing hands with glee in this would be some lawyers. Worse than this, we now have people able to set (its always been the way, but we are heading in insane directions) legal precident.</p><p>At the end of the day, even if we all think this is great, its enough to utterly sink companies, and we all work in companies, and we all need jobs and a life. We don't need this insane legal armageddon and its brutality now is reaching such stupid levels. I'd like to see just how the hell they reached 400,000 in fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not against file sharing , and I 'm averse to the insane fines being handed out .
I 'm also antagonised by the media industry refusal to realise that business models have to change , and monopoly and control are not maintainable.But , and here is my large but , just as I 'm averse to insane fines at court level , $ 400,000 in lawyer fees ?
No matter what has been done , Its simply not acceptable to have such levels of charges .
At the end of the day , at that rate , we are all losing in this insane legal armageddon .
I do n't especially like media companies right now , but I do n't want them destroyed utterly in this any more than I want an end user to be .
The only ones rubbing hands with glee in this would be some lawyers .
Worse than this , we now have people able to set ( its always been the way , but we are heading in insane directions ) legal precident.At the end of the day , even if we all think this is great , its enough to utterly sink companies , and we all work in companies , and we all need jobs and a life .
We do n't need this insane legal armageddon and its brutality now is reaching such stupid levels .
I 'd like to see just how the hell they reached 400,000 in fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not against file sharing, and I'm averse to the insane fines being handed out.
I'm also antagonised by the media industry refusal to realise that business models have to change, and monopoly and control are not maintainable.But, and here is my large but, just as I'm averse to insane fines at court level, $400,000 in lawyer fees?
No matter what has been done, Its simply not acceptable to have such levels of charges.
At the end of the day, at that rate, we are all losing in this insane legal armageddon.
I don't especially like media companies right now, but I don't want them destroyed utterly in this any more than I want an end user to be.
The only ones rubbing hands with glee in this would be some lawyers.
Worse than this, we now have people able to set (its always been the way, but we are heading in insane directions) legal precident.At the end of the day, even if we all think this is great, its enough to utterly sink companies, and we all work in companies, and we all need jobs and a life.
We don't need this insane legal armageddon and its brutality now is reaching such stupid levels.
I'd like to see just how the hell they reached 400,000 in fees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891750</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1264440840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Run this by me again.</p><p>EFF's lawyers charged $400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect?  That's not legal advice, that's extortion.</p></div><p>You don't take into account all the time they spent thinking about writing that letter and thinking about thinking about writing the letter and then of course there is the time they spent talking with other lawyers about writing the letter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Run this by me again.EFF 's lawyers charged $ 400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect ?
That 's not legal advice , that 's extortion.You do n't take into account all the time they spent thinking about writing that letter and thinking about thinking about writing the letter and then of course there is the time they spent talking with other lawyers about writing the letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run this by me again.EFF's lawyers charged $400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect?
That's not legal advice, that's extortion.You don't take into account all the time they spent thinking about writing that letter and thinking about thinking about writing the letter and then of course there is the time they spent talking with other lawyers about writing the letter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892236</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264442580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</p></div><p>Yes. It's better to let 1000 guilty videos stay up than take down 1 innocent video. Give them an inch and they'll rape you with a rake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ? Yes .
It 's better to let 1000 guilty videos stay up than take down 1 innocent video .
Give them an inch and they 'll rape you with a rake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?Yes.
It's better to let 1000 guilty videos stay up than take down 1 innocent video.
Give them an inch and they'll rape you with a rake.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30900828</id>
	<title>An elegant, albeit never to be implemented</title>
	<author>Gage With Union</author>
	<datestamp>1264446720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...in this lifetime solution.  Whatever legal services are brought to bear in pursuit of the case will be split in terms of work on the case.  IndieA brings a lawyer.  MegaCorp brings a team of 11 lawyers.  At the beginning of the trial, the pool of lawyers is split and assigned to one side or the other.  (you could draw lots or pick teams, since that's even more visually absurd)  So IndieA now has 6 lawyers, and MegaCorp has 6 lawyers.  In the case of ties, the extra always goes to the defendant.  (dunno what happens at 1; that would strongly discourage lawsuits, but perhaps too much so?  It would be very effective at protected people with no means for civil legal defense) </p><p>You are financially responsible for any lawyers you may bring, (not sure about this, but let's play it out?) but you do so with the knowledge that you may also be helping your opponent by hiring more laywers.  This encourages simple solutions with a minimum of lawyers.  It makes it more sporting, too; how good of a lawyer do you want to hire?  A good lawyer should be able to argue either side, no?</p><p>Yes, this is a bit of an outlandish idea, but I'd love to hear improvements, revisions, etc. I understand full well that this may not be practical in certain ways--I dunno what you do for expert witnesses--so internets spares me, but kick the tires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...in this lifetime solution .
Whatever legal services are brought to bear in pursuit of the case will be split in terms of work on the case .
IndieA brings a lawyer .
MegaCorp brings a team of 11 lawyers .
At the beginning of the trial , the pool of lawyers is split and assigned to one side or the other .
( you could draw lots or pick teams , since that 's even more visually absurd ) So IndieA now has 6 lawyers , and MegaCorp has 6 lawyers .
In the case of ties , the extra always goes to the defendant .
( dunno what happens at 1 ; that would strongly discourage lawsuits , but perhaps too much so ?
It would be very effective at protected people with no means for civil legal defense ) You are financially responsible for any lawyers you may bring , ( not sure about this , but let 's play it out ?
) but you do so with the knowledge that you may also be helping your opponent by hiring more laywers .
This encourages simple solutions with a minimum of lawyers .
It makes it more sporting , too ; how good of a lawyer do you want to hire ?
A good lawyer should be able to argue either side , no ? Yes , this is a bit of an outlandish idea , but I 'd love to hear improvements , revisions , etc .
I understand full well that this may not be practical in certain ways--I dunno what you do for expert witnesses--so internets spares me , but kick the tires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in this lifetime solution.
Whatever legal services are brought to bear in pursuit of the case will be split in terms of work on the case.
IndieA brings a lawyer.
MegaCorp brings a team of 11 lawyers.
At the beginning of the trial, the pool of lawyers is split and assigned to one side or the other.
(you could draw lots or pick teams, since that's even more visually absurd)  So IndieA now has 6 lawyers, and MegaCorp has 6 lawyers.
In the case of ties, the extra always goes to the defendant.
(dunno what happens at 1; that would strongly discourage lawsuits, but perhaps too much so?
It would be very effective at protected people with no means for civil legal defense) You are financially responsible for any lawyers you may bring, (not sure about this, but let's play it out?
) but you do so with the knowledge that you may also be helping your opponent by hiring more laywers.
This encourages simple solutions with a minimum of lawyers.
It makes it more sporting, too; how good of a lawyer do you want to hire?
A good lawyer should be able to argue either side, no?Yes, this is a bit of an outlandish idea, but I'd love to hear improvements, revisions, etc.
I understand full well that this may not be practical in certain ways--I dunno what you do for expert witnesses--so internets spares me, but kick the tires.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</id>
	<title>Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1264439880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This suggests an economics / game theory problem: Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated?</p> </div><p>Not with copyright and fair use.  Fair use is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair\_use#Common\_misunderstandings" title="wikipedia.org">deliberately ambiguous</a> [wikipedia.org].  This is the reason why huge legal bills can be generated over it.  Because it is ill defined.  No amount of logical, sane Markov modeled state diagrams could convince some people that they are now entering a state of expected loss on a case.  <br> <br>

Allow me to present what will undoubtedly be a <b>very</b> unpopular viewpoint here.  <br> <br>"Let's Go Crazy" is a 279 second track off of <i>Purple Rain</i>.  Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or, if longer than five minutes, thirty seconds (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Music\_samples#How\_much\_is\_10.25" title="wikipedia.org">even Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] implements this).  In a very pedantic analysis, had she used 27.9 seconds of the song instead of the quoted 30 then there would be no grounds for take down, let alone a court case.  <br> <br>

Now lets say you have a huge catalog of songs you'd like to defend.  You're a big mega corporation so what you do is you hire developers to analyze songs for fingerprints and -- funny how pedantic algorithms get to be -- submit anything over the 'safe harbor' limit to Control Gate C (that being the legal arm which churns out thousands of take down notices).  <br> <br>

I'd like to see Universal burned by their mechanization of this process but there's your unpopular defense of having to take this to court based entirely around popular 'safe harbor' limits and deliberate ambiguity of the law.  And I guess this could be seen as Universal having to try to draw the real line with precedence for court case established 'safe harbor.'  Universal could fear popular 'safe harbor' limits expanding if they don't fight these things.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"knowingly materially misrepresents under this section..."</p></div><p>The question is -- given the above -- were they really?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This suggests an economics / game theory problem : Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides , and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated ?
Not with copyright and fair use .
Fair use is deliberately ambiguous [ wikipedia.org ] .
This is the reason why huge legal bills can be generated over it .
Because it is ill defined .
No amount of logical , sane Markov modeled state diagrams could convince some people that they are now entering a state of expected loss on a case .
Allow me to present what will undoubtedly be a very unpopular viewpoint here .
" Let 's Go Crazy " is a 279 second track off of Purple Rain .
Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor ' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or , if longer than five minutes , thirty seconds ( even Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] implements this ) .
In a very pedantic analysis , had she used 27.9 seconds of the song instead of the quoted 30 then there would be no grounds for take down , let alone a court case .
Now lets say you have a huge catalog of songs you 'd like to defend .
You 're a big mega corporation so what you do is you hire developers to analyze songs for fingerprints and -- funny how pedantic algorithms get to be -- submit anything over the 'safe harbor ' limit to Control Gate C ( that being the legal arm which churns out thousands of take down notices ) .
I 'd like to see Universal burned by their mechanization of this process but there 's your unpopular defense of having to take this to court based entirely around popular 'safe harbor ' limits and deliberate ambiguity of the law .
And I guess this could be seen as Universal having to try to draw the real line with precedence for court case established 'safe harbor .
' Universal could fear popular 'safe harbor ' limits expanding if they do n't fight these things .
" knowingly materially misrepresents under this section... " The question is -- given the above -- were they really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This suggests an economics / game theory problem: Could you come up with a system that takes into account the incentives of parties on both sides, and that prevents huge legal bills from being generated?
Not with copyright and fair use.
Fair use is deliberately ambiguous [wikipedia.org].
This is the reason why huge legal bills can be generated over it.
Because it is ill defined.
No amount of logical, sane Markov modeled state diagrams could convince some people that they are now entering a state of expected loss on a case.
Allow me to present what will undoubtedly be a very unpopular viewpoint here.
"Let's Go Crazy" is a 279 second track off of Purple Rain.
Most Copyright lawyers consider 'safe harbor' for fair use to be one tenth of a song or, if longer than five minutes, thirty seconds (even Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] implements this).
In a very pedantic analysis, had she used 27.9 seconds of the song instead of the quoted 30 then there would be no grounds for take down, let alone a court case.
Now lets say you have a huge catalog of songs you'd like to defend.
You're a big mega corporation so what you do is you hire developers to analyze songs for fingerprints and -- funny how pedantic algorithms get to be -- submit anything over the 'safe harbor' limit to Control Gate C (that being the legal arm which churns out thousands of take down notices).
I'd like to see Universal burned by their mechanization of this process but there's your unpopular defense of having to take this to court based entirely around popular 'safe harbor' limits and deliberate ambiguity of the law.
And I guess this could be seen as Universal having to try to draw the real line with precedence for court case established 'safe harbor.
'  Universal could fear popular 'safe harbor' limits expanding if they don't fight these things.
"knowingly materially misrepresents under this section..."The question is -- given the above -- were they really?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893918</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264449600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and you end up with retarded results like speeding tickets that exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Granted, these almost never actually get paid, but it wastes just as much time (and undermines the effort) when some rich guy goes to court to get his massive speeding ticket excused while poor people end up paying them.  It has the exact opposite effect of what is intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and you end up with retarded results like speeding tickets that exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars .
Granted , these almost never actually get paid , but it wastes just as much time ( and undermines the effort ) when some rich guy goes to court to get his massive speeding ticket excused while poor people end up paying them .
It has the exact opposite effect of what is intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and you end up with retarded results like speeding tickets that exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Granted, these almost never actually get paid, but it wastes just as much time (and undermines the effort) when some rich guy goes to court to get his massive speeding ticket excused while poor people end up paying them.
It has the exact opposite effect of what is intended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891716</id>
	<title>Use the RIAA award money</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1264440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Universal has RIAA artists, so just use the money RIAA collects from their crazy-high piracy fines to offset any crazy-high fair use fines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Universal has RIAA artists , so just use the money RIAA collects from their crazy-high piracy fines to offset any crazy-high fair use fines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Universal has RIAA artists, so just use the money RIAA collects from their crazy-high piracy fines to offset any crazy-high fair use fines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894004</id>
	<title>Setting a rate for attorneys</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1264450140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In France, the government sets a rate it thinks it is reasonable medical professionals to charge. For instance a GP should cost x and a heart surgeon should cost y. Now you are allowed to see any medical professional you wish, and they are allowed to charge what-ever rate they like. However, the government will only reimburse you at the reasonable rate. Let us say, for example, you need a liver operation. You can choose a surgeon that charges the standard rate and have free health service. Or you may be well off and choose a famous surgeon that charges twice the normal rate, but in the knowledge you will only have half of it reimbursed. The rate the medical profession charges reflect the market, most charging around standard rate as the majority of people want free health care but a smaller percentage charging more for the wealthier as they "want the best".</p><p>This will fit in well with the attorney fee reimbursement model. The State decides that a copyright attorney is worth $x/hour. The EFF chooses attorneys that charge the standard rate. If they win then justice was done at no cost to themselves. If they lose, then their additional losses are limited to roughly what they had spent themselves. MegaCorp may decide money isn't an issue and wants to hire the best to make an example out of the EFF. If they lose, they reimburse all of the EFF attorney fees. If they win, they get back what they would have spend if they had used average lawyers. The difference they knew they knew in advance they were going to have to write off. The attorneys submit to the court their timesheets for reinbursement. A cursory glance by the judge will easily spot if there is any exaggerated excesses.</p><p>It won't solve the problem of dragging out a court case, but at least you know upon losing there will be a reasonable cap on the winner's attorney fees. IndyMedia's attorney also knows he can continue at standard rate in the knowledge we will get a summary judgement for payment without trying to haggle to get all of his fees paid at the end.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In France , the government sets a rate it thinks it is reasonable medical professionals to charge .
For instance a GP should cost x and a heart surgeon should cost y. Now you are allowed to see any medical professional you wish , and they are allowed to charge what-ever rate they like .
However , the government will only reimburse you at the reasonable rate .
Let us say , for example , you need a liver operation .
You can choose a surgeon that charges the standard rate and have free health service .
Or you may be well off and choose a famous surgeon that charges twice the normal rate , but in the knowledge you will only have half of it reimbursed .
The rate the medical profession charges reflect the market , most charging around standard rate as the majority of people want free health care but a smaller percentage charging more for the wealthier as they " want the best " .This will fit in well with the attorney fee reimbursement model .
The State decides that a copyright attorney is worth $ x/hour .
The EFF chooses attorneys that charge the standard rate .
If they win then justice was done at no cost to themselves .
If they lose , then their additional losses are limited to roughly what they had spent themselves .
MegaCorp may decide money is n't an issue and wants to hire the best to make an example out of the EFF .
If they lose , they reimburse all of the EFF attorney fees .
If they win , they get back what they would have spend if they had used average lawyers .
The difference they knew they knew in advance they were going to have to write off .
The attorneys submit to the court their timesheets for reinbursement .
A cursory glance by the judge will easily spot if there is any exaggerated excesses.It wo n't solve the problem of dragging out a court case , but at least you know upon losing there will be a reasonable cap on the winner 's attorney fees .
IndyMedia 's attorney also knows he can continue at standard rate in the knowledge we will get a summary judgement for payment without trying to haggle to get all of his fees paid at the end.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In France, the government sets a rate it thinks it is reasonable medical professionals to charge.
For instance a GP should cost x and a heart surgeon should cost y. Now you are allowed to see any medical professional you wish, and they are allowed to charge what-ever rate they like.
However, the government will only reimburse you at the reasonable rate.
Let us say, for example, you need a liver operation.
You can choose a surgeon that charges the standard rate and have free health service.
Or you may be well off and choose a famous surgeon that charges twice the normal rate, but in the knowledge you will only have half of it reimbursed.
The rate the medical profession charges reflect the market, most charging around standard rate as the majority of people want free health care but a smaller percentage charging more for the wealthier as they "want the best".This will fit in well with the attorney fee reimbursement model.
The State decides that a copyright attorney is worth $x/hour.
The EFF chooses attorneys that charge the standard rate.
If they win then justice was done at no cost to themselves.
If they lose, then their additional losses are limited to roughly what they had spent themselves.
MegaCorp may decide money isn't an issue and wants to hire the best to make an example out of the EFF.
If they lose, they reimburse all of the EFF attorney fees.
If they win, they get back what they would have spend if they had used average lawyers.
The difference they knew they knew in advance they were going to have to write off.
The attorneys submit to the court their timesheets for reinbursement.
A cursory glance by the judge will easily spot if there is any exaggerated excesses.It won't solve the problem of dragging out a court case, but at least you know upon losing there will be a reasonable cap on the winner's attorney fees.
IndyMedia's attorney also knows he can continue at standard rate in the knowledge we will get a summary judgement for payment without trying to haggle to get all of his fees paid at the end.Phillip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892056</id>
	<title>It's consistent with the EFF mission statement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I'm being to generous to the EFF lawyers, but it looks like they're using the $400,000 as a deterrent to rights-violating fraudulent DMCA take-downs. Sure, padding their pockets is a great side-effect, but a large financial slap in the face to online rights abusers is well within the stated mission goal of the EFF. I don't much like the thought of indie musicians getting hit upside the head with half a million dollar lawyer's fees, but the cause of stemming the flow of indiscriminate DMCA notices may be worth the risk.</p><p>I think a judge should be able to weigh the ability of defendant to pay against the abuse of the DMCA. A record label that has repeated violated the spirit of the DMCA and shows no signs of stopping is a good candidate for a full lawyers fee; hopefully a more reasonable agreement could be reached if the notice was a one time accident. There is some discretion within such rulings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm being to generous to the EFF lawyers , but it looks like they 're using the $ 400,000 as a deterrent to rights-violating fraudulent DMCA take-downs .
Sure , padding their pockets is a great side-effect , but a large financial slap in the face to online rights abusers is well within the stated mission goal of the EFF .
I do n't much like the thought of indie musicians getting hit upside the head with half a million dollar lawyer 's fees , but the cause of stemming the flow of indiscriminate DMCA notices may be worth the risk.I think a judge should be able to weigh the ability of defendant to pay against the abuse of the DMCA .
A record label that has repeated violated the spirit of the DMCA and shows no signs of stopping is a good candidate for a full lawyers fee ; hopefully a more reasonable agreement could be reached if the notice was a one time accident .
There is some discretion within such rulings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm being to generous to the EFF lawyers, but it looks like they're using the $400,000 as a deterrent to rights-violating fraudulent DMCA take-downs.
Sure, padding their pockets is a great side-effect, but a large financial slap in the face to online rights abusers is well within the stated mission goal of the EFF.
I don't much like the thought of indie musicians getting hit upside the head with half a million dollar lawyer's fees, but the cause of stemming the flow of indiscriminate DMCA notices may be worth the risk.I think a judge should be able to weigh the ability of defendant to pay against the abuse of the DMCA.
A record label that has repeated violated the spirit of the DMCA and shows no signs of stopping is a good candidate for a full lawyers fee; hopefully a more reasonable agreement could be reached if the notice was a one time accident.
There is some discretion within such rulings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894440</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1264451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question is -- given the above -- were they really?</p></div><p>That's easy. Yes. The certainly did/do. The beauty of algorithms is that they are never arbitrary or capricious. If you write one that results in a DMCA take-down notice when it clearly shouldn't have, your algorithm is broken. You wrote it, so you own it - <i>and</i> the ramifications of turning it loose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is -- given the above -- were they really ? That 's easy .
Yes. The certainly did/do .
The beauty of algorithms is that they are never arbitrary or capricious .
If you write one that results in a DMCA take-down notice when it clearly should n't have , your algorithm is broken .
You wrote it , so you own it - and the ramifications of turning it loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is -- given the above -- were they really?That's easy.
Yes. The certainly did/do.
The beauty of algorithms is that they are never arbitrary or capricious.
If you write one that results in a DMCA take-down notice when it clearly shouldn't have, your algorithm is broken.
You wrote it, so you own it - and the ramifications of turning it loose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893302</id>
	<title>Re:I'll save the day (for a modest fee)!</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1264446840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's like a superhero stepping in to save the day... and then demanding monetary compensation.</p></div><p>From the villain.</p><p>It's likely that if the money had to come out of the defendant's pocket they'd do some accounting magic to reduce it to a reasonable fee, if anything at all. But from the RIAA? milk 'em for all they're worth and then some.</p><p>Hell, I'd say Superman ought to do the same thing with Lex Luthor, don't ya think?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like a superhero stepping in to save the day... and then demanding monetary compensation.From the villain.It 's likely that if the money had to come out of the defendant 's pocket they 'd do some accounting magic to reduce it to a reasonable fee , if anything at all .
But from the RIAA ?
milk 'em for all they 're worth and then some.Hell , I 'd say Superman ought to do the same thing with Lex Luthor , do n't ya think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like a superhero stepping in to save the day... and then demanding monetary compensation.From the villain.It's likely that if the money had to come out of the defendant's pocket they'd do some accounting magic to reduce it to a reasonable fee, if anything at all.
But from the RIAA?
milk 'em for all they're worth and then some.Hell, I'd say Superman ought to do the same thing with Lex Luthor, don't ya think?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894158</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>fibrewire</author>
	<datestamp>1264450800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe in our current system.</p><p>If you are an Indie musician, and someone levies a $400k judgement against you, then you say "hey man, i'm a damn hippie" and VOILA! the Indie musician is judgement-proof because he doesn't have the money in the first place because said musician doesn't really know the game.</p><p>On the other hand, if you are a business, a well informed business, a business whose only duty is to know every detail of the law and you get beat at your own game, and your pockets are deep from exploiting said law, well then guess what - you pay because you are a game player.</p><p>To be fair, the same happens between people with a few bucks in a casino, vs some rich entrepreneur laying down loads of cash. Heck, the same happens between a newbie and a veteran Street Fighter 4 player - if you have a reputation, and you stake it on something, and the other person wins - well then, shame on you. If any wagers were made, well then the veteran better pay up, else the newbie has nothing to lose, which is why veterans don't pick fights with newbies.</p><p>Which is why corporations shouldn't pick fights with individuals unless the individuals are actively causing the corporation harm - one must choose their battles.</p><p>It's all about credibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe in our current system.If you are an Indie musician , and someone levies a $ 400k judgement against you , then you say " hey man , i 'm a damn hippie " and VOILA !
the Indie musician is judgement-proof because he does n't have the money in the first place because said musician does n't really know the game.On the other hand , if you are a business , a well informed business , a business whose only duty is to know every detail of the law and you get beat at your own game , and your pockets are deep from exploiting said law , well then guess what - you pay because you are a game player.To be fair , the same happens between people with a few bucks in a casino , vs some rich entrepreneur laying down loads of cash .
Heck , the same happens between a newbie and a veteran Street Fighter 4 player - if you have a reputation , and you stake it on something , and the other person wins - well then , shame on you .
If any wagers were made , well then the veteran better pay up , else the newbie has nothing to lose , which is why veterans do n't pick fights with newbies.Which is why corporations should n't pick fights with individuals unless the individuals are actively causing the corporation harm - one must choose their battles.It 's all about credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe in our current system.If you are an Indie musician, and someone levies a $400k judgement against you, then you say "hey man, i'm a damn hippie" and VOILA!
the Indie musician is judgement-proof because he doesn't have the money in the first place because said musician doesn't really know the game.On the other hand, if you are a business, a well informed business, a business whose only duty is to know every detail of the law and you get beat at your own game, and your pockets are deep from exploiting said law, well then guess what - you pay because you are a game player.To be fair, the same happens between people with a few bucks in a casino, vs some rich entrepreneur laying down loads of cash.
Heck, the same happens between a newbie and a veteran Street Fighter 4 player - if you have a reputation, and you stake it on something, and the other person wins - well then, shame on you.
If any wagers were made, well then the veteran better pay up, else the newbie has nothing to lose, which is why veterans don't pick fights with newbies.Which is why corporations shouldn't pick fights with individuals unless the individuals are actively causing the corporation harm - one must choose their battles.It's all about credibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892504</id>
	<title>Attorney's fees and the Devil's Advocate</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1264443420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahem.</p><p>Just because attorney's fees are sought, and awarded, does not mean they will be awarded <b>in the amount sought</b>. They have to reasonably reflect the legal expenses incurred and the defendant's ability to pay.</p><p>IANAL, but I write from experience: I went to court to enforce a provision in my divorce decree against my ex-wife. Long story short: she got the house, could not refi in her name, I was liable for the mortgage, and she was to pay. If she didn't I had power of sale over the property, to eliminate my obligation. Further, she agreed to a "hold harmless" provision to my benefit. That meant that she was to pay any costs I incurred to enforce the decree. Well, she never paid on the mortgage, I sued to enforce the power of sale (realtors wanted a judgment), was awarded expenses and legal fees. (I liened the house, and had to sue again when she refused to sign agreements of purchase and sale.) Had to return to court three times, with mounting legal fees, and, facing contempt charges, she agreed to award a power of attorney so I could sign in her place. Despite her intransigence, I was only awarded a fraction of my additional legal fees, on the basis that that's all she could afford.</p><p>$400,000 legal fees for a defendant that (a) should have known better, (b) had the means to know better, and (c) has the means to pay them, are not unreasonable. In the Devil's Advocate example presented, I'm certain no judge would impose them: the standard of due diligence for an individual fighting a large number of possible infringers lacking the means for individual investigation are different for a well-funded organization that has the means to engage in detailed individual investigation. Further, if the take down notice included language to permit establishing a fair use defense, a suit in response would have been overkill: the judge would ask, "Why did you not claim a fair use affirmative defense and see if the problem was resolved <b>before</b> hiring an attorney."</p><p>Here, I expect the take-down notice was heavy-handed, and the matter not researched within the reasonable ability of the rights-holder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahem.Just because attorney 's fees are sought , and awarded , does not mean they will be awarded in the amount sought .
They have to reasonably reflect the legal expenses incurred and the defendant 's ability to pay.IANAL , but I write from experience : I went to court to enforce a provision in my divorce decree against my ex-wife .
Long story short : she got the house , could not refi in her name , I was liable for the mortgage , and she was to pay .
If she did n't I had power of sale over the property , to eliminate my obligation .
Further , she agreed to a " hold harmless " provision to my benefit .
That meant that she was to pay any costs I incurred to enforce the decree .
Well , she never paid on the mortgage , I sued to enforce the power of sale ( realtors wanted a judgment ) , was awarded expenses and legal fees .
( I liened the house , and had to sue again when she refused to sign agreements of purchase and sale .
) Had to return to court three times , with mounting legal fees , and , facing contempt charges , she agreed to award a power of attorney so I could sign in her place .
Despite her intransigence , I was only awarded a fraction of my additional legal fees , on the basis that that 's all she could afford. $ 400,000 legal fees for a defendant that ( a ) should have known better , ( b ) had the means to know better , and ( c ) has the means to pay them , are not unreasonable .
In the Devil 's Advocate example presented , I 'm certain no judge would impose them : the standard of due diligence for an individual fighting a large number of possible infringers lacking the means for individual investigation are different for a well-funded organization that has the means to engage in detailed individual investigation .
Further , if the take down notice included language to permit establishing a fair use defense , a suit in response would have been overkill : the judge would ask , " Why did you not claim a fair use affirmative defense and see if the problem was resolved before hiring an attorney .
" Here , I expect the take-down notice was heavy-handed , and the matter not researched within the reasonable ability of the rights-holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahem.Just because attorney's fees are sought, and awarded, does not mean they will be awarded in the amount sought.
They have to reasonably reflect the legal expenses incurred and the defendant's ability to pay.IANAL, but I write from experience: I went to court to enforce a provision in my divorce decree against my ex-wife.
Long story short: she got the house, could not refi in her name, I was liable for the mortgage, and she was to pay.
If she didn't I had power of sale over the property, to eliminate my obligation.
Further, she agreed to a "hold harmless" provision to my benefit.
That meant that she was to pay any costs I incurred to enforce the decree.
Well, she never paid on the mortgage, I sued to enforce the power of sale (realtors wanted a judgment), was awarded expenses and legal fees.
(I liened the house, and had to sue again when she refused to sign agreements of purchase and sale.
) Had to return to court three times, with mounting legal fees, and, facing contempt charges, she agreed to award a power of attorney so I could sign in her place.
Despite her intransigence, I was only awarded a fraction of my additional legal fees, on the basis that that's all she could afford.$400,000 legal fees for a defendant that (a) should have known better, (b) had the means to know better, and (c) has the means to pay them, are not unreasonable.
In the Devil's Advocate example presented, I'm certain no judge would impose them: the standard of due diligence for an individual fighting a large number of possible infringers lacking the means for individual investigation are different for a well-funded organization that has the means to engage in detailed individual investigation.
Further, if the take down notice included language to permit establishing a fair use defense, a suit in response would have been overkill: the judge would ask, "Why did you not claim a fair use affirmative defense and see if the problem was resolved before hiring an attorney.
"Here, I expect the take-down notice was heavy-handed, and the matter not researched within the reasonable ability of the rights-holder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897818</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264422960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, but there is also the basic problem of "everyone knows this is what was intended" with a law, much like various rules put in for things.</p><p>I work with software that has to comply with NCPDP rules for telecommunication.  There are standards that have to be met with how data is sent, how the math is done, etc.  It takes years for a new rule to become official.  And yet, there are always problems.</p><p>The biggest problem is asshats at various companies that decide that they didn't get what they wanted in the standard, so they are going to implement it outside the standard and see if they can get others to jump on board.  (Sounds like M$, doesn't it?)  Then there are those agencies that come up with some weird scenario they failed to mention during the various discussion sessions, and try to sneak through language they feel gives them leeway to do it.</p><p>The worst part is that the NCPDP folks constantly allow that wiggle room.  Making dozens of software vendors jump through hoops to support something outside the standard because they don't have the guts to tell some agency "sorry, that is not part of the standard, so we won't allow it."</p><p>I've yet to see a single good reason to go outside the standard and allow the crap they've allowed, but they keep doing it.  It's bad when the FAQ has more pages than the standard itself.  That just screams "poorly written, and even more poorly implemented".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but there is also the basic problem of " everyone knows this is what was intended " with a law , much like various rules put in for things.I work with software that has to comply with NCPDP rules for telecommunication .
There are standards that have to be met with how data is sent , how the math is done , etc .
It takes years for a new rule to become official .
And yet , there are always problems.The biggest problem is asshats at various companies that decide that they did n't get what they wanted in the standard , so they are going to implement it outside the standard and see if they can get others to jump on board .
( Sounds like M $ , does n't it ?
) Then there are those agencies that come up with some weird scenario they failed to mention during the various discussion sessions , and try to sneak through language they feel gives them leeway to do it.The worst part is that the NCPDP folks constantly allow that wiggle room .
Making dozens of software vendors jump through hoops to support something outside the standard because they do n't have the guts to tell some agency " sorry , that is not part of the standard , so we wo n't allow it .
" I 've yet to see a single good reason to go outside the standard and allow the crap they 've allowed , but they keep doing it .
It 's bad when the FAQ has more pages than the standard itself .
That just screams " poorly written , and even more poorly implemented " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but there is also the basic problem of "everyone knows this is what was intended" with a law, much like various rules put in for things.I work with software that has to comply with NCPDP rules for telecommunication.
There are standards that have to be met with how data is sent, how the math is done, etc.
It takes years for a new rule to become official.
And yet, there are always problems.The biggest problem is asshats at various companies that decide that they didn't get what they wanted in the standard, so they are going to implement it outside the standard and see if they can get others to jump on board.
(Sounds like M$, doesn't it?
)  Then there are those agencies that come up with some weird scenario they failed to mention during the various discussion sessions, and try to sneak through language they feel gives them leeway to do it.The worst part is that the NCPDP folks constantly allow that wiggle room.
Making dozens of software vendors jump through hoops to support something outside the standard because they don't have the guts to tell some agency "sorry, that is not part of the standard, so we won't allow it.
"I've yet to see a single good reason to go outside the standard and allow the crap they've allowed, but they keep doing it.
It's bad when the FAQ has more pages than the standard itself.
That just screams "poorly written, and even more poorly implemented".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892166</id>
	<title>Single payer, with penalties</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1264442280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyers should be paid by the government, with equal access to all. Rather than random attorney's fees as a penalty, levy a fine indexed to the plaintiff's income for frivolous lawsuits. Defendants should <i>never</i> be punished for exercising their right to due process, even (and especially) if they are guilty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers should be paid by the government , with equal access to all .
Rather than random attorney 's fees as a penalty , levy a fine indexed to the plaintiff 's income for frivolous lawsuits .
Defendants should never be punished for exercising their right to due process , even ( and especially ) if they are guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers should be paid by the government, with equal access to all.
Rather than random attorney's fees as a penalty, levy a fine indexed to the plaintiff's income for frivolous lawsuits.
Defendants should never be punished for exercising their right to due process, even (and especially) if they are guilty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896312</id>
	<title>The thing about income ratio for fines....</title>
	<author>tacokill</author>
	<datestamp>1264416000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet the rich people in Switzerland are <b>very</b> quiet about their wealth.  If that policy was implemented in the USA, all we would read about is police dept's around the country "targeting" wealthy people.    Maybe the Swiss police are better than that, I don't know.   But the police here in the USA are definitely not capable of handling that amount of responsibility.
<br>
<br>
Can you imagine the corruption?   Warren Buffett would have every state in the union just waiting for him to speed 1 mile an hour over the limit.    Surely that isn't fair, is it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet the rich people in Switzerland are very quiet about their wealth .
If that policy was implemented in the USA , all we would read about is police dept 's around the country " targeting " wealthy people .
Maybe the Swiss police are better than that , I do n't know .
But the police here in the USA are definitely not capable of handling that amount of responsibility .
Can you imagine the corruption ?
Warren Buffett would have every state in the union just waiting for him to speed 1 mile an hour over the limit .
Surely that is n't fair , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet the rich people in Switzerland are very quiet about their wealth.
If that policy was implemented in the USA, all we would read about is police dept's around the country "targeting" wealthy people.
Maybe the Swiss police are better than that, I don't know.
But the police here in the USA are definitely not capable of handling that amount of responsibility.
Can you imagine the corruption?
Warren Buffett would have every state in the union just waiting for him to speed 1 mile an hour over the limit.
Surely that isn't fair, is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062</id>
	<title>Re:The world's most expensive letter</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1264441980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So while the cost of writing a letter is insignificant, the cost of being an attorney, running a firm, and generally being available to take up this sort of case is likely not so trivial. We could compare similar firms' rates, but stating that 'attorneys charge a lot' is sort of a non-starter.
</i>
<br>
<br>
As an attorney I can assure you there is no legitimate scenario where the EFF honestly had to expend $400,000 worth of work to write a letter.  Maybe, MAYBE, $2,000 if you throw in a few hours of research, which the EFF shouldn't have to do considering this is what they specialize in.  A top-of-the-line civil litigator bills maybe $600 an hour, and as much as we like the EFF people they are not top-of-the-line civil litigators.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So while the cost of writing a letter is insignificant , the cost of being an attorney , running a firm , and generally being available to take up this sort of case is likely not so trivial .
We could compare similar firms ' rates , but stating that 'attorneys charge a lot ' is sort of a non-starter .
As an attorney I can assure you there is no legitimate scenario where the EFF honestly had to expend $ 400,000 worth of work to write a letter .
Maybe , MAYBE , $ 2,000 if you throw in a few hours of research , which the EFF should n't have to do considering this is what they specialize in .
A top-of-the-line civil litigator bills maybe $ 600 an hour , and as much as we like the EFF people they are not top-of-the-line civil litigators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So while the cost of writing a letter is insignificant, the cost of being an attorney, running a firm, and generally being available to take up this sort of case is likely not so trivial.
We could compare similar firms' rates, but stating that 'attorneys charge a lot' is sort of a non-starter.
As an attorney I can assure you there is no legitimate scenario where the EFF honestly had to expend $400,000 worth of work to write a letter.
Maybe, MAYBE, $2,000 if you throw in a few hours of research, which the EFF shouldn't have to do considering this is what they specialize in.
A top-of-the-line civil litigator bills maybe $600 an hour, and as much as we like the EFF people they are not top-of-the-line civil litigators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893506</id>
	<title>Good for them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264447680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I want someone beaten up, I don't very much care if they get a slap in the face, or a kick to the groin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want someone beaten up , I do n't very much care if they get a slap in the face , or a kick to the groin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want someone beaten up, I don't very much care if they get a slap in the face, or a kick to the groin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894</id>
	<title>Knowingly misrepresents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264441320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm an EFF member and support their request for attorney's fees, but let's play devil's advocate. Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube. Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use. Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</p></div> </blockquote><p>If you're an indie musician, you're probably not all that knowledgeable about what constitutes fair use.  If you're Universal, with a battery of high paid copyright lawyers, you are much more knowledgeable.  The standard is different.</p><p>$400,000 is pretty insane though for just drafting a letter.   Where is that number coming from?  I didn't see it in the linked article.  How many lawyers worked on one DMCA counter-notice for how many hours?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an EFF member and support their request for attorney 's fees , but let 's play devil 's advocate .
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online , and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission , so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube .
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song , short enough to count as fair use .
Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ?
If you 're an indie musician , you 're probably not all that knowledgeable about what constitutes fair use .
If you 're Universal , with a battery of high paid copyright lawyers , you are much more knowledgeable .
The standard is different. $ 400,000 is pretty insane though for just drafting a letter .
Where is that number coming from ?
I did n't see it in the linked article .
How many lawyers worked on one DMCA counter-notice for how many hours ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an EFF member and support their request for attorney's fees, but let's play devil's advocate.
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube.
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use.
Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?
If you're an indie musician, you're probably not all that knowledgeable about what constitutes fair use.
If you're Universal, with a battery of high paid copyright lawyers, you are much more knowledgeable.
The standard is different.$400,000 is pretty insane though for just drafting a letter.
Where is that number coming from?
I didn't see it in the linked article.
How many lawyers worked on one DMCA counter-notice for how many hours?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895526</id>
	<title>Re:It was not just 30s</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1264413060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prince is a total dick, and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784\_3-9778087-7.html" title="cnet.com">hired investigators</a> [cnet.com] for the sole purpose of sending DMCA notices to people he felt were infringing his copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prince is a total dick , and hired investigators [ cnet.com ] for the sole purpose of sending DMCA notices to people he felt were infringing his copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prince is a total dick, and hired investigators [cnet.com] for the sole purpose of sending DMCA notices to people he felt were infringing his copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</id>
	<title>$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264440000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run this by me again.</p><p>EFF's lawyers charged $400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect?  That's not legal advice, that's extortion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run this by me again.EFF 's lawyers charged $ 400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect ?
That 's not legal advice , that 's extortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run this by me again.EFF's lawyers charged $400,000 for checking to confirm that the video was covered under fair use then writing one letter to that effect?
That's not legal advice, that's extortion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895102</id>
	<title>Uh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264411320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube. Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use. Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</i> </p><p>Yeah.  If it really takes $400,000 in legal fees to prepare a DMCA counter-notice, then yeah.  That's why you don't file frivolous takedown notices.  That's why you make really, really sure that you're in the right before you file a notice.  When you're filing legal notices it pays to make sure that there are no "accidents" involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online , and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission , so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube .
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song , short enough to count as fair use .
Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ?
Yeah. If it really takes $ 400,000 in legal fees to prepare a DMCA counter-notice , then yeah .
That 's why you do n't file frivolous takedown notices .
That 's why you make really , really sure that you 're in the right before you file a notice .
When you 're filing legal notices it pays to make sure that there are no " accidents " involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube.
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use.
Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?
Yeah.  If it really takes $400,000 in legal fees to prepare a DMCA counter-notice, then yeah.
That's why you don't file frivolous takedown notices.
That's why you make really, really sure that you're in the right before you file a notice.
When you're filing legal notices it pays to make sure that there are no "accidents" involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892014</id>
	<title>Devils Advocate</title>
	<author>Idimmu Xul</author>
	<datestamp>1264441740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm an EFF member and support their request for attorney's fees, but let's play devil's advocate. Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube. Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use. Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not punishment, it's attorney fees. If you make a mistake that costs someone else $400,000 to sort out, then you have to pay for it!</p><p>An Indie artist would not have wasted $400,000 in fees before they rectified their mistake, in fact they would have actually rectified their mistake, rather than take it all the way to the judge!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an EFF member and support their request for attorney 's fees , but let 's play devil 's advocate .
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online , and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission , so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube .
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song , short enough to count as fair use .
Is $ 400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that was n't a bona fide copyright infringement ? It 's not punishment , it 's attorney fees .
If you make a mistake that costs someone else $ 400,000 to sort out , then you have to pay for it ! An Indie artist would not have wasted $ 400,000 in fees before they rectified their mistake , in fact they would have actually rectified their mistake , rather than take it all the way to the judge !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an EFF member and support their request for attorney's fees, but let's play devil's advocate.
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube.
Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use.
Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?It's not punishment, it's attorney fees.
If you make a mistake that costs someone else $400,000 to sort out, then you have to pay for it!An Indie artist would not have wasted $400,000 in fees before they rectified their mistake, in fact they would have actually rectified their mistake, rather than take it all the way to the judge!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893114</id>
	<title>How are costs broken down?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264446060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does a lawyer break down The costs of a deposition by which point it may argue for/against?  Many or most of the costs would be similar whether disputing trivial points or not.  The benefit to removing the trivial points would be a reduction in the time required for the case, which would have the indirect benefit of reducing attorney costs.  Since we are entitled to a 'quick &amp; speedy trial', removing trivial points is still valuable and should be a power of a judge when one side concedes them.</p><p>My suggestion is that The attorney costs sought for one side may not be in excess of ten times (five times maybe?) the cost of the other side.  Neither side will want to shortchange themselves(generally), so the costs would not be 'hidden'.  If someone seeks a frivilous lawsuit, The threat of ten times their own lawyers costs should still be an effective deterrent.  For cases where someone defends themselves, look at the costs of government defense lawyers as the bottom of the payscale.  Regardless this may have the effect of laywers dragging out a case to raise the costs of the otherside to improve their return.  I would turn into a cost/benefit analysis of the lawyers to determine if their costs go down more than the opponents go up.  Perhaps a modifier for every year a trial takes to reduce it further may be in order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does a lawyer break down The costs of a deposition by which point it may argue for/against ?
Many or most of the costs would be similar whether disputing trivial points or not .
The benefit to removing the trivial points would be a reduction in the time required for the case , which would have the indirect benefit of reducing attorney costs .
Since we are entitled to a 'quick &amp; speedy trial ' , removing trivial points is still valuable and should be a power of a judge when one side concedes them.My suggestion is that The attorney costs sought for one side may not be in excess of ten times ( five times maybe ?
) the cost of the other side .
Neither side will want to shortchange themselves ( generally ) , so the costs would not be 'hidden' .
If someone seeks a frivilous lawsuit , The threat of ten times their own lawyers costs should still be an effective deterrent .
For cases where someone defends themselves , look at the costs of government defense lawyers as the bottom of the payscale .
Regardless this may have the effect of laywers dragging out a case to raise the costs of the otherside to improve their return .
I would turn into a cost/benefit analysis of the lawyers to determine if their costs go down more than the opponents go up .
Perhaps a modifier for every year a trial takes to reduce it further may be in order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does a lawyer break down The costs of a deposition by which point it may argue for/against?
Many or most of the costs would be similar whether disputing trivial points or not.
The benefit to removing the trivial points would be a reduction in the time required for the case, which would have the indirect benefit of reducing attorney costs.
Since we are entitled to a 'quick &amp; speedy trial', removing trivial points is still valuable and should be a power of a judge when one side concedes them.My suggestion is that The attorney costs sought for one side may not be in excess of ten times (five times maybe?
) the cost of the other side.
Neither side will want to shortchange themselves(generally), so the costs would not be 'hidden'.
If someone seeks a frivilous lawsuit, The threat of ten times their own lawyers costs should still be an effective deterrent.
For cases where someone defends themselves, look at the costs of government defense lawyers as the bottom of the payscale.
Regardless this may have the effect of laywers dragging out a case to raise the costs of the otherside to improve their return.
I would turn into a cost/benefit analysis of the lawyers to determine if their costs go down more than the opponents go up.
Perhaps a modifier for every year a trial takes to reduce it further may be in order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896410</id>
	<title>Re:Single payer, with penalties</title>
	<author>tacokill</author>
	<datestamp>1264416360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking as a taxpayer....go fuck yourself.
<br>

(sorry, couldn't resist.  It was a ripe setup)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a taxpayer....go fuck yourself .
( sorry , could n't resist .
It was a ripe setup )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a taxpayer....go fuck yourself.
(sorry, couldn't resist.
It was a ripe setup)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893354</id>
	<title>Re:Pay for service, not hours</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1264447080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lowered legal costs would also lead to more lawsuits.  I don't know if that's good or bad.</p><p>But if you are talking about incentives, why should a lawyer continue to work hard on a difficult case that's already way over budget, as opposed to losing in a "doesn't expose me to malpractice" way.  Such as trying, but none too hard, to find witnesses, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lowered legal costs would also lead to more lawsuits .
I do n't know if that 's good or bad.But if you are talking about incentives , why should a lawyer continue to work hard on a difficult case that 's already way over budget , as opposed to losing in a " does n't expose me to malpractice " way .
Such as trying , but none too hard , to find witnesses , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lowered legal costs would also lead to more lawsuits.
I don't know if that's good or bad.But if you are talking about incentives, why should a lawyer continue to work hard on a difficult case that's already way over budget, as opposed to losing in a "doesn't expose me to malpractice" way.
Such as trying, but none too hard, to find witnesses, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893432</id>
	<title>Descriptive v. Prescriptive</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1264447380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...the DMCA says that the remedies are the counter-notice procedure *and* an award for attorney's fees."</p><p>That statement is descriptive, a listing of the options available. The verb "are" indicates that there is more than one remedy.</p><p>If the statement was intended to be prescriptive, requiring both actions, it would be stated as a single remedy, phrased "the remedy IS..." and then listed both with the conjunction 'and'. If the statement were prescriptive and stated to allow only one or the other, the verb 'are' and conjunction 'or' would have been used. If prescriptive and allowing either or both, it'd say 'are' and 'and/or'. Thus as stated, it is not prescriptive, rather is only an accounting of possibilities without any inference of inclusion or exclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...the DMCA says that the remedies are the counter-notice procedure * and * an award for attorney 's fees .
" That statement is descriptive , a listing of the options available .
The verb " are " indicates that there is more than one remedy.If the statement was intended to be prescriptive , requiring both actions , it would be stated as a single remedy , phrased " the remedy IS... " and then listed both with the conjunction 'and' .
If the statement were prescriptive and stated to allow only one or the other , the verb 'are ' and conjunction 'or ' would have been used .
If prescriptive and allowing either or both , it 'd say 'are ' and 'and/or' .
Thus as stated , it is not prescriptive , rather is only an accounting of possibilities without any inference of inclusion or exclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...the DMCA says that the remedies are the counter-notice procedure *and* an award for attorney's fees.
"That statement is descriptive, a listing of the options available.
The verb "are" indicates that there is more than one remedy.If the statement was intended to be prescriptive, requiring both actions, it would be stated as a single remedy, phrased "the remedy IS..." and then listed both with the conjunction 'and'.
If the statement were prescriptive and stated to allow only one or the other, the verb 'are' and conjunction 'or' would have been used.
If prescriptive and allowing either or both, it'd say 'are' and 'and/or'.
Thus as stated, it is not prescriptive, rather is only an accounting of possibilities without any inference of inclusion or exclusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892124</id>
	<title>Re:$400,000 for what - one letter?</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1264442160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It cost take a lot of money to get those legal degrees in order to write the counter-notice. I mean, if you were a layman and your video got taken down by the DMCA, would you know how to produce the appropriate response (besides running around the intarwebs screaming your head off about the evils of the DMCA)? I didn't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It cost take a lot of money to get those legal degrees in order to write the counter-notice .
I mean , if you were a layman and your video got taken down by the DMCA , would you know how to produce the appropriate response ( besides running around the intarwebs screaming your head off about the evils of the DMCA ) ?
I did n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It cost take a lot of money to get those legal degrees in order to write the counter-notice.
I mean, if you were a layman and your video got taken down by the DMCA, would you know how to produce the appropriate response (besides running around the intarwebs screaming your head off about the evils of the DMCA)?
I didn't think so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892464</id>
	<title>Obvious</title>
	<author>devnullkac</author>
	<datestamp>1264443240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big breakdown in my mind regarding the concession of obvious points is that there is an unknown amount of effort that goes into assessing a point as obvious or non-obvious.  If digging deep enough into case law turns an obvious point on its head, it may be a worthwhile search, and I might not want to concede the point unless it some of that research had been done.  More often than we would like, common sense and the law are at odds over things that otherwise seem quite simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big breakdown in my mind regarding the concession of obvious points is that there is an unknown amount of effort that goes into assessing a point as obvious or non-obvious .
If digging deep enough into case law turns an obvious point on its head , it may be a worthwhile search , and I might not want to concede the point unless it some of that research had been done .
More often than we would like , common sense and the law are at odds over things that otherwise seem quite simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big breakdown in my mind regarding the concession of obvious points is that there is an unknown amount of effort that goes into assessing a point as obvious or non-obvious.
If digging deep enough into case law turns an obvious point on its head, it may be a worthwhile search, and I might not want to concede the point unless it some of that research had been done.
More often than we would like, common sense and the law are at odds over things that otherwise seem quite simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892610</id>
	<title>Re:I'll save the day (for a modest fee)!</title>
	<author>the\_fat\_kid</author>
	<datestamp>1264443720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, it's not.<br>It's like a superhero saving the day and then billing Lex Luthor, or whoever the bad guy is, for the time and materials it took to kick his ass.<br>They don't want the victim to pay for this, they want the villain to pay for the wrong that the commited and the cost to set it right.<br>If the comic book heroes could do this there wouldn't be a legion of doom anymore.<br>sounds like a good idea to me.<br>unless you think that the dancing baby clip in question threatens civilization as we know it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , it 's not.It 's like a superhero saving the day and then billing Lex Luthor , or whoever the bad guy is , for the time and materials it took to kick his ass.They do n't want the victim to pay for this , they want the villain to pay for the wrong that the commited and the cost to set it right.If the comic book heroes could do this there would n't be a legion of doom anymore.sounds like a good idea to me.unless you think that the dancing baby clip in question threatens civilization as we know it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, it's not.It's like a superhero saving the day and then billing Lex Luthor, or whoever the bad guy is, for the time and materials it took to kick his ass.They don't want the victim to pay for this, they want the villain to pay for the wrong that the commited and the cost to set it right.If the comic book heroes could do this there wouldn't be a legion of doom anymore.sounds like a good idea to me.unless you think that the dancing baby clip in question threatens civilization as we know it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891710</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30900760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30901264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30909846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30900468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1518217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30900760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892976
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892062
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892616
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894636
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899812
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897706
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893274
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892012
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30901264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894116
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30900468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899098
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30899562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30896806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30897818
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30893140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30894440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30909846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30898280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30895526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30891764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1518217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1518217.30892056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
