<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_26_1531209</id>
	<title>US Lawmakers Set Sights On P2P Programs</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267203060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>After the <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/02/23/urnidgns852573C400693880002576D30076B10D.DTL">FTC sent letters to 100 organizations</a> warning them that their data is being leaked on P2P networks &mdash; and now <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9162560/FTC\_seeks\_extensive\_information\_from\_firms\_being\_investigated\_for\_P2P\_breaches?taxonomyId=13">has requested detailed operational data</a> from at least a subset of those organizations &mdash; it was pretty likely that anti-P2P legislation would get proposed. <a href="http://www.eweek.com/index2.php?option=content&amp;task=view&amp;id=59337&amp;hide\_ads=1&amp;page=0&amp;hide\_js=1">Two senators have introduced the P2P Cyber Protection and Informed User Act</a>, which <i>"...would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user. The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program. Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to other peer-to-peer users under legislation introduced Feb. 24 by Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and John Thune, R-S.D."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the FTC sent letters to 100 organizations warning them that their data is being leaked on P2P networks    and now has requested detailed operational data from at least a subset of those organizations    it was pretty likely that anti-P2P legislation would get proposed .
Two senators have introduced the P2P Cyber Protection and Informed User Act , which " ...would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user .
The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program .
Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to other peer-to-peer users under legislation introduced Feb. 24 by Sens .
Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , and John Thune , R-S.D .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the FTC sent letters to 100 organizations warning them that their data is being leaked on P2P networks — and now has requested detailed operational data from at least a subset of those organizations — it was pretty likely that anti-P2P legislation would get proposed.
Two senators have introduced the P2P Cyber Protection and Informed User Act, which "...would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.
The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.
Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to other peer-to-peer users under legislation introduced Feb. 24 by Sens.
Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and John Thune, R-S.D.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289494</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267216560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, as long as the spy/spamware confines itself to client-server style sharing (such as FTP), it's perfectly legal?</p><p>If that sounds silly, then a true anti spy/spam bill would have no need to mention p2p at all. If it would NOT be perfectly legal due to an existing law, then the bill shouldn't exist at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , as long as the spy/spamware confines itself to client-server style sharing ( such as FTP ) , it 's perfectly legal ? If that sounds silly , then a true anti spy/spam bill would have no need to mention p2p at all .
If it would NOT be perfectly legal due to an existing law , then the bill should n't exist at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, as long as the spy/spamware confines itself to client-server style sharing (such as FTP), it's perfectly legal?If that sounds silly, then a true anti spy/spam bill would have no need to mention p2p at all.
If it would NOT be perfectly legal due to an existing law, then the bill shouldn't exist at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288730</id>
	<title>silly republicans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267213440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad to see they are spending their time on such important and pressing issues.  Because clearly right now, p2p software installation is such a problem in our country.  Clearly the best way for the republicans to make our government smaller and less wasteful is by passing this bill and creating a whole branch of jobs for themselves to enforce, research, and investigate complaints of this.</p><p>Seriously, wtf.  If either of these politicians were representing me, I'd be asking what the heck they are doing, and how this is more important than real issues, such as ones they campaigned about, and how this aligns with their platform. Really this is more important than solving issues with government spending, jobs.</p><p>For the life of my I don't understand why any of this is specific to p2p apps.  Sounds more like general licensing to me.  Application licenses and sales of software should be required to allow you to install and remove them cleanly, should tell you what is being installed and required to run them, and shouldn't be able to share your personal data without your consent and knowledge period.   I don't care if its peer to peer or client server, which I can clearly see someone using as an end around.</p><p>Problem is most of this "malware" is distributed for free, and good luck telling someone what they can and can't give away for free in terms of software.</p><p>But ultimately this is why people who are utterly inept in understanding technology should stop running around pretending to be competent, pretending to know what they are talking about, and submitting laws and opinions about them as if they were experts.  This law is beyond stupid, and is pretty much going to be unenforcible just like everything else until they actually do something important....</p><p>Like investigating the legality of EULA's and the legality of making invalid, and incorrect statement in them; such as telling someone that they must give up a right that you can not make them give up... And cracking down on corporations that try to tell you that fair use is illegal (NFL copyright statement anyone)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad to see they are spending their time on such important and pressing issues .
Because clearly right now , p2p software installation is such a problem in our country .
Clearly the best way for the republicans to make our government smaller and less wasteful is by passing this bill and creating a whole branch of jobs for themselves to enforce , research , and investigate complaints of this.Seriously , wtf .
If either of these politicians were representing me , I 'd be asking what the heck they are doing , and how this is more important than real issues , such as ones they campaigned about , and how this aligns with their platform .
Really this is more important than solving issues with government spending , jobs.For the life of my I do n't understand why any of this is specific to p2p apps .
Sounds more like general licensing to me .
Application licenses and sales of software should be required to allow you to install and remove them cleanly , should tell you what is being installed and required to run them , and should n't be able to share your personal data without your consent and knowledge period .
I do n't care if its peer to peer or client server , which I can clearly see someone using as an end around.Problem is most of this " malware " is distributed for free , and good luck telling someone what they can and ca n't give away for free in terms of software.But ultimately this is why people who are utterly inept in understanding technology should stop running around pretending to be competent , pretending to know what they are talking about , and submitting laws and opinions about them as if they were experts .
This law is beyond stupid , and is pretty much going to be unenforcible just like everything else until they actually do something important....Like investigating the legality of EULA 's and the legality of making invalid , and incorrect statement in them ; such as telling someone that they must give up a right that you can not make them give up... And cracking down on corporations that try to tell you that fair use is illegal ( NFL copyright statement anyone )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad to see they are spending their time on such important and pressing issues.
Because clearly right now, p2p software installation is such a problem in our country.
Clearly the best way for the republicans to make our government smaller and less wasteful is by passing this bill and creating a whole branch of jobs for themselves to enforce, research, and investigate complaints of this.Seriously, wtf.
If either of these politicians were representing me, I'd be asking what the heck they are doing, and how this is more important than real issues, such as ones they campaigned about, and how this aligns with their platform.
Really this is more important than solving issues with government spending, jobs.For the life of my I don't understand why any of this is specific to p2p apps.
Sounds more like general licensing to me.
Application licenses and sales of software should be required to allow you to install and remove them cleanly, should tell you what is being installed and required to run them, and shouldn't be able to share your personal data without your consent and knowledge period.
I don't care if its peer to peer or client server, which I can clearly see someone using as an end around.Problem is most of this "malware" is distributed for free, and good luck telling someone what they can and can't give away for free in terms of software.But ultimately this is why people who are utterly inept in understanding technology should stop running around pretending to be competent, pretending to know what they are talking about, and submitting laws and opinions about them as if they were experts.
This law is beyond stupid, and is pretty much going to be unenforcible just like everything else until they actually do something important....Like investigating the legality of EULA's and the legality of making invalid, and incorrect statement in them; such as telling someone that they must give up a right that you can not make them give up... And cracking down on corporations that try to tell you that fair use is illegal (NFL copyright statement anyone)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291946</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>ferat</author>
	<datestamp>1267186140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends what they mean I suppose.  If it shows up as blind "P2P programs", people like Blizzard will be affected as the World of Warcraft updater is peer-to-peer.  They'd have to make sure that users knew that, and that it'd only upload official patches, and give users an opt-out.</p><p>I've encountered a few other programs that have started using bittorrent style updaters, so really this just breaks legit users while probably not actually having an effect on what the law is actually aiming at, since every torrent app (or edonkey or anything) I've ever actually installed is pretty clear on the whole "Files in X directory will be shared" thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends what they mean I suppose .
If it shows up as blind " P2P programs " , people like Blizzard will be affected as the World of Warcraft updater is peer-to-peer .
They 'd have to make sure that users knew that , and that it 'd only upload official patches , and give users an opt-out.I 've encountered a few other programs that have started using bittorrent style updaters , so really this just breaks legit users while probably not actually having an effect on what the law is actually aiming at , since every torrent app ( or edonkey or anything ) I 've ever actually installed is pretty clear on the whole " Files in X directory will be shared " thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends what they mean I suppose.
If it shows up as blind "P2P programs", people like Blizzard will be affected as the World of Warcraft updater is peer-to-peer.
They'd have to make sure that users knew that, and that it'd only upload official patches, and give users an opt-out.I've encountered a few other programs that have started using bittorrent style updaters, so really this just breaks legit users while probably not actually having an effect on what the law is actually aiming at, since every torrent app (or edonkey or anything) I've ever actually installed is pretty clear on the whole "Files in X directory will be shared" thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286804</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently not, especially when they don't understand the subject.  Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the US  already have laws to prevent unauthorised access?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently not , especially when they do n't understand the subject .
Correct me if I 'm wrong but does n't the US already have laws to prevent unauthorised access ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently not, especially when they don't understand the subject.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the US  already have laws to prevent unauthorised access?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286886</id>
	<title>Why limit it to P2P programs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I'm concerned they should extend it further. It seems like a<br>good set of principles, why limit it to programs that communicate across<br>a network?</p><p>It should be prohibited to install ANY program on a computer without the<br>informed consent of the user. And programs that remove other programs,<br>or block the operation of other programs, without the user being informed,<br>should also be illegal.</p><p>Of course, this would cover some of the DRM techniques that block<br>disk image emulation, and probably a few other DRM techniques.</p><p>And yes, any program that serves your files up to the internet shouldn't<br>do it without your consent. Until recently, that would have included<br>Windows file sharing....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I 'm concerned they should extend it further .
It seems like agood set of principles , why limit it to programs that communicate acrossa network ? It should be prohibited to install ANY program on a computer without theinformed consent of the user .
And programs that remove other programs,or block the operation of other programs , without the user being informed,should also be illegal.Of course , this would cover some of the DRM techniques that blockdisk image emulation , and probably a few other DRM techniques.And yes , any program that serves your files up to the internet shouldn'tdo it without your consent .
Until recently , that would have includedWindows file sharing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I'm concerned they should extend it further.
It seems like agood set of principles, why limit it to programs that communicate acrossa network?It should be prohibited to install ANY program on a computer without theinformed consent of the user.
And programs that remove other programs,or block the operation of other programs, without the user being informed,should also be illegal.Of course, this would cover some of the DRM techniques that blockdisk image emulation, and probably a few other DRM techniques.And yes, any program that serves your files up to the internet shouldn'tdo it without your consent.
Until recently, that would have includedWindows file sharing....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289616</id>
	<title>plumbing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267217220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we need to talk about bad electrons not bits<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>and since you cannot destroy charge, who knows<br>were the electron that carried that 20 year jail-term-BIT will end up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe in a twin-tower?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we need to talk about bad electrons not bits ...and since you can not destroy charge , who knowswere the electron that carried that 20 year jail-term-BIT will end up ... maybe in a twin-tower ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need to talk about bad electrons not bits ...and since you cannot destroy charge, who knowswere the electron that carried that 20 year jail-term-BIT will end up ... maybe in a twin-tower?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287062</id>
	<title>Send your representative a link to this thread.</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1267207860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially if you're a constituent of one of the sponsors, it's your duty to let them know what the technical community thinks of their shenanigans.  They can read what real-world people think, and if they can argue their way out of it then fine pass the bill.  but I bet they can't.</p><p>What's the point of posting an opinion here if you don't also send it to your representative?</p><p>Congress proposes bad bill<br>Everyone in the world points out how stupid it is<br>Congress doesn't read the internet or newspapers<br>Bill passes, there's a law now.<br>Everyone asks, how could this possibly have been passed?  Did they not understand all of the stuff we said behind their backs?<br>Government doesn't listen, why bother.</p><p>The cycle repeats.  It's your responsibility to at least register opposition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially if you 're a constituent of one of the sponsors , it 's your duty to let them know what the technical community thinks of their shenanigans .
They can read what real-world people think , and if they can argue their way out of it then fine pass the bill .
but I bet they ca n't.What 's the point of posting an opinion here if you do n't also send it to your representative ? Congress proposes bad billEveryone in the world points out how stupid it isCongress does n't read the internet or newspapersBill passes , there 's a law now.Everyone asks , how could this possibly have been passed ?
Did they not understand all of the stuff we said behind their backs ? Government does n't listen , why bother.The cycle repeats .
It 's your responsibility to at least register opposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially if you're a constituent of one of the sponsors, it's your duty to let them know what the technical community thinks of their shenanigans.
They can read what real-world people think, and if they can argue their way out of it then fine pass the bill.
but I bet they can't.What's the point of posting an opinion here if you don't also send it to your representative?Congress proposes bad billEveryone in the world points out how stupid it isCongress doesn't read the internet or newspapersBill passes, there's a law now.Everyone asks, how could this possibly have been passed?
Did they not understand all of the stuff we said behind their backs?Government doesn't listen, why bother.The cycle repeats.
It's your responsibility to at least register opposition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287580</id>
	<title>Re:Legislate a technical solution.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree its moronic on many levels to legislate installation of certain classes of software.</p><p>One useful act of legislation might be targetting systems that transparently join a P2P system such as the Adobe "Ocotoshape grid delivery enhancement" if you've ever been to a CNN web site you were probably asked to install at some point.  While it does not share "your" files it does share "your" bandwidth and most tech savvy people have no earthly clue what is occuring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree its moronic on many levels to legislate installation of certain classes of software.One useful act of legislation might be targetting systems that transparently join a P2P system such as the Adobe " Ocotoshape grid delivery enhancement " if you 've ever been to a CNN web site you were probably asked to install at some point .
While it does not share " your " files it does share " your " bandwidth and most tech savvy people have no earthly clue what is occuring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree its moronic on many levels to legislate installation of certain classes of software.One useful act of legislation might be targetting systems that transparently join a P2P system such as the Adobe "Ocotoshape grid delivery enhancement" if you've ever been to a CNN web site you were probably asked to install at some point.
While it does not share "your" files it does share "your" bandwidth and most tech savvy people have no earthly clue what is occuring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287370</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>jad jar</author>
	<datestamp>1267208940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thank you very much</htmltext>
<tokenext>thank you very much</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thank you very much</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288602</id>
	<title>Re:This is so stupid my eye is twitching.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267212960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little perspective....surrepititious software installs CAN'T be made illegal without invalidating many of the methods and tools currently in use by members of various law enforcement and "national security" agencies. Oh, I suppose you ~could~ render it illegal, and then authorize those agencies the use of such methods via individual exemptions on a case by case basis, (can you find a judge awake at 3 a.m. to sign a warrant? or would you prefer to validate this a la "Patriot Act" style violations of civil rights?) resulting in a HUGE backlog of paperwork, wasted time in-process, etc.....basically the things that guarantee a successful failure to prosecute. As idiotic as this approach is, the likely alternative is an entire order of magnitude worse. In targeting one type of software, namely the sort most likely used by the target demographic, you leave some "wiggle room" for law enforcement to do what they are paid to do. As for whether any of this, legal or otherwise, is ETHICAL, is an entirely different debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little perspective....surrepititious software installs CA N'T be made illegal without invalidating many of the methods and tools currently in use by members of various law enforcement and " national security " agencies .
Oh , I suppose you ~ could ~ render it illegal , and then authorize those agencies the use of such methods via individual exemptions on a case by case basis , ( can you find a judge awake at 3 a.m. to sign a warrant ?
or would you prefer to validate this a la " Patriot Act " style violations of civil rights ?
) resulting in a HUGE backlog of paperwork , wasted time in-process , etc.....basically the things that guarantee a successful failure to prosecute .
As idiotic as this approach is , the likely alternative is an entire order of magnitude worse .
In targeting one type of software , namely the sort most likely used by the target demographic , you leave some " wiggle room " for law enforcement to do what they are paid to do .
As for whether any of this , legal or otherwise , is ETHICAL , is an entirely different debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little perspective....surrepititious software installs CAN'T be made illegal without invalidating many of the methods and tools currently in use by members of various law enforcement and "national security" agencies.
Oh, I suppose you ~could~ render it illegal, and then authorize those agencies the use of such methods via individual exemptions on a case by case basis, (can you find a judge awake at 3 a.m. to sign a warrant?
or would you prefer to validate this a la "Patriot Act" style violations of civil rights?
) resulting in a HUGE backlog of paperwork, wasted time in-process, etc.....basically the things that guarantee a successful failure to prosecute.
As idiotic as this approach is, the likely alternative is an entire order of magnitude worse.
In targeting one type of software, namely the sort most likely used by the target demographic, you leave some "wiggle room" for law enforcement to do what they are paid to do.
As for whether any of this, legal or otherwise, is ETHICAL, is an entirely different debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287502</id>
	<title>Could this be applied to Microsoft's WGA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or any other program that sends/receives data without the user's explicit consent? (Those unenforceable EULA's don't count!)<br>Such information may not be a "file" per se, but definition of a 'file' loses it's meaning when it is being transmitted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or any other program that sends/receives data without the user 's explicit consent ?
( Those unenforceable EULA 's do n't count !
) Such information may not be a " file " per se , but definition of a 'file ' loses it 's meaning when it is being transmitted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or any other program that sends/receives data without the user's explicit consent?
(Those unenforceable EULA's don't count!
)Such information may not be a "file" per se, but definition of a 'file' loses it's meaning when it is being transmitted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287384</id>
	<title>Sucks to be you, guy... learn to move forward and</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty soon in the dismal not so distant future, this will be you tools as Atlas Shrugs and sits on your dumbass geek neck you button pushing dopes.</p><p>Not only are you killing the economic model that has enabled you to attain what you have thus far, but your are killing your own market idiots even as the worlds 2 largest populations, markets, come online to modernity, you have enabled them to not only "share" the fruits of your labor for free but soon your jobs.</p><p>Be it P2P or FOSS</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It all spells doom for you and now as your jobs are being outsourced to china and india, its the begining of the end for you all and you dont even fucking know it because your selfish cheap little pricks who think your entitled</p><p>Your entitled to go off and starve and thats what your gonna learn to do, sooner than you think morons!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty soon in the dismal not so distant future , this will be you tools as Atlas Shrugs and sits on your dumbass geek neck you button pushing dopes.Not only are you killing the economic model that has enabled you to attain what you have thus far , but your are killing your own market idiots even as the worlds 2 largest populations , markets , come online to modernity , you have enabled them to not only " share " the fruits of your labor for free but soon your jobs.Be it P2P or FOSS     It all spells doom for you and now as your jobs are being outsourced to china and india , its the begining of the end for you all and you dont even fucking know it because your selfish cheap little pricks who think your entitledYour entitled to go off and starve and thats what your gon na learn to do , sooner than you think morons !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty soon in the dismal not so distant future, this will be you tools as Atlas Shrugs and sits on your dumbass geek neck you button pushing dopes.Not only are you killing the economic model that has enabled you to attain what you have thus far, but your are killing your own market idiots even as the worlds 2 largest populations, markets, come online to modernity, you have enabled them to not only "share" the fruits of your labor for free but soon your jobs.Be it P2P or FOSS
    It all spells doom for you and now as your jobs are being outsourced to china and india, its the begining of the end for you all and you dont even fucking know it because your selfish cheap little pricks who think your entitledYour entitled to go off and starve and thats what your gonna learn to do, sooner than you think morons!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287016</id>
	<title>Last law that actually slowed criminals?</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1267207740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Drug laws, nope.
Gun laws, nope.
Embezzlement laws, nope.
Terrorism laws, nope.
Child porn laws, nope.
Stupid politicians can't run for reelection laws, I'll get right on that one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drug laws , nope .
Gun laws , nope .
Embezzlement laws , nope .
Terrorism laws , nope .
Child porn laws , nope .
Stupid politicians ca n't run for reelection laws , I 'll get right on that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drug laws, nope.
Gun laws, nope.
Embezzlement laws, nope.
Terrorism laws, nope.
Child porn laws, nope.
Stupid politicians can't run for reelection laws, I'll get right on that one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31292230</id>
	<title>Re:This is not legislation of a technical solution</title>
	<author>segin</author>
	<datestamp>1267187520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.</p></div></blockquote><p>Except there's a distinction between informed consent and just consent. One is where any random idiot just agrees to whatever, the other is where the person knows what they are agreeing on.</p><p>Essentially, the majority of users would (luckily) be legally banned from using P2P because they're fucking stupid.</p><p>Good thing, too, most of those idiots just crud up the place with 64kbit/s MP3s that lack properly-formatted ID3 tags.</p><p>On another note, I hate it when idiots mis-tag songs. "Stone Temple Pilots" is "Stone Temple Pilots", not "stone temple pilots" or "Stone temple pilots" or "stone tempul pilot" or whatever idiots will come up with.</p><p>Worse is when idiots do not know the name of the song, and they merely assume that the first few words of the chorus is the name of the song. "Have you heard that new <i>Korn</i> song called <i>God Pains Me</i>?" "Uhh. no, how does it go?" "Well, they keep singing 'got the life' at the end over and over". "The song is called <i>Got The Life</i>." "No, it's <i>God Pains Me</i>! That's the first few words of the chrous!" Durr, fucking idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.Except there 's a distinction between informed consent and just consent .
One is where any random idiot just agrees to whatever , the other is where the person knows what they are agreeing on.Essentially , the majority of users would ( luckily ) be legally banned from using P2P because they 're fucking stupid.Good thing , too , most of those idiots just crud up the place with 64kbit/s MP3s that lack properly-formatted ID3 tags.On another note , I hate it when idiots mis-tag songs .
" Stone Temple Pilots " is " Stone Temple Pilots " , not " stone temple pilots " or " Stone temple pilots " or " stone tempul pilot " or whatever idiots will come up with.Worse is when idiots do not know the name of the song , and they merely assume that the first few words of the chorus is the name of the song .
" Have you heard that new Korn song called God Pains Me ?
" " Uhh .
no , how does it go ?
" " Well , they keep singing 'got the life ' at the end over and over " .
" The song is called Got The Life .
" " No , it 's God Pains Me !
That 's the first few words of the chrous !
" Durr , fucking idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.Except there's a distinction between informed consent and just consent.
One is where any random idiot just agrees to whatever, the other is where the person knows what they are agreeing on.Essentially, the majority of users would (luckily) be legally banned from using P2P because they're fucking stupid.Good thing, too, most of those idiots just crud up the place with 64kbit/s MP3s that lack properly-formatted ID3 tags.On another note, I hate it when idiots mis-tag songs.
"Stone Temple Pilots" is "Stone Temple Pilots", not "stone temple pilots" or "Stone temple pilots" or "stone tempul pilot" or whatever idiots will come up with.Worse is when idiots do not know the name of the song, and they merely assume that the first few words of the chorus is the name of the song.
"Have you heard that new Korn song called God Pains Me?
" "Uhh.
no, how does it go?
" "Well, they keep singing 'got the life' at the end over and over".
"The song is called Got The Life.
" "No, it's God Pains Me!
That's the first few words of the chrous!
" Durr, fucking idiots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288028</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1267211160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds to me like they're specifically trying to target corporate and government agencies.  This part:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.</p></div><p>Sounds like they're making it illegal for an employee to install P2P without permission from the boss (the computer owner).  It sounds like they are trying to clamp down on corporate and government files being unknowingly shared because a user wanted to download some music (or whatever else).  That seems to be in line with the FTC sending notices to companies warning them that their data is being leaked.  They probably concluded that the reason for that was because some of their users had installed P2P software to do one thing, and instead unknowingly started sharing their documents.</p><p>Basically, this sounds like a legal requirement to educate users of P2P software, and they're putting that requirement on the makers of P2P software.  It doesn't really sound like a bad idea to me, and I'm a bit confused why this is filed under censorship.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me like they 're specifically trying to target corporate and government agencies .
This part : would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.Sounds like they 're making it illegal for an employee to install P2P without permission from the boss ( the computer owner ) .
It sounds like they are trying to clamp down on corporate and government files being unknowingly shared because a user wanted to download some music ( or whatever else ) .
That seems to be in line with the FTC sending notices to companies warning them that their data is being leaked .
They probably concluded that the reason for that was because some of their users had installed P2P software to do one thing , and instead unknowingly started sharing their documents.Basically , this sounds like a legal requirement to educate users of P2P software , and they 're putting that requirement on the makers of P2P software .
It does n't really sound like a bad idea to me , and I 'm a bit confused why this is filed under censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me like they're specifically trying to target corporate and government agencies.
This part:would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.Sounds like they're making it illegal for an employee to install P2P without permission from the boss (the computer owner).
It sounds like they are trying to clamp down on corporate and government files being unknowingly shared because a user wanted to download some music (or whatever else).
That seems to be in line with the FTC sending notices to companies warning them that their data is being leaked.
They probably concluded that the reason for that was because some of their users had installed P2P software to do one thing, and instead unknowingly started sharing their documents.Basically, this sounds like a legal requirement to educate users of P2P software, and they're putting that requirement on the makers of P2P software.
It doesn't really sound like a bad idea to me, and I'm a bit confused why this is filed under censorship.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288564</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1267212840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much P2P software makes it the users choice whether or not to share files so that they can say: 'The user chose to share the files, it wasn't us, so don't sue', while intentionally using defaults that share as much as possible, and making it an error prone process to limit sharing to something sane so that there will be alot of content shared online.  More content being shared makes your P2P network more popular.</p><p>Users may even be able to use 'it was an honest mistake' as a defense though probably not.  A judge may be inclined tobe lenient if they thought it really was an honest mistake. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much P2P software makes it the users choice whether or not to share files so that they can say : 'The user chose to share the files , it was n't us , so do n't sue ' , while intentionally using defaults that share as much as possible , and making it an error prone process to limit sharing to something sane so that there will be alot of content shared online .
More content being shared makes your P2P network more popular.Users may even be able to use 'it was an honest mistake ' as a defense though probably not .
A judge may be inclined tobe lenient if they thought it really was an honest mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much P2P software makes it the users choice whether or not to share files so that they can say: 'The user chose to share the files, it wasn't us, so don't sue', while intentionally using defaults that share as much as possible, and making it an error prone process to limit sharing to something sane so that there will be alot of content shared online.
More content being shared makes your P2P network more popular.Users may even be able to use 'it was an honest mistake' as a defense though probably not.
A judge may be inclined tobe lenient if they thought it really was an honest mistake. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289480</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1267216500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are not allowed to install p2p software without the consent of the authorised computer user.<br>You are not allowed to prevent the authorised computer user from blocking installation of p2p software.<br>You are not allowed to prevent the authorised computer user from disabling or removing p2p software.</p><p>Or, in English.  Don't install p2p progs without the computer owner's permission.  Don't try to stop the computer owner from removing or disabling any p2p progs on his computer.</p><p>Seems pretty reasonable to me, and isn't going to stop you from installing emule or bittorrent on your own computer.<br>You won't be able to install it on your work computer without your employer's permission, but you need that already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not allowed to install p2p software without the consent of the authorised computer user.You are not allowed to prevent the authorised computer user from blocking installation of p2p software.You are not allowed to prevent the authorised computer user from disabling or removing p2p software.Or , in English .
Do n't install p2p progs without the computer owner 's permission .
Do n't try to stop the computer owner from removing or disabling any p2p progs on his computer.Seems pretty reasonable to me , and is n't going to stop you from installing emule or bittorrent on your own computer.You wo n't be able to install it on your work computer without your employer 's permission , but you need that already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not allowed to install p2p software without the consent of the authorised computer user.You are not allowed to prevent the authorised computer user from blocking installation of p2p software.You are not allowed to prevent the authorised computer user from disabling or removing p2p software.Or, in English.
Don't install p2p progs without the computer owner's permission.
Don't try to stop the computer owner from removing or disabling any p2p progs on his computer.Seems pretty reasonable to me, and isn't going to stop you from installing emule or bittorrent on your own computer.You won't be able to install it on your work computer without your employer's permission, but you need that already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287418</id>
	<title>Reminds me of casablanca</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Senator: Im shocked...SHOCKED theres p2p sharing going on<br>Senator's Son: Hey dad I just finished updating your music collection<br>Senator: Great!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Senator : Im shocked...SHOCKED theres p2p sharing going onSenator 's Son : Hey dad I just finished updating your music collectionSenator : Great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Senator: Im shocked...SHOCKED theres p2p sharing going onSenator's Son: Hey dad I just finished updating your music collectionSenator: Great!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288808</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1267213860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job?</p></div><p>No, it's usually about someone else's.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job ? No , it 's usually about someone else 's .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job?No, it's usually about someone else's.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</id>
	<title>Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1267206960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most well-known P2P software is deliberately installed. And users are told where their shared files will be.</p><p>So how would P2P software be installed without consent? Perhaps spambots and other nefarious malware?</p><p>That makes this less "P2P-related" and more anti-spam. And that's a good thing, I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most well-known P2P software is deliberately installed .
And users are told where their shared files will be.So how would P2P software be installed without consent ?
Perhaps spambots and other nefarious malware ? That makes this less " P2P-related " and more anti-spam .
And that 's a good thing , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most well-known P2P software is deliberately installed.
And users are told where their shared files will be.So how would P2P software be installed without consent?
Perhaps spambots and other nefarious malware?That makes this less "P2P-related" and more anti-spam.
And that's a good thing, I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287832</id>
	<title>Anti-P2P?</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1267210440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it was pretty likely that anti-P2P legislation would get proposed.</p></div></blockquote><p><em>Anti</em>-P2P?  I do not think that word means what you think it does.  If anything, this is arguably pro-P2P legislation, because the legal restriction of various nefarious practices will give compliant P2P software an air of legitimacy which it often lacks now.  "We comply with all government regulations and mandates..."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it was pretty likely that anti-P2P legislation would get proposed.Anti-P2P ?
I do not think that word means what you think it does .
If anything , this is arguably pro-P2P legislation , because the legal restriction of various nefarious practices will give compliant P2P software an air of legitimacy which it often lacks now .
" We comply with all government regulations and mandates... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it was pretty likely that anti-P2P legislation would get proposed.Anti-P2P?
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
If anything, this is arguably pro-P2P legislation, because the legal restriction of various nefarious practices will give compliant P2P software an air of legitimacy which it often lacks now.
"We comply with all government regulations and mandates..."
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31296366</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267281840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent point. If they applied this law to ALL software, there's no way they could get it passed with big companies like Adobe, Microsoft, et all with huge stakes in the software market.  The language would have to be extremely clear, precise, and constitutional.  Otherwise it would fail.  Instead of grandstanding like typical politicians, they would look like complete morons and people would wonder how they got elected.</p><p>As usual, they're playing divide and conquer.  Can't ban guns?  Then ban guns just for blacks and mexicans... er, I mean, <i>gangbangers</i>.  The white minutemen won't care.  Hell, they'll probably even support it.  Before long, <a href="http://www.answertheskeptic.com/index.php/no-one-left-to-speak-for-me/2008/03/06" title="answertheskeptic.com" rel="nofollow">there's nobody left to speak for me.</a> [answertheskeptic.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point .
If they applied this law to ALL software , there 's no way they could get it passed with big companies like Adobe , Microsoft , et all with huge stakes in the software market .
The language would have to be extremely clear , precise , and constitutional .
Otherwise it would fail .
Instead of grandstanding like typical politicians , they would look like complete morons and people would wonder how they got elected.As usual , they 're playing divide and conquer .
Ca n't ban guns ?
Then ban guns just for blacks and mexicans... er , I mean , gangbangers .
The white minutemen wo n't care .
Hell , they 'll probably even support it .
Before long , there 's nobody left to speak for me .
[ answertheskeptic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point.
If they applied this law to ALL software, there's no way they could get it passed with big companies like Adobe, Microsoft, et all with huge stakes in the software market.
The language would have to be extremely clear, precise, and constitutional.
Otherwise it would fail.
Instead of grandstanding like typical politicians, they would look like complete morons and people would wonder how they got elected.As usual, they're playing divide and conquer.
Can't ban guns?
Then ban guns just for blacks and mexicans... er, I mean, gangbangers.
The white minutemen won't care.
Hell, they'll probably even support it.
Before long, there's nobody left to speak for me.
[answertheskeptic.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287146</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1267208160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most well-known P2P software is deliberately installed. And users are told where their shared files will be.</p><p>So how would P2P software be installed without consent?</p></div><p>Happens at work all the time. The users are not authorized to install P2P Software, but it happens. Managers get administrative rights to the computers under their controls, they get lazy with permissions and give their underlings local admins... And before you know it we get a few hundred calls to ISOHunt.</p><p>Then we drop in a couple canisters of Tear Gas, have the exits swarmed with armed IT Technicians, and shove the offenders into the back of our Van. Hellz yeah.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most well-known P2P software is deliberately installed .
And users are told where their shared files will be.So how would P2P software be installed without consent ? Happens at work all the time .
The users are not authorized to install P2P Software , but it happens .
Managers get administrative rights to the computers under their controls , they get lazy with permissions and give their underlings local admins... And before you know it we get a few hundred calls to ISOHunt.Then we drop in a couple canisters of Tear Gas , have the exits swarmed with armed IT Technicians , and shove the offenders into the back of our Van .
Hellz yeah .
...Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most well-known P2P software is deliberately installed.
And users are told where their shared files will be.So how would P2P software be installed without consent?Happens at work all the time.
The users are not authorized to install P2P Software, but it happens.
Managers get administrative rights to the computers under their controls, they get lazy with permissions and give their underlings local admins... And before you know it we get a few hundred calls to ISOHunt.Then we drop in a couple canisters of Tear Gas, have the exits swarmed with armed IT Technicians, and shove the offenders into the back of our Van.
Hellz yeah.
...Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288784</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267213740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not well written, I agree, but I guess the verbal logic course I took in college paid off. It says that it's illegal to install P2P software on someone's computer withiout their consent. I have no problem with that, and it doesn't go far enough. I would like to see it illegal to install ANY software on my computer without my consent.</p><p>It also says it bans software that prevents someone from stopping its installation or removal, and again, if this applied to all software, not just P2P, it would be a good law. It would stop a lot of spyware shenanigans, or at least, make them illegal.</p><p>But to just point to P2P is stupid. P2P is the best way to get indie music, FOSS, and a lot of other free and legal goodies, which is why the entertainment industry is so afraid of it. Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning must have Hollywood shaking in its boots. The indies have already terrified the RIAA, and I imagine Linux has caused a few MS execs some sleepless nights.</p><p>OTOH, Bonzai Buddy and other shitware that I DON'T want anybody installing isn't covered under this retarded law.</p><p>The entertainment industry sure has a lot of bribe money to spread around. It's sickening. I guess we have the best legislators money can buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not well written , I agree , but I guess the verbal logic course I took in college paid off .
It says that it 's illegal to install P2P software on someone 's computer withiout their consent .
I have no problem with that , and it does n't go far enough .
I would like to see it illegal to install ANY software on my computer without my consent.It also says it bans software that prevents someone from stopping its installation or removal , and again , if this applied to all software , not just P2P , it would be a good law .
It would stop a lot of spyware shenanigans , or at least , make them illegal.But to just point to P2P is stupid .
P2P is the best way to get indie music , FOSS , and a lot of other free and legal goodies , which is why the entertainment industry is so afraid of it .
Star Wreck : In the Pirkinning must have Hollywood shaking in its boots .
The indies have already terrified the RIAA , and I imagine Linux has caused a few MS execs some sleepless nights.OTOH , Bonzai Buddy and other shitware that I DO N'T want anybody installing is n't covered under this retarded law.The entertainment industry sure has a lot of bribe money to spread around .
It 's sickening .
I guess we have the best legislators money can buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not well written, I agree, but I guess the verbal logic course I took in college paid off.
It says that it's illegal to install P2P software on someone's computer withiout their consent.
I have no problem with that, and it doesn't go far enough.
I would like to see it illegal to install ANY software on my computer without my consent.It also says it bans software that prevents someone from stopping its installation or removal, and again, if this applied to all software, not just P2P, it would be a good law.
It would stop a lot of spyware shenanigans, or at least, make them illegal.But to just point to P2P is stupid.
P2P is the best way to get indie music, FOSS, and a lot of other free and legal goodies, which is why the entertainment industry is so afraid of it.
Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning must have Hollywood shaking in its boots.
The indies have already terrified the RIAA, and I imagine Linux has caused a few MS execs some sleepless nights.OTOH, Bonzai Buddy and other shitware that I DON'T want anybody installing isn't covered under this retarded law.The entertainment industry sure has a lot of bribe money to spread around.
It's sickening.
I guess we have the best legislators money can buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291828</id>
	<title>"its for the kids"</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267185480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It always *sounds* good, until you get to the fine print.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It always * sounds * good , until you get to the fine print .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always *sounds* good, until you get to the fine print.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289798</id>
	<title>Re:Last law that actually slowed criminals?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1267174920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that is right. So, let us get rid of ALL laws. I can hardly wait for a world where I can kill stupid people with impunity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that is right .
So , let us get rid of ALL laws .
I can hardly wait for a world where I can kill stupid people with impunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that is right.
So, let us get rid of ALL laws.
I can hardly wait for a world where I can kill stupid people with impunity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286802</id>
	<title>Censorship?  Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did the tagger even bother to read the summary?  They are not prohibiting P2P software, they are trying to govern its behavior.  The realistic side of me says this is pointless, but the idealist in me hopes that P2P writers do change their behavior.  Greater information and control on the part of the user can't be a bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the tagger even bother to read the summary ?
They are not prohibiting P2P software , they are trying to govern its behavior .
The realistic side of me says this is pointless , but the idealist in me hopes that P2P writers do change their behavior .
Greater information and control on the part of the user ca n't be a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the tagger even bother to read the summary?
They are not prohibiting P2P software, they are trying to govern its behavior.
The realistic side of me says this is pointless, but the idealist in me hopes that P2P writers do change their behavior.
Greater information and control on the part of the user can't be a bad thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287060</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>choongiri</author>
	<datestamp>1267207860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Yeah, that's a total mind-fuck of a paragraph. My attempt at parsing it:<br><br>would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs<br>{<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user<br>}<br>and<br>{<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;that would prevent the authorized user from<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;{<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;}<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;and/or<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;{<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;}<br>}</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's a total mind-fuck of a paragraph .
My attempt at parsing it : would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs {     from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user } and {     that would prevent the authorized user from     {       blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program     }     and/or     {     disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.     } }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's a total mind-fuck of a paragraph.
My attempt at parsing it:would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs{   from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user}and{   that would prevent the authorized user from   {      blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program   }   and/or   {   disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.   }}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288232</id>
	<title>Yeah, we need more pointless laws.</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1267211700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should just keep passing pointless laws until our system is flooded with nothing but pointless laws and nothing useful can get done.</p><p>While I agree that software should tell the user what their files are being shared, only programs that are already illegal fail to do that.  You know, malware, viruses, etc.  This doesn't actually protect anyone from anything, even their own stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should just keep passing pointless laws until our system is flooded with nothing but pointless laws and nothing useful can get done.While I agree that software should tell the user what their files are being shared , only programs that are already illegal fail to do that .
You know , malware , viruses , etc .
This does n't actually protect anyone from anything , even their own stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should just keep passing pointless laws until our system is flooded with nothing but pointless laws and nothing useful can get done.While I agree that software should tell the user what their files are being shared, only programs that are already illegal fail to do that.
You know, malware, viruses, etc.
This doesn't actually protect anyone from anything, even their own stupidity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289354</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267215900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the thing, how does one legislate that? Is a dialog box that says "Guess what?!? When you share everything in 'My Documents', that means EVERYTHING in 'My Documents'" sufficient or must you say "You shared My Documents so hgfqtjqwd.txt which is in My Documents is now shared! DUUUUUUUhhhhhH!" for each file found there? How about for files added to 'My Documents' after the software is installed?</p><p>As for being able to block installation, are they also going to legislate that the admins on the government LANs that ALREADY HAVE THAT CAPABILITY must now realize it? When their pointy haired bosses insist that they make an exception, can they have them shipped to Gitmo?</p><p>Perhaps they will require that each time the software is started, the user must read a disclaimer that the purpose of file sharing software is to share files and so they may be sharing some files now by running the file sharing software. then enter the 32nd word on page 28 of the manual to continue so they can't just mindlessly click OK like they do for all the other warnings (both useful and stupid) that pop up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the thing , how does one legislate that ?
Is a dialog box that says " Guess what ? ! ?
When you share everything in 'My Documents ' , that means EVERYTHING in 'My Documents ' " sufficient or must you say " You shared My Documents so hgfqtjqwd.txt which is in My Documents is now shared !
DUUUUUUUhhhhhH ! " for each file found there ?
How about for files added to 'My Documents ' after the software is installed ? As for being able to block installation , are they also going to legislate that the admins on the government LANs that ALREADY HAVE THAT CAPABILITY must now realize it ?
When their pointy haired bosses insist that they make an exception , can they have them shipped to Gitmo ? Perhaps they will require that each time the software is started , the user must read a disclaimer that the purpose of file sharing software is to share files and so they may be sharing some files now by running the file sharing software .
then enter the 32nd word on page 28 of the manual to continue so they ca n't just mindlessly click OK like they do for all the other warnings ( both useful and stupid ) that pop up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the thing, how does one legislate that?
Is a dialog box that says "Guess what?!?
When you share everything in 'My Documents', that means EVERYTHING in 'My Documents'" sufficient or must you say "You shared My Documents so hgfqtjqwd.txt which is in My Documents is now shared!
DUUUUUUUhhhhhH!" for each file found there?
How about for files added to 'My Documents' after the software is installed?As for being able to block installation, are they also going to legislate that the admins on the government LANs that ALREADY HAVE THAT CAPABILITY must now realize it?
When their pointy haired bosses insist that they make an exception, can they have them shipped to Gitmo?Perhaps they will require that each time the software is started, the user must read a disclaimer that the purpose of file sharing software is to share files and so they may be sharing some files now by running the file sharing software.
then enter the 32nd word on page 28 of the manual to continue so they can't just mindlessly click OK like they do for all the other warnings (both useful and stupid) that pop up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291432</id>
	<title>I bet hollywood are behind this</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1267183200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Superficially this is just yet more legislation that demonstrates how little our legislators actually understand the issue or the tech involved.</p><p>My guess is that this is actually a well-reasoned step by the music &amp; movie industries to make non-technical people (including legislators) incorrectly beleive that P2P itself (which is just an internet protocol) is somehow intrinsically bad. It makes their next step, trying to convince lawmakers to make any/all P2P illegal, easier if they are misled first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Superficially this is just yet more legislation that demonstrates how little our legislators actually understand the issue or the tech involved.My guess is that this is actually a well-reasoned step by the music &amp; movie industries to make non-technical people ( including legislators ) incorrectly beleive that P2P itself ( which is just an internet protocol ) is somehow intrinsically bad .
It makes their next step , trying to convince lawmakers to make any/all P2P illegal , easier if they are misled first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Superficially this is just yet more legislation that demonstrates how little our legislators actually understand the issue or the tech involved.My guess is that this is actually a well-reasoned step by the music &amp; movie industries to make non-technical people (including legislators) incorrectly beleive that P2P itself (which is just an internet protocol) is somehow intrinsically bad.
It makes their next step, trying to convince lawmakers to make any/all P2P illegal, easier if they are misled first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287074</id>
	<title>Yep. Everything can be fixed with new laws.</title>
	<author>Hazelfield</author>
	<datestamp>1267207920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So we're looking at a law that requries P2P software to inform about what P2P means and demand explicit consent from the user (which everyone will doubtlessly click away as readily as we dismiss EULAs, i.e. as soon as we've found the right button). <br> <br>

To me it looks like a cheap and easy way of making it look like you're solving a problem. Doesn't say anything about the severity of that problem or the efficiency of the solution, but you can't get everything I suppose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So we 're looking at a law that requries P2P software to inform about what P2P means and demand explicit consent from the user ( which everyone will doubtlessly click away as readily as we dismiss EULAs , i.e .
as soon as we 've found the right button ) .
To me it looks like a cheap and easy way of making it look like you 're solving a problem .
Does n't say anything about the severity of that problem or the efficiency of the solution , but you ca n't get everything I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we're looking at a law that requries P2P software to inform about what P2P means and demand explicit consent from the user (which everyone will doubtlessly click away as readily as we dismiss EULAs, i.e.
as soon as we've found the right button).
To me it looks like a cheap and easy way of making it look like you're solving a problem.
Doesn't say anything about the severity of that problem or the efficiency of the solution, but you can't get everything I suppose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31293208</id>
	<title>That's so oldnews!</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1267193280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>US Lawmakers Set Sights On P2P Programs</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's so oldnews! The Lobbies have long set sights on P2P Programs!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>US Lawmakers Set Sights On P2P Programs That 's so oldnews !
The Lobbies have long set sights on P2P Programs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US Lawmakers Set Sights On P2P Programs
That's so oldnews!
The Lobbies have long set sights on P2P Programs!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287480</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know. I'm hugely suspicious of this, for two reasons: Congress has a nasty habit of not understanding the technological ramifications of their legislation. And when they do make legislation where they understand the ramifications, it's generally for the purpose of making sure that corporations don't have their business models cut out from underneath them.</p><p>While on the face of it, the bill seems alright (don't hide what your program does), I don't understand why it's specifically targeting P2P programs. Wouldn't it make sense to have the bill simply say "software should never be installed without the users consent" and "software should not be misleading in their activities"? What bothers me is the insistence from the two politicians that P2P programs somehow present an inherent privacy and security risk. I'm putting on my tinfoil hat here for a second, but I'm guessing that this has to be read in the larger context that P2P software is bad in general, and should be tightly regulated.</p><p>I don't like where this is going. As the bill reads, it won't solve any problem that currently exists, and assumes something dangerous: that a specific type of software is somehow worse than others. I'm expecting that these two politicians will soon propose bills that restrict peer-to-peer connectivity in general (goodbye net neutrality) and legislate what software can and cannot do (goodbye software startups written by a single person).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
I 'm hugely suspicious of this , for two reasons : Congress has a nasty habit of not understanding the technological ramifications of their legislation .
And when they do make legislation where they understand the ramifications , it 's generally for the purpose of making sure that corporations do n't have their business models cut out from underneath them.While on the face of it , the bill seems alright ( do n't hide what your program does ) , I do n't understand why it 's specifically targeting P2P programs .
Would n't it make sense to have the bill simply say " software should never be installed without the users consent " and " software should not be misleading in their activities " ?
What bothers me is the insistence from the two politicians that P2P programs somehow present an inherent privacy and security risk .
I 'm putting on my tinfoil hat here for a second , but I 'm guessing that this has to be read in the larger context that P2P software is bad in general , and should be tightly regulated.I do n't like where this is going .
As the bill reads , it wo n't solve any problem that currently exists , and assumes something dangerous : that a specific type of software is somehow worse than others .
I 'm expecting that these two politicians will soon propose bills that restrict peer-to-peer connectivity in general ( goodbye net neutrality ) and legislate what software can and can not do ( goodbye software startups written by a single person ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
I'm hugely suspicious of this, for two reasons: Congress has a nasty habit of not understanding the technological ramifications of their legislation.
And when they do make legislation where they understand the ramifications, it's generally for the purpose of making sure that corporations don't have their business models cut out from underneath them.While on the face of it, the bill seems alright (don't hide what your program does), I don't understand why it's specifically targeting P2P programs.
Wouldn't it make sense to have the bill simply say "software should never be installed without the users consent" and "software should not be misleading in their activities"?
What bothers me is the insistence from the two politicians that P2P programs somehow present an inherent privacy and security risk.
I'm putting on my tinfoil hat here for a second, but I'm guessing that this has to be read in the larger context that P2P software is bad in general, and should be tightly regulated.I don't like where this is going.
As the bill reads, it won't solve any problem that currently exists, and assumes something dangerous: that a specific type of software is somehow worse than others.
I'm expecting that these two politicians will soon propose bills that restrict peer-to-peer connectivity in general (goodbye net neutrality) and legislate what software can and cannot do (goodbye software startups written by a single person).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322</id>
	<title>How is this bad?</title>
	<author>Khisanth Magus</author>
	<datestamp>1267208820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dislike the government as much as anyone, particularly their views on "piracy"...but I don't really see what is wrong with this law.  It prohibits P2P software from being installed without your consent, and forces that P2P software to tell you what it is sharing with other people.  How are these bad?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike the government as much as anyone , particularly their views on " piracy " ...but I do n't really see what is wrong with this law .
It prohibits P2P software from being installed without your consent , and forces that P2P software to tell you what it is sharing with other people .
How are these bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike the government as much as anyone, particularly their views on "piracy"...but I don't really see what is wrong with this law.
It prohibits P2P software from being installed without your consent, and forces that P2P software to tell you what it is sharing with other people.
How are these bad?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288816</id>
	<title>Watch For Riders</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1267213860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill in and of itself doesn't seem so bad?  Pretty stock, kinda blah, a bit silly that such a thing is being seen as requiring a law?</p><p>But there's two potential paths.</p><p>1.  This could be used to add more charges to spammers once they get caught.  Stacking the offenses, so to speak, which is fine by me, really?</p><p>2.  This is a "gimme" bill, one that's sure to pass because it's so simple and palatable.  At least until they start tacking on riders, anyway?  Now you've got a mild bill that has a few dozen rabid hyenas stapled to it, that nobody wants to try and kill.  "Think of the Children" bills are notorious for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill in and of itself does n't seem so bad ?
Pretty stock , kinda blah , a bit silly that such a thing is being seen as requiring a law ? But there 's two potential paths.1 .
This could be used to add more charges to spammers once they get caught .
Stacking the offenses , so to speak , which is fine by me , really ? 2 .
This is a " gim me " bill , one that 's sure to pass because it 's so simple and palatable .
At least until they start tacking on riders , anyway ?
Now you 've got a mild bill that has a few dozen rabid hyenas stapled to it , that nobody wants to try and kill .
" Think of the Children " bills are notorious for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill in and of itself doesn't seem so bad?
Pretty stock, kinda blah, a bit silly that such a thing is being seen as requiring a law?But there's two potential paths.1.
This could be used to add more charges to spammers once they get caught.
Stacking the offenses, so to speak, which is fine by me, really?2.
This is a "gimme" bill, one that's sure to pass because it's so simple and palatable.
At least until they start tacking on riders, anyway?
Now you've got a mild bill that has a few dozen rabid hyenas stapled to it, that nobody wants to try and kill.
"Think of the Children" bills are notorious for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286932</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The headline doesn't seem to match the summary, and I haven't even gotten to TFA. It sounds to like they aren't trying to prevent P2P, but rather trying to prevent malware that has P2P functions. The only real benefit I see is the stablishment of law to be tested in prosecution of malware developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The headline does n't seem to match the summary , and I have n't even gotten to TFA .
It sounds to like they are n't trying to prevent P2P , but rather trying to prevent malware that has P2P functions .
The only real benefit I see is the stablishment of law to be tested in prosecution of malware developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The headline doesn't seem to match the summary, and I haven't even gotten to TFA.
It sounds to like they aren't trying to prevent P2P, but rather trying to prevent malware that has P2P functions.
The only real benefit I see is the stablishment of law to be tested in prosecution of malware developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287154</id>
	<title>Why stifle progress?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267208220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bittorrent is an awesome protocol.  It's a leap technologically from the old server/client download model, and really ought to be embraced and developed by people instead of seen as a disease on the internet.  You can't go mole whacking stuff any time it hurts the wallet of some big company.  Sucks to be you, guy...   learn to move forward and adapt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bittorrent is an awesome protocol .
It 's a leap technologically from the old server/client download model , and really ought to be embraced and developed by people instead of seen as a disease on the internet .
You ca n't go mole whacking stuff any time it hurts the wallet of some big company .
Sucks to be you , guy... learn to move forward and adapt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bittorrent is an awesome protocol.
It's a leap technologically from the old server/client download model, and really ought to be embraced and developed by people instead of seen as a disease on the internet.
You can't go mole whacking stuff any time it hurts the wallet of some big company.
Sucks to be you, guy...   learn to move forward and adapt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287190</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1267208340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good to know that calling myself retarded is worthy of a troll mod.  Good stuff, I feel a heightened sense of self-worth already.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</p><p>Seriously, the language of the proposed bill was horrible.  it isn't trolling to point that out, Mr Mod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good to know that calling myself retarded is worthy of a troll mod .
Good stuff , I feel a heightened sense of self-worth already .
; -PSeriously , the language of the proposed bill was horrible .
it is n't trolling to point that out , Mr Mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good to know that calling myself retarded is worthy of a troll mod.
Good stuff, I feel a heightened sense of self-worth already.
;-PSeriously, the language of the proposed bill was horrible.
it isn't trolling to point that out, Mr Mod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286790</id>
	<title>the guv'mint</title>
	<author>ak\_hepcat</author>
	<datestamp>1267207020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't, at first glance, see that all of these files aren't being placed there willy-nilly.  Their computers are being targeted with simple malware,<br>and the fine folks behind the malware find all of these fun and neat files and place them online for the rest of the world to see.</p><p>Also, making illegal the "non-user aware placement of software" ??  doesn't really need yet another law to do what is already illegal.</p><p>They just want the P2P  buzzword,  which does nothing.</p><p>Computer experts really need to get the message and the learning out that P2P is a misnomer, and that they need to take responsibility for the security<br>of their own computes.</p><p>Oh, wait, personal responsibility?  That's un-mer'can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't , at first glance , see that all of these files are n't being placed there willy-nilly .
Their computers are being targeted with simple malware,and the fine folks behind the malware find all of these fun and neat files and place them online for the rest of the world to see.Also , making illegal the " non-user aware placement of software " ? ?
does n't really need yet another law to do what is already illegal.They just want the P2P buzzword , which does nothing.Computer experts really need to get the message and the learning out that P2P is a misnomer , and that they need to take responsibility for the securityof their own computes.Oh , wait , personal responsibility ?
That 's un-mer'can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't, at first glance, see that all of these files aren't being placed there willy-nilly.
Their computers are being targeted with simple malware,and the fine folks behind the malware find all of these fun and neat files and place them online for the rest of the world to see.Also, making illegal the "non-user aware placement of software" ??
doesn't really need yet another law to do what is already illegal.They just want the P2P  buzzword,  which does nothing.Computer experts really need to get the message and the learning out that P2P is a misnomer, and that they need to take responsibility for the securityof their own computes.Oh, wait, personal responsibility?
That's un-mer'can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288156</id>
	<title>Does this apply just to files or to packets too?</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1267211460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A file is a sequence of bits carrying information.</p><p>A packet is a sequence of bits carrying information.</p><p>Should this legislation not logically apply to the installation of all software that transmits data packets from my computer to some other computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A file is a sequence of bits carrying information.A packet is a sequence of bits carrying information.Should this legislation not logically apply to the installation of all software that transmits data packets from my computer to some other computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A file is a sequence of bits carrying information.A packet is a sequence of bits carrying information.Should this legislation not logically apply to the installation of all software that transmits data packets from my computer to some other computer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288728</id>
	<title>Re:How is this bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267213440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it is law singling out a specific type of program. This is something that should be decided by experts in the field who write a standard, not by Joe Senator.</p><p>And like just about every other behavior law, this law is only going to impede legitimate software. Illegitimate software is going to ignore it anyway.</p><p>[Really, this is just the old saying again: "You can't solve social problems with technical solutions". I count legislation as a 'technical solution']</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is law singling out a specific type of program .
This is something that should be decided by experts in the field who write a standard , not by Joe Senator.And like just about every other behavior law , this law is only going to impede legitimate software .
Illegitimate software is going to ignore it anyway .
[ Really , this is just the old saying again : " You ca n't solve social problems with technical solutions " .
I count legislation as a 'technical solution ' ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is law singling out a specific type of program.
This is something that should be decided by experts in the field who write a standard, not by Joe Senator.And like just about every other behavior law, this law is only going to impede legitimate software.
Illegitimate software is going to ignore it anyway.
[Really, this is just the old saying again: "You can't solve social problems with technical solutions".
I count legislation as a 'technical solution']</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286988</id>
	<title>Re:Legislate a technical solution.</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1267207680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it stops games companies installing stealth Bittorrent clients that proceed to use up all my bandwidth, I'm all for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it stops games companies installing stealth Bittorrent clients that proceed to use up all my bandwidth , I 'm all for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it stops games companies installing stealth Bittorrent clients that proceed to use up all my bandwidth, I'm all for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291188</id>
	<title>Re:How is this bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267181700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the face of it I would agree with you, seems like a good law.  But why is it specifically aimed at P2P?  The most likely answer is "Red Tape".  As a general rule, if a government can't outright outlaw something they'll wrap it up in so many "commonsense measures" that no one can legally do it anymore due to the money and or time constraints.  It was done with nuclear energy ("Safety reviews", engineering reviews, administrative fees, registration fees), some firearms rights("Tax Stamps", FFL, regional laws), property rights (building codes, planning commissions, setbacks, land division permits), ect.  This is probably tape #1, If this gets through I wouldn't be surprised if next was each individual shared file had to be "Ok'd", maybe next would come every connection &amp; reconnect?  If it was widened up to include most if not all software then there probably wouldn't be a problem, but directed specifically at one type of program, one that lobbyists would love to put out of business, would be a very bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the face of it I would agree with you , seems like a good law .
But why is it specifically aimed at P2P ?
The most likely answer is " Red Tape " .
As a general rule , if a government ca n't outright outlaw something they 'll wrap it up in so many " commonsense measures " that no one can legally do it anymore due to the money and or time constraints .
It was done with nuclear energy ( " Safety reviews " , engineering reviews , administrative fees , registration fees ) , some firearms rights ( " Tax Stamps " , FFL , regional laws ) , property rights ( building codes , planning commissions , setbacks , land division permits ) , ect .
This is probably tape # 1 , If this gets through I would n't be surprised if next was each individual shared file had to be " Ok 'd " , maybe next would come every connection &amp; reconnect ?
If it was widened up to include most if not all software then there probably would n't be a problem , but directed specifically at one type of program , one that lobbyists would love to put out of business , would be a very bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the face of it I would agree with you, seems like a good law.
But why is it specifically aimed at P2P?
The most likely answer is "Red Tape".
As a general rule, if a government can't outright outlaw something they'll wrap it up in so many "commonsense measures" that no one can legally do it anymore due to the money and or time constraints.
It was done with nuclear energy ("Safety reviews", engineering reviews, administrative fees, registration fees), some firearms rights("Tax Stamps", FFL, regional laws), property rights (building codes, planning commissions, setbacks, land division permits), ect.
This is probably tape #1, If this gets through I wouldn't be surprised if next was each individual shared file had to be "Ok'd", maybe next would come every connection &amp; reconnect?
If it was widened up to include most if not all software then there probably wouldn't be a problem, but directed specifically at one type of program, one that lobbyists would love to put out of business, would be a very bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288454</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>nutznboltz2003</author>
	<datestamp>1267212480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job?</p></div><p>Nope.  I stick to fantasizing about Felicia Day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job ? Nope .
I stick to fantasizing about Felicia Day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job?Nope.
I stick to fantasizing about Felicia Day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291128</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>asaz989</author>
	<datestamp>1267181460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The big thing is the second part: popular voluntarily-installed P2P software can't share, say, My Documents by default without explicitly notifying the user. Probably a big motivation here is to prevent the kind of embarassing government leak that happens when some employee gets Limewire to download music and ends up accidentally sharing documents from work, like spreadsheets of social security numbers and addresses, or some politically embarrassing policy they're working on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big thing is the second part : popular voluntarily-installed P2P software ca n't share , say , My Documents by default without explicitly notifying the user .
Probably a big motivation here is to prevent the kind of embarassing government leak that happens when some employee gets Limewire to download music and ends up accidentally sharing documents from work , like spreadsheets of social security numbers and addresses , or some politically embarrassing policy they 're working on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big thing is the second part: popular voluntarily-installed P2P software can't share, say, My Documents by default without explicitly notifying the user.
Probably a big motivation here is to prevent the kind of embarassing government leak that happens when some employee gets Limewire to download music and ends up accidentally sharing documents from work, like spreadsheets of social security numbers and addresses, or some politically embarrassing policy they're working on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287036</id>
	<title>P2P but not the type you download</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this is intended more to target spyware and data-mining applications from installing themselves than to regulate P2P software like uTorrent.</p><p>If that's the case than this is a great thing.</p><p>I'm sure they'll find some way to fuck it up though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this is intended more to target spyware and data-mining applications from installing themselves than to regulate P2P software like uTorrent.If that 's the case than this is a great thing.I 'm sure they 'll find some way to fuck it up though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this is intended more to target spyware and data-mining applications from installing themselves than to regulate P2P software like uTorrent.If that's the case than this is a great thing.I'm sure they'll find some way to fuck it up though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288444</id>
	<title>Re:Legislate a technical solution.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1267212420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. This is an OS issue, not a legal one. What, your OS doesn't allow you to control what programs are installed? Talk to the OS maker, not a politician.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
This is an OS issue , not a legal one .
What , your OS does n't allow you to control what programs are installed ?
Talk to the OS maker , not a politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
This is an OS issue, not a legal one.
What, your OS doesn't allow you to control what programs are installed?
Talk to the OS maker, not a politician.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287012</id>
	<title>You shouldn't be P2P at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should be P2P at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be P2P at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be P2P at home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287852</id>
	<title>The devil is in the details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267210500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, has anyone actually read the language in the proposal?  Do you think that the actual legislation is going to fit so nicely into the way its being described or do you realize that other law makers are going to add their own language and objectives when the law is passed?  In the language of government what constitutes a P2P file sharing application?</p><p>If I'm a researcher, student or small, open source or independent developer that creates a new P2P "file sharing" protocol or prototype does that mean unless I specifically include notification or a feature the government feels complies with their regulations, that I become a criminal?</p><p>I guess my main concern is that the more we go forward with these "protection laws" the more, we as developers are becoming limited and I worry going forward am I going to need a background in law to write code?</p><p>The RIAA is clapping for a reason friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , has anyone actually read the language in the proposal ?
Do you think that the actual legislation is going to fit so nicely into the way its being described or do you realize that other law makers are going to add their own language and objectives when the law is passed ?
In the language of government what constitutes a P2P file sharing application ? If I 'm a researcher , student or small , open source or independent developer that creates a new P2P " file sharing " protocol or prototype does that mean unless I specifically include notification or a feature the government feels complies with their regulations , that I become a criminal ? I guess my main concern is that the more we go forward with these " protection laws " the more , we as developers are becoming limited and I worry going forward am I going to need a background in law to write code ? The RIAA is clapping for a reason friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, has anyone actually read the language in the proposal?
Do you think that the actual legislation is going to fit so nicely into the way its being described or do you realize that other law makers are going to add their own language and objectives when the law is passed?
In the language of government what constitutes a P2P file sharing application?If I'm a researcher, student or small, open source or independent developer that creates a new P2P "file sharing" protocol or prototype does that mean unless I specifically include notification or a feature the government feels complies with their regulations, that I become a criminal?I guess my main concern is that the more we go forward with these "protection laws" the more, we as developers are becoming limited and I worry going forward am I going to need a background in law to write code?The RIAA is clapping for a reason friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287414</id>
	<title>This is not legislation of a technical solution...</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1267209120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is legislation basically saying a company has to conform to points 1, 2 and 3 if they want to install software X of a particular variant (in this case, P2P) on your machine.</p><p>This is not really much different from telling a contractor that they're free to install a bathroom into your home, but that they will have to abide by laws 1, 2 and 3 regarding things like the electrical wiring.<br>( although that's based on UK and NL law - I suppose maybe in the U.S. every contractor is free to install an outlet into the side of their client's bathtub if they so desire? )</p><p>Is that over-legislation in the case of P2P?  probably.  But mostly because it's a bit odd to target P2P specifically - it could apply to just about any program.  Security programs would be an issue, though*</p><p>The points themselves -seem- sound enough, though...</p><blockquote><div><p>prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.</p></div></blockquote><p>no stealthy installs - I'm all for that.  I'm looking at you, Apple with iTunes and Safari, and you MS for MSN's final installation screen suggesting IE should be my default browser and MSN be set my homepage, and a crapload of other apps that suggest that installing a Yahoo! toolbar is vital to the operation of the principle software.. give me a donate button instead, I'll happily part with some dosh if I'm using your app, more than you're getting from Yahoo for the toolbar install I'd imagine.</p><blockquote><div><p>The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, bittorrent isn't allowed to block my installation of, say, utorrent, nor is would it be allowed to prevent me from uninstalling itself (or others).<br>* just to get back to that security programs bit - obviously a security program -should- be allowed to block other software from being installed if that other software is malware.  So that's where broader legislation could have problems.</p><blockquote><div><p>Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to other peer-to-peer users</p></div></blockquote><p>Given the "I didn't know!" defense-craptaculaire proferred by some people, I think that's sane, too.  Heck, disable sharing by default, and if the user wants to share files warn them of the ramifications, and always make it clear -which- files you're sharing.. not via a configuration dialog that merely specifies the path - offer a screen where you can get an -actual list- of the files.<br>Better yet would be not allowing the sharing of a directory 'as is' at all.  Have the user confirm that any files added to a specified share folder should be shared - keep a simple database (flat text file would do) of the files the user actually wanted to share.<br>That way you can't have business users dropping a random document(s) into the share folder, forgetting that they had it shared, and auto-sharing that/those document(s) with the world -unless- they also go to their P2P app to confirm that they want the added file(s) shared.</p><p>The thing -I- worry about is that IANAL.  Moreover, IANAS(neaky)L - so I don't know just how these definitions (which I suspect are loosely phrased around the actual suggested legislation anyway) can be worked around, or twisted for abuse, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is legislation basically saying a company has to conform to points 1 , 2 and 3 if they want to install software X of a particular variant ( in this case , P2P ) on your machine.This is not really much different from telling a contractor that they 're free to install a bathroom into your home , but that they will have to abide by laws 1 , 2 and 3 regarding things like the electrical wiring .
( although that 's based on UK and NL law - I suppose maybe in the U.S. every contractor is free to install an outlet into the side of their client 's bathtub if they so desire ?
) Is that over-legislation in the case of P2P ?
probably. But mostly because it 's a bit odd to target P2P specifically - it could apply to just about any program .
Security programs would be an issue , though * The points themselves -seem- sound enough , though...prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.no stealthy installs - I 'm all for that .
I 'm looking at you , Apple with iTunes and Safari , and you MS for MSN 's final installation screen suggesting IE should be my default browser and MSN be set my homepage , and a crapload of other apps that suggest that installing a Yahoo !
toolbar is vital to the operation of the principle software.. give me a donate button instead , I 'll happily part with some dosh if I 'm using your app , more than you 're getting from Yahoo for the toolbar install I 'd imagine.The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.So , bittorrent is n't allowed to block my installation of , say , utorrent , nor is would it be allowed to prevent me from uninstalling itself ( or others ) .
* just to get back to that security programs bit - obviously a security program -should- be allowed to block other software from being installed if that other software is malware .
So that 's where broader legislation could have problems.Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to other peer-to-peer usersGiven the " I did n't know !
" defense-craptaculaire proferred by some people , I think that 's sane , too .
Heck , disable sharing by default , and if the user wants to share files warn them of the ramifications , and always make it clear -which- files you 're sharing.. not via a configuration dialog that merely specifies the path - offer a screen where you can get an -actual list- of the files.Better yet would be not allowing the sharing of a directory 'as is ' at all .
Have the user confirm that any files added to a specified share folder should be shared - keep a simple database ( flat text file would do ) of the files the user actually wanted to share.That way you ca n't have business users dropping a random document ( s ) into the share folder , forgetting that they had it shared , and auto-sharing that/those document ( s ) with the world -unless- they also go to their P2P app to confirm that they want the added file ( s ) shared.The thing -I- worry about is that IANAL .
Moreover , IANAS ( neaky ) L - so I do n't know just how these definitions ( which I suspect are loosely phrased around the actual suggested legislation anyway ) can be worked around , or twisted for abuse , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is legislation basically saying a company has to conform to points 1, 2 and 3 if they want to install software X of a particular variant (in this case, P2P) on your machine.This is not really much different from telling a contractor that they're free to install a bathroom into your home, but that they will have to abide by laws 1, 2 and 3 regarding things like the electrical wiring.
( although that's based on UK and NL law - I suppose maybe in the U.S. every contractor is free to install an outlet into the side of their client's bathtub if they so desire?
)Is that over-legislation in the case of P2P?
probably.  But mostly because it's a bit odd to target P2P specifically - it could apply to just about any program.
Security programs would be an issue, though*The points themselves -seem- sound enough, though...prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.no stealthy installs - I'm all for that.
I'm looking at you, Apple with iTunes and Safari, and you MS for MSN's final installation screen suggesting IE should be my default browser and MSN be set my homepage, and a crapload of other apps that suggest that installing a Yahoo!
toolbar is vital to the operation of the principle software.. give me a donate button instead, I'll happily part with some dosh if I'm using your app, more than you're getting from Yahoo for the toolbar install I'd imagine.The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.So, bittorrent isn't allowed to block my installation of, say, utorrent, nor is would it be allowed to prevent me from uninstalling itself (or others).
* just to get back to that security programs bit - obviously a security program -should- be allowed to block other software from being installed if that other software is malware.
So that's where broader legislation could have problems.Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to other peer-to-peer usersGiven the "I didn't know!
" defense-craptaculaire proferred by some people, I think that's sane, too.
Heck, disable sharing by default, and if the user wants to share files warn them of the ramifications, and always make it clear -which- files you're sharing.. not via a configuration dialog that merely specifies the path - offer a screen where you can get an -actual list- of the files.Better yet would be not allowing the sharing of a directory 'as is' at all.
Have the user confirm that any files added to a specified share folder should be shared - keep a simple database (flat text file would do) of the files the user actually wanted to share.That way you can't have business users dropping a random document(s) into the share folder, forgetting that they had it shared, and auto-sharing that/those document(s) with the world -unless- they also go to their P2P app to confirm that they want the added file(s) shared.The thing -I- worry about is that IANAL.
Moreover, IANAS(neaky)L - so I don't know just how these definitions (which I suspect are loosely phrased around the actual suggested legislation anyway) can be worked around, or twisted for abuse, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286832</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blizzard installer has a peer to peer component and you have to choices: Download from their servers alone (slow) or download from other users and main server (fast). This legistlation would just for such programs to tell users about the P2P component and let them opt-out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard installer has a peer to peer component and you have to choices : Download from their servers alone ( slow ) or download from other users and main server ( fast ) .
This legistlation would just for such programs to tell users about the P2P component and let them opt-out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard installer has a peer to peer component and you have to choices: Download from their servers alone (slow) or download from other users and main server (fast).
This legistlation would just for such programs to tell users about the P2P component and let them opt-out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</id>
	<title>Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no sense</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1267206780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"...would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user. The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program. </i></p><p>They speak English on What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user .
The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program .
They speak English on What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.
The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.
They speak English on What?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286846</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>XAD1975</author>
	<datestamp>1267207200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually can't remember whether WoW's patcher mentions the fact it uses P2P or not, even though it is an option that can be turned off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually ca n't remember whether WoW 's patcher mentions the fact it uses P2P or not , even though it is an option that can be turned off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually can't remember whether WoW's patcher mentions the fact it uses P2P or not, even though it is an option that can be turned off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287376</id>
	<title>This sounds perfectly logical</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1267209000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er I, of course, only read the summary--but that makes it sound like they are preventing anyone from installing software on your computer that you don't approve of.</p><p>Am I misreading it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a /.er I , of course , only read the summary--but that makes it sound like they are preventing anyone from installing software on your computer that you do n't approve of.Am I misreading it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a /.er I, of course, only read the summary--but that makes it sound like they are preventing anyone from installing software on your computer that you don't approve of.Am I misreading it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287652</id>
	<title>This is not censorship. This is a GOOD THING.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267209900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not censorship. It is attempting to make illegal the uninvited installation of P2P and related technologies, such as with malware. As a nice side effect, it would also make it illegal for idiot users to install P2P clients on their work machines without permission from the IT staff. This is a VERY FUCKING GOOD THING and it does not in any way infringe on anybody's rights nor is it censorship of any sort. You are still free to install and use P2P technologies on your own machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not censorship .
It is attempting to make illegal the uninvited installation of P2P and related technologies , such as with malware .
As a nice side effect , it would also make it illegal for idiot users to install P2P clients on their work machines without permission from the IT staff .
This is a VERY FUCKING GOOD THING and it does not in any way infringe on anybody 's rights nor is it censorship of any sort .
You are still free to install and use P2P technologies on your own machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not censorship.
It is attempting to make illegal the uninvited installation of P2P and related technologies, such as with malware.
As a nice side effect, it would also make it illegal for idiot users to install P2P clients on their work machines without permission from the IT staff.
This is a VERY FUCKING GOOD THING and it does not in any way infringe on anybody's rights nor is it censorship of any sort.
You are still free to install and use P2P technologies on your own machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286962</id>
	<title>Broken Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should send them all home! http://www.reelectnone.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should send them all home !
http : //www.reelectnone.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should send them all home!
http://www.reelectnone.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288546</id>
	<title>Re:Why stifle progress?</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1267212720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Bittorrent is an awesome protocol. It's a leap technologically from the old server/client download model</i><br>Not really, peer to peer in general and bittorrent in particular is a reaction to a few things</p><p>1: upside-down pricing models that make end users upstream essentially free but hosting bandwidth expensive.<br>2: trying to get central warez hubs off on the technicality that they aren't actually distributing the warez.<br>3: the lack of multicast on the regular internet.</p><p>Technically IMO pushing content unnessaceraly through users very limited upstreams is a majoor step backwards,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bittorrent is an awesome protocol .
It 's a leap technologically from the old server/client download modelNot really , peer to peer in general and bittorrent in particular is a reaction to a few things1 : upside-down pricing models that make end users upstream essentially free but hosting bandwidth expensive.2 : trying to get central warez hubs off on the technicality that they are n't actually distributing the warez.3 : the lack of multicast on the regular internet.Technically IMO pushing content unnessaceraly through users very limited upstreams is a majoor step backwards,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bittorrent is an awesome protocol.
It's a leap technologically from the old server/client download modelNot really, peer to peer in general and bittorrent in particular is a reaction to a few things1: upside-down pricing models that make end users upstream essentially free but hosting bandwidth expensive.2: trying to get central warez hubs off on the technicality that they aren't actually distributing the warez.3: the lack of multicast on the regular internet.Technically IMO pushing content unnessaceraly through users very limited upstreams is a majoor step backwards,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291260</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1267182120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that's pretty much it.  It prohibits p2p software that:  is installed without informed consent; tries to prevent the user from blocking installation; tries to prevent the user from disabling/removing once installed.</p><p>It certainly is not prohibiting the user from uninstalling p2p software.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's pretty much it .
It prohibits p2p software that : is installed without informed consent ; tries to prevent the user from blocking installation ; tries to prevent the user from disabling/removing once installed.It certainly is not prohibiting the user from uninstalling p2p software .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's pretty much it.
It prohibits p2p software that:  is installed without informed consent; tries to prevent the user from blocking installation; tries to prevent the user from disabling/removing once installed.It certainly is not prohibiting the user from uninstalling p2p software.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286764</id>
	<title>Huh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267206960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it bad that given the text presented here, I see little to nothing wrong with the proposed law? I haven't read the full text of the proposed bill, but having it say 'Don't install your software without permission' seems like a good thing to me. This could be twisted around to give legal recourse for some malware out there. "I didn't want that file with my information sent to anyone!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it bad that given the text presented here , I see little to nothing wrong with the proposed law ?
I have n't read the full text of the proposed bill , but having it say 'Do n't install your software without permission ' seems like a good thing to me .
This could be twisted around to give legal recourse for some malware out there .
" I did n't want that file with my information sent to anyone !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it bad that given the text presented here, I see little to nothing wrong with the proposed law?
I haven't read the full text of the proposed bill, but having it say 'Don't install your software without permission' seems like a good thing to me.
This could be twisted around to give legal recourse for some malware out there.
"I didn't want that file with my information sent to anyone!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31290362</id>
	<title>This kind of scares me...</title>
	<author>El Fantasmo</author>
	<datestamp>1267177680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This may seem like a somewhat innocuous or beneficial act, but I think it's kind of like the abortion cases, but with muck less attention.  If a law can be passed that says a fetus can be harmed or killed in the womb because it is alive and has the same rights as any other individual, then elective abortion becomes illegal.  Slow down, this isn't about abortion; I'm using it as an example of a slippery slope.  Some simple "restrictive" laws about P2P software and next thing you know legislation only lets us send email w/o media attachments and web traffic will be  1\% residential upload and the RIAA/MPAA is temporarily happy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This may seem like a somewhat innocuous or beneficial act , but I think it 's kind of like the abortion cases , but with muck less attention .
If a law can be passed that says a fetus can be harmed or killed in the womb because it is alive and has the same rights as any other individual , then elective abortion becomes illegal .
Slow down , this is n't about abortion ; I 'm using it as an example of a slippery slope .
Some simple " restrictive " laws about P2P software and next thing you know legislation only lets us send email w/o media attachments and web traffic will be 1 \ % residential upload and the RIAA/MPAA is temporarily happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may seem like a somewhat innocuous or beneficial act, but I think it's kind of like the abortion cases, but with muck less attention.
If a law can be passed that says a fetus can be harmed or killed in the womb because it is alive and has the same rights as any other individual, then elective abortion becomes illegal.
Slow down, this isn't about abortion; I'm using it as an example of a slippery slope.
Some simple "restrictive" laws about P2P software and next thing you know legislation only lets us send email w/o media attachments and web traffic will be  1\% residential upload and the RIAA/MPAA is temporarily happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288792</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267213800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you reading English or what?</p><p>The legislation makes 100\% sense. It is not about all P2P software. It is about software that installs itself stealthily and begins to share stuff automatically.</p><p>For example, if you install P2P software, even some bittorent stuff, this legislation would require such software to NOT SHARE your shit by default. I hope that is in sufficiently plain English?</p><p>The entire legislation is to make it against the law to distribute software that shares anything from user's computer as a default installation. Therefore, if this legislation passes (and it should), either of the following entities become liable for distribution of any questionable material,</p><p>
&nbsp; 1. the software manufacturer - if they do not adhere to the legislation and inform the user what is shared, or,<br>
&nbsp; 2. the user</p><p>The bottom line if software adheres to the legislation and the user is still shares something, the user is 100\% responsible for that distribution. On the other hand, this legislation spells out the minimum requirements on user consent for software manufacturers of P2P capable software. No more underhanded installation of software that automatically shares C:\Movies or whatever.</p><p>A very interesting question is regarding these automatically installed software updaters. The will probably require explicit authorization to install.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you reading English or what ? The legislation makes 100 \ % sense .
It is not about all P2P software .
It is about software that installs itself stealthily and begins to share stuff automatically.For example , if you install P2P software , even some bittorent stuff , this legislation would require such software to NOT SHARE your shit by default .
I hope that is in sufficiently plain English ? The entire legislation is to make it against the law to distribute software that shares anything from user 's computer as a default installation .
Therefore , if this legislation passes ( and it should ) , either of the following entities become liable for distribution of any questionable material ,   1. the software manufacturer - if they do not adhere to the legislation and inform the user what is shared , or ,   2. the userThe bottom line if software adheres to the legislation and the user is still shares something , the user is 100 \ % responsible for that distribution .
On the other hand , this legislation spells out the minimum requirements on user consent for software manufacturers of P2P capable software .
No more underhanded installation of software that automatically shares C : \ Movies or whatever.A very interesting question is regarding these automatically installed software updaters .
The will probably require explicit authorization to install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you reading English or what?The legislation makes 100\% sense.
It is not about all P2P software.
It is about software that installs itself stealthily and begins to share stuff automatically.For example, if you install P2P software, even some bittorent stuff, this legislation would require such software to NOT SHARE your shit by default.
I hope that is in sufficiently plain English?The entire legislation is to make it against the law to distribute software that shares anything from user's computer as a default installation.
Therefore, if this legislation passes (and it should), either of the following entities become liable for distribution of any questionable material,
  1. the software manufacturer - if they do not adhere to the legislation and inform the user what is shared, or,
  2. the userThe bottom line if software adheres to the legislation and the user is still shares something, the user is 100\% responsible for that distribution.
On the other hand, this legislation spells out the minimum requirements on user consent for software manufacturers of P2P capable software.
No more underhanded installation of software that automatically shares C:\Movies or whatever.A very interesting question is regarding these automatically installed software updaters.
The will probably require explicit authorization to install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286820</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1267207140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple, mate. It just means you'll no longer be able to say "OMG! I had no idea that my computer was sharing that movie" in court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple , mate .
It just means you 'll no longer be able to say " OMG !
I had no idea that my computer was sharing that movie " in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple, mate.
It just means you'll no longer be able to say "OMG!
I had no idea that my computer was sharing that movie" in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288836</id>
	<title>Re:Legislate a technical solution.</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1267213980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, I think there's a standard form for this:</p><p><tt>You have proposed a:</tt></p><p><tt>[x] Legislative<br>[ ] Technical<br>[ ] Vigilante</tt></p><p><tt>approach to stopping P2P file sharing.  This will not work because:</tt></p><p><tt>[ ]<nobr> <wbr></nobr></tt>... and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , I think there 's a standard form for this : You have proposed a : [ x ] Legislative [ ] Technical [ ] Vigilanteapproach to stopping P2P file sharing .
This will not work because : [ ] ... and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, I think there's a standard form for this:You have proposed a:[x] Legislative[ ] Technical[ ] Vigilanteapproach to stopping P2P file sharing.
This will not work because:[ ] ... and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287388</id>
	<title>What about roads and inroads</title>
	<author>StillNeedMoreCoffee</author>
	<datestamp>1267209000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well we do peer to peer communications over roads, and telephones and the mail. And illegal activity happens over all of those. They would not shut these down. Make laws to make certain practices illegal yes but shut them down no. Why not? Because they are used by everyone, especially the law makers.  If someone found a way to get these system more integrated into society then they would have the same protections by lawmakers.  Just ask an NRA Senator if anyone should take away his/her gun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well we do peer to peer communications over roads , and telephones and the mail .
And illegal activity happens over all of those .
They would not shut these down .
Make laws to make certain practices illegal yes but shut them down no .
Why not ?
Because they are used by everyone , especially the law makers .
If someone found a way to get these system more integrated into society then they would have the same protections by lawmakers .
Just ask an NRA Senator if anyone should take away his/her gun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well we do peer to peer communications over roads, and telephones and the mail.
And illegal activity happens over all of those.
They would not shut these down.
Make laws to make certain practices illegal yes but shut them down no.
Why not?
Because they are used by everyone, especially the law makers.
If someone found a way to get these system more integrated into society then they would have the same protections by lawmakers.
Just ask an NRA Senator if anyone should take away his/her gun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291184</id>
	<title>Re:This is so stupid my eye is twitching.</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1267181700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's typical for the legislature to justify its full-time existence by passing laws in response to singular high-profile events (usually named after a pathetic victim), and to design the laws to prevent the event from happening by restricting individual freedom.<br> <br> In this case there was a lazy/stupid government employee who leaked information via p2p by sharing his entire drive, so lawmakers respond with a broad law that will result in millions of dollars being spent and the course of history being changed rather than let the one employee be fired (along with any supervisors and IT workers who didn't enforce computer security policies). I'm sure the idea of making all p2p software illegal was brought up, but they probably ran into difficulties coming up with a legal definition that didn't outlaw internet browsers too. Between child porn and terrorist communication it's only a matter of time before they ban it anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's typical for the legislature to justify its full-time existence by passing laws in response to singular high-profile events ( usually named after a pathetic victim ) , and to design the laws to prevent the event from happening by restricting individual freedom .
In this case there was a lazy/stupid government employee who leaked information via p2p by sharing his entire drive , so lawmakers respond with a broad law that will result in millions of dollars being spent and the course of history being changed rather than let the one employee be fired ( along with any supervisors and IT workers who did n't enforce computer security policies ) .
I 'm sure the idea of making all p2p software illegal was brought up , but they probably ran into difficulties coming up with a legal definition that did n't outlaw internet browsers too .
Between child porn and terrorist communication it 's only a matter of time before they ban it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's typical for the legislature to justify its full-time existence by passing laws in response to singular high-profile events (usually named after a pathetic victim), and to design the laws to prevent the event from happening by restricting individual freedom.
In this case there was a lazy/stupid government employee who leaked information via p2p by sharing his entire drive, so lawmakers respond with a broad law that will result in millions of dollars being spent and the course of history being changed rather than let the one employee be fired (along with any supervisors and IT workers who didn't enforce computer security policies).
I'm sure the idea of making all p2p software illegal was brought up, but they probably ran into difficulties coming up with a legal definition that didn't outlaw internet browsers too.
Between child porn and terrorist communication it's only a matter of time before they ban it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287256</id>
	<title>Minus p2p</title>
	<author>Strilanc</author>
	<datestamp>1267208520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you remove 'p2p' from this, it almost makes sense. Not allowing software to stealth-install or block uninstallation? Why isn't that already a law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you remove 'p2p ' from this , it almost makes sense .
Not allowing software to stealth-install or block uninstallation ?
Why is n't that already a law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you remove 'p2p' from this, it almost makes sense.
Not allowing software to stealth-install or block uninstallation?
Why isn't that already a law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288076</id>
	<title>nice to see our legislators hard at work</title>
	<author>Sterculius</author>
	<datestamp>1267211280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, I see.  Well that should work, since after all everyone using P2P is in the United States, and all the P2P software is written in the United States, and certainly there is nobody in the United States who would ever ignore one of our 47 billion laws against everything from chewing gum to brandishing a lint brush.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I see .
Well that should work , since after all everyone using P2P is in the United States , and all the P2P software is written in the United States , and certainly there is nobody in the United States who would ever ignore one of our 47 billion laws against everything from chewing gum to brandishing a lint brush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I see.
Well that should work, since after all everyone using P2P is in the United States, and all the P2P software is written in the United States, and certainly there is nobody in the United States who would ever ignore one of our 47 billion laws against everything from chewing gum to brandishing a lint brush.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289230</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1267215420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to try out D&amp;D online when it went free a couple of months ago but didn't because it's installer is apparently a P2P client and as far as I can see there is no option to download the whole thing instead from a single source. Why should I use my bandwidth to help them install their software on other people's computers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to try out D&amp;D online when it went free a couple of months ago but did n't because it 's installer is apparently a P2P client and as far as I can see there is no option to download the whole thing instead from a single source .
Why should I use my bandwidth to help them install their software on other people 's computers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to try out D&amp;D online when it went free a couple of months ago but didn't because it's installer is apparently a P2P client and as far as I can see there is no option to download the whole thing instead from a single source.
Why should I use my bandwidth to help them install their software on other people's computers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31292904</id>
	<title>Re:How is this bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267191240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't say anything at all about having a computer <i>running</i> such software. See, there's always a loophole somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't say anything at all about having a computer running such software .
See , there 's always a loophole somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't say anything at all about having a computer running such software.
See, there's always a loophole somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>Bagels</author>
	<datestamp>1267207020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Basically, it sounds like there's two things here.  Blocking P2P software that interferes with other P2P software in a malware-esque fashion, and enforcing clear notifications that shared files are, well, <i>shared</i>.  Seems dumb, but a lot of folks out there don't realize that if they share "My Documents," everything from their tax records to their secret porn stash is going to be on the web for all and sundry to download.  This hits home particularly hard for gov't employees, considering some of the sensitive stuff that's leaked through LimeWire and the like over the years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , it sounds like there 's two things here .
Blocking P2P software that interferes with other P2P software in a malware-esque fashion , and enforcing clear notifications that shared files are , well , shared .
Seems dumb , but a lot of folks out there do n't realize that if they share " My Documents , " everything from their tax records to their secret porn stash is going to be on the web for all and sundry to download .
This hits home particularly hard for gov't employees , considering some of the sensitive stuff that 's leaked through LimeWire and the like over the years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, it sounds like there's two things here.
Blocking P2P software that interferes with other P2P software in a malware-esque fashion, and enforcing clear notifications that shared files are, well, shared.
Seems dumb, but a lot of folks out there don't realize that if they share "My Documents," everything from their tax records to their secret porn stash is going to be on the web for all and sundry to download.
This hits home particularly hard for gov't employees, considering some of the sensitive stuff that's leaked through LimeWire and the like over the years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286786</id>
	<title>Stupid....</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1267207020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a legal problem. Laws are not going to fix it, but will make it only harder to deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a legal problem .
Laws are not going to fix it , but will make it only harder to deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a legal problem.
Laws are not going to fix it, but will make it only harder to deal with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288408</id>
	<title>Better version</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1267212360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...would prohibit programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user. The legislation would also prohibit software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of programs and/or disabling or removing any program. Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...would prohibit programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user .
The legislation would also prohibit software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of programs and/or disabling or removing any program .
Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...would prohibit programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.
The legislation would also prohibit software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of programs and/or disabling or removing any program.
Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31290416</id>
	<title>maybe the problem is stupid people using computers</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1267177920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see what the problem is.</p><p>People are stupid if they don't bother to check what the program does that they are installing.   No amount of legislative action is going to change that.</p><p>P2P isn't the problem, shit for brains users are.</p><p>I have a buddy that doesn't pay attention when he installs stuff, so he ends up with toolbars and other crap installed on his computer that I end up fixing.   Or he'll download some game and can't get it working, when all he had to do was read the nfo file.   I'm like wtf, and I get sort of short with him, because he's an idiot, he's been using the computer long enough to know better, but doesn't.</p><p>People need to start thinking for themselves, take it upon themselves to actually read what the programs do, go thru the settings to see if you need to change anything, and quit being lazy.</p><p>Everyone that has their info being shared, deserves it.</p><p>and don't give me crappy excuses like, "someone else installed the program on my machine".  ya, so?  it's your machine, show some control over it.   If you got kids or roommates that use it, give them their own account on it.</p><p>Seriously, peeps need to start using their brains with computers, since the computers aren't doing any thinking for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see what the problem is.People are stupid if they do n't bother to check what the program does that they are installing .
No amount of legislative action is going to change that.P2P is n't the problem , shit for brains users are.I have a buddy that does n't pay attention when he installs stuff , so he ends up with toolbars and other crap installed on his computer that I end up fixing .
Or he 'll download some game and ca n't get it working , when all he had to do was read the nfo file .
I 'm like wtf , and I get sort of short with him , because he 's an idiot , he 's been using the computer long enough to know better , but does n't.People need to start thinking for themselves , take it upon themselves to actually read what the programs do , go thru the settings to see if you need to change anything , and quit being lazy.Everyone that has their info being shared , deserves it.and do n't give me crappy excuses like , " someone else installed the program on my machine " .
ya , so ?
it 's your machine , show some control over it .
If you got kids or roommates that use it , give them their own account on it.Seriously , peeps need to start using their brains with computers , since the computers are n't doing any thinking for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see what the problem is.People are stupid if they don't bother to check what the program does that they are installing.
No amount of legislative action is going to change that.P2P isn't the problem, shit for brains users are.I have a buddy that doesn't pay attention when he installs stuff, so he ends up with toolbars and other crap installed on his computer that I end up fixing.
Or he'll download some game and can't get it working, when all he had to do was read the nfo file.
I'm like wtf, and I get sort of short with him, because he's an idiot, he's been using the computer long enough to know better, but doesn't.People need to start thinking for themselves, take it upon themselves to actually read what the programs do, go thru the settings to see if you need to change anything, and quit being lazy.Everyone that has their info being shared, deserves it.and don't give me crappy excuses like, "someone else installed the program on my machine".
ya, so?
it's your machine, show some control over it.
If you got kids or roommates that use it, give them their own account on it.Seriously, peeps need to start using their brains with computers, since the computers aren't doing any thinking for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288138</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1267211460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So how would P2P software be installed without consent?</p></div><p>If the person doing the installing (such as a corporate or government employee) doesn't have the permission of the computer owner (such as a corporation or government).</p><p>The government doesn't really care about stopping home users from unwittingly sharing their vast collection of Word documents.  It's corporate and government documents they're trying to get a handle on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how would P2P software be installed without consent ? If the person doing the installing ( such as a corporate or government employee ) does n't have the permission of the computer owner ( such as a corporation or government ) .The government does n't really care about stopping home users from unwittingly sharing their vast collection of Word documents .
It 's corporate and government documents they 're trying to get a handle on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how would P2P software be installed without consent?If the person doing the installing (such as a corporate or government employee) doesn't have the permission of the computer owner (such as a corporation or government).The government doesn't really care about stopping home users from unwittingly sharing their vast collection of Word documents.
It's corporate and government documents they're trying to get a handle on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287780</id>
	<title>Think the other way around</title>
	<author>SAN1701</author>
	<datestamp>1267210320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Altough it seems a reasonable, positive, even obvious law, it might also be the first step to make it easier to sue people from sharing. If some dumb user does  unawarely install something in his/her machine, not bothering to read some comprehensive, law-enforced EULA, and share some DMCA-protected content without knowing, seems to me that RIAA lawyers will have a much stronger case against them - that might be the motive they are being specific about P2P programs, and not every junk people put on their machines. IANAL, but it seems to me that "I didn't know these files were being shared" kind of defenses will hold much less under these new provisions, and it's possible this might be the hidden objective of this law. I hope some lawyer here in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., proves me wrong on this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Altough it seems a reasonable , positive , even obvious law , it might also be the first step to make it easier to sue people from sharing .
If some dumb user does unawarely install something in his/her machine , not bothering to read some comprehensive , law-enforced EULA , and share some DMCA-protected content without knowing , seems to me that RIAA lawyers will have a much stronger case against them - that might be the motive they are being specific about P2P programs , and not every junk people put on their machines .
IANAL , but it seems to me that " I did n't know these files were being shared " kind of defenses will hold much less under these new provisions , and it 's possible this might be the hidden objective of this law .
I hope some lawyer here in /. , proves me wrong on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Altough it seems a reasonable, positive, even obvious law, it might also be the first step to make it easier to sue people from sharing.
If some dumb user does  unawarely install something in his/her machine, not bothering to read some comprehensive, law-enforced EULA, and share some DMCA-protected content without knowing, seems to me that RIAA lawyers will have a much stronger case against them - that might be the motive they are being specific about P2P programs, and not every junk people put on their machines.
IANAL, but it seems to me that "I didn't know these files were being shared" kind of defenses will hold much less under these new provisions, and it's possible this might be the hidden objective of this law.
I hope some lawyer here in /., proves me wrong on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288492</id>
	<title>The Internet....</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1267212600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Some part of me thinks if these senators understood how it worked, the Internet wouldn't exist.
</p><p>
This would outlaw Internet Explorer - you actually can use it to share files with other computers.  And it is installed without the owner's consent - by Microsoft, as a part of the OS.
</p><p>
Maybe this isn't a bad law after all.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some part of me thinks if these senators understood how it worked , the Internet would n't exist .
This would outlaw Internet Explorer - you actually can use it to share files with other computers .
And it is installed without the owner 's consent - by Microsoft , as a part of the OS .
Maybe this is n't a bad law after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Some part of me thinks if these senators understood how it worked, the Internet wouldn't exist.
This would outlaw Internet Explorer - you actually can use it to share files with other computers.
And it is installed without the owner's consent - by Microsoft, as a part of the OS.
Maybe this isn't a bad law after all.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289778</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1267174860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are also a bunch of programs that is not so clear about them being P2P. Spotify and Voddler comes to mind, but there are more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are also a bunch of programs that is not so clear about them being P2P .
Spotify and Voddler comes to mind , but there are more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are also a bunch of programs that is not so clear about them being P2P.
Spotify and Voddler comes to mind, but there are more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31297310</id>
	<title>Data Security</title>
	<author>martylafferty</author>
	<datestamp>1267292760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA) supports the statement made by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday, not only with words but also with its actions. The Inadvertent Sharing Protection Working Group (ISPG) is a DCIA-sponsored industry-wide program introduced in July 2008 that has been working with the private sector and FTC staff to address the issues Chairman Leibowitz spoke about in his statement.</p><p>Compliance reports began to be compiled and submitted one year ago from top brands representing implementations of P2P technologies ranging from downloading to live-streaming, from open consumer file-sharing environments to secure corporate intranet deployments, and from user-generated to professionally produced content.</p><p>Representative examples of these are BitTorrent and LimeWire. In the case of BitTorrent and software programs that use BitTorrent, it is unlikely that a user can inadvertently share data because of the multiple intentional steps involved in converting a file to a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.torrent format, uploading it to a tracker, etc. In the case of LimeWire, the company literally rebuilt its software to protect users from accidentally sharing their personal or sensitive data.</p><p>The distributed computing industry takes the safety of consumers very seriously. Once this concern was recognized, it responded proactively.</p><p>The fact remains, however, that the amount of confidential data that is in distribution on the Internet is cumulative. Material that was accidentally disclosed years ago is still floating around. And more recently leaked data is also accessible. The entire focus of ISPG so far has been to shore up the sources of such unintended file uploads in the first place. Removing items that are already in circulation on the web is a problem of a different order of magnitude and one that this group is just starting to investigate.</p><p>The ISPG's best advice now - to parents and children alike - is similar to that given by other Internet software distributors: PLEASE UPGRADE TO THE LATEST VERSION FOR THE BEST PERFORMANCE AND THE SAFEST EXPERIENCE.</p><p>For public and private sector institutions that require workers to handle classified information: PLEASE DISCONNECT YOUR COMPUTER FROM THE INTERNET WHILE WORKING ON HIGH-SECURITY PROJECTS AND REMOVE SENSITIVE DATA FROM YOUR DEVICE BEFORE RECONNECTING.</p><p>Also, along with actively participating in this program, summarized here, the DCIA encourages file-sharing software distributors to direct users to the Onguard Online website pages dedicated to File-Sharing Safety.</p><p>The DCIA was less enthusiastic about news that Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Thune (R-SD) misguidedly introduced legislation on Wednesday "to inform Internet users of the privacy and security risks associated with file-sharing software programs."</p><p>Such measures tend to be technologically outdated before they can be finalized and signed into law, result in unintended consequences that stifle commercial innovation, and prove to be unenforceable given that the Internet is a global medium.</p><p>The industry has moved to address inadvertent uploading of sensitive data by shoring up the entry points in file-sharing software.</p><p>This issue has moved now to institutional policies for managing data securely and to the removal of confidential data already in circulation. Nevertheless, the DCIA will engage with Senate staff to minimize collateral damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Distributed Computing Industry Association ( DCIA ) supports the statement made by the US Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) on Monday , not only with words but also with its actions .
The Inadvertent Sharing Protection Working Group ( ISPG ) is a DCIA-sponsored industry-wide program introduced in July 2008 that has been working with the private sector and FTC staff to address the issues Chairman Leibowitz spoke about in his statement.Compliance reports began to be compiled and submitted one year ago from top brands representing implementations of P2P technologies ranging from downloading to live-streaming , from open consumer file-sharing environments to secure corporate intranet deployments , and from user-generated to professionally produced content.Representative examples of these are BitTorrent and LimeWire .
In the case of BitTorrent and software programs that use BitTorrent , it is unlikely that a user can inadvertently share data because of the multiple intentional steps involved in converting a file to a .torrent format , uploading it to a tracker , etc .
In the case of LimeWire , the company literally rebuilt its software to protect users from accidentally sharing their personal or sensitive data.The distributed computing industry takes the safety of consumers very seriously .
Once this concern was recognized , it responded proactively.The fact remains , however , that the amount of confidential data that is in distribution on the Internet is cumulative .
Material that was accidentally disclosed years ago is still floating around .
And more recently leaked data is also accessible .
The entire focus of ISPG so far has been to shore up the sources of such unintended file uploads in the first place .
Removing items that are already in circulation on the web is a problem of a different order of magnitude and one that this group is just starting to investigate.The ISPG 's best advice now - to parents and children alike - is similar to that given by other Internet software distributors : PLEASE UPGRADE TO THE LATEST VERSION FOR THE BEST PERFORMANCE AND THE SAFEST EXPERIENCE.For public and private sector institutions that require workers to handle classified information : PLEASE DISCONNECT YOUR COMPUTER FROM THE INTERNET WHILE WORKING ON HIGH-SECURITY PROJECTS AND REMOVE SENSITIVE DATA FROM YOUR DEVICE BEFORE RECONNECTING.Also , along with actively participating in this program , summarized here , the DCIA encourages file-sharing software distributors to direct users to the Onguard Online website pages dedicated to File-Sharing Safety.The DCIA was less enthusiastic about news that Senators Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) and John Thune ( R-SD ) misguidedly introduced legislation on Wednesday " to inform Internet users of the privacy and security risks associated with file-sharing software programs .
" Such measures tend to be technologically outdated before they can be finalized and signed into law , result in unintended consequences that stifle commercial innovation , and prove to be unenforceable given that the Internet is a global medium.The industry has moved to address inadvertent uploading of sensitive data by shoring up the entry points in file-sharing software.This issue has moved now to institutional policies for managing data securely and to the removal of confidential data already in circulation .
Nevertheless , the DCIA will engage with Senate staff to minimize collateral damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA) supports the statement made by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday, not only with words but also with its actions.
The Inadvertent Sharing Protection Working Group (ISPG) is a DCIA-sponsored industry-wide program introduced in July 2008 that has been working with the private sector and FTC staff to address the issues Chairman Leibowitz spoke about in his statement.Compliance reports began to be compiled and submitted one year ago from top brands representing implementations of P2P technologies ranging from downloading to live-streaming, from open consumer file-sharing environments to secure corporate intranet deployments, and from user-generated to professionally produced content.Representative examples of these are BitTorrent and LimeWire.
In the case of BitTorrent and software programs that use BitTorrent, it is unlikely that a user can inadvertently share data because of the multiple intentional steps involved in converting a file to a .torrent format, uploading it to a tracker, etc.
In the case of LimeWire, the company literally rebuilt its software to protect users from accidentally sharing their personal or sensitive data.The distributed computing industry takes the safety of consumers very seriously.
Once this concern was recognized, it responded proactively.The fact remains, however, that the amount of confidential data that is in distribution on the Internet is cumulative.
Material that was accidentally disclosed years ago is still floating around.
And more recently leaked data is also accessible.
The entire focus of ISPG so far has been to shore up the sources of such unintended file uploads in the first place.
Removing items that are already in circulation on the web is a problem of a different order of magnitude and one that this group is just starting to investigate.The ISPG's best advice now - to parents and children alike - is similar to that given by other Internet software distributors: PLEASE UPGRADE TO THE LATEST VERSION FOR THE BEST PERFORMANCE AND THE SAFEST EXPERIENCE.For public and private sector institutions that require workers to handle classified information: PLEASE DISCONNECT YOUR COMPUTER FROM THE INTERNET WHILE WORKING ON HIGH-SECURITY PROJECTS AND REMOVE SENSITIVE DATA FROM YOUR DEVICE BEFORE RECONNECTING.Also, along with actively participating in this program, summarized here, the DCIA encourages file-sharing software distributors to direct users to the Onguard Online website pages dedicated to File-Sharing Safety.The DCIA was less enthusiastic about news that Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Thune (R-SD) misguidedly introduced legislation on Wednesday "to inform Internet users of the privacy and security risks associated with file-sharing software programs.
"Such measures tend to be technologically outdated before they can be finalized and signed into law, result in unintended consequences that stifle commercial innovation, and prove to be unenforceable given that the Internet is a global medium.The industry has moved to address inadvertent uploading of sensitive data by shoring up the entry points in file-sharing software.This issue has moved now to institutional policies for managing data securely and to the removal of confidential data already in circulation.
Nevertheless, the DCIA will engage with Senate staff to minimize collateral damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288314</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1267212060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, it sounds like there's two things here.  Blocking P2P software that interferes with other P2P software in a malware-esque fashion, and enforcing clear notifications that shared files are, well, <i>shared</i>.  Seems dumb, but a lot of folks out there don't realize that if they share "My Documents," everything from their tax records to their secret porn stash is going to be on the web for all and sundry to download.  This hits home particularly hard for gov't employees, considering some of the sensitive stuff that's leaked through LimeWire and the like over the years.</p></div><p>If this is spurred by information being unintentionally shared by organisations (gov't offices, companies), then I don't really see how a legislated solution is at all appropriate. Organisations deploy an IT infrastructure, directly or through a 3rd party outsourcing, and have, in the same manner, been in charge of it's operation and integrity.</p><p>Like <em>any</em> software a person installs with access to the Internet, one has to understand the software and, to some extent, trust it. If people are installing P2P software and letting it "Look for files to share" or just share "My Documents", then it's really the users' mistake. If corporate or gov't data is being leaked as a result, it's really the organisations' mistake, whether it be lack of IT training or security.</p><p>I'm automatically suspicious of legislation like this, since I know there's all too often that "not understanding what's being shared" didn't actually come as a result of "not being clearly told what's going to be shared". Many users leaking data through a P2P shared home directory most likely gave informed consent, but just clicked right past that screen as part of the install. Installer steps are important; they often help understand and customise how software is going to run. Not paying heed and regretting it after the fact is a mistake, not something that needs legal subsidy (i.e. protection against incompetence).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , it sounds like there 's two things here .
Blocking P2P software that interferes with other P2P software in a malware-esque fashion , and enforcing clear notifications that shared files are , well , shared .
Seems dumb , but a lot of folks out there do n't realize that if they share " My Documents , " everything from their tax records to their secret porn stash is going to be on the web for all and sundry to download .
This hits home particularly hard for gov't employees , considering some of the sensitive stuff that 's leaked through LimeWire and the like over the years.If this is spurred by information being unintentionally shared by organisations ( gov't offices , companies ) , then I do n't really see how a legislated solution is at all appropriate .
Organisations deploy an IT infrastructure , directly or through a 3rd party outsourcing , and have , in the same manner , been in charge of it 's operation and integrity.Like any software a person installs with access to the Internet , one has to understand the software and , to some extent , trust it .
If people are installing P2P software and letting it " Look for files to share " or just share " My Documents " , then it 's really the users ' mistake .
If corporate or gov't data is being leaked as a result , it 's really the organisations ' mistake , whether it be lack of IT training or security.I 'm automatically suspicious of legislation like this , since I know there 's all too often that " not understanding what 's being shared " did n't actually come as a result of " not being clearly told what 's going to be shared " .
Many users leaking data through a P2P shared home directory most likely gave informed consent , but just clicked right past that screen as part of the install .
Installer steps are important ; they often help understand and customise how software is going to run .
Not paying heed and regretting it after the fact is a mistake , not something that needs legal subsidy ( i.e .
protection against incompetence ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, it sounds like there's two things here.
Blocking P2P software that interferes with other P2P software in a malware-esque fashion, and enforcing clear notifications that shared files are, well, shared.
Seems dumb, but a lot of folks out there don't realize that if they share "My Documents," everything from their tax records to their secret porn stash is going to be on the web for all and sundry to download.
This hits home particularly hard for gov't employees, considering some of the sensitive stuff that's leaked through LimeWire and the like over the years.If this is spurred by information being unintentionally shared by organisations (gov't offices, companies), then I don't really see how a legislated solution is at all appropriate.
Organisations deploy an IT infrastructure, directly or through a 3rd party outsourcing, and have, in the same manner, been in charge of it's operation and integrity.Like any software a person installs with access to the Internet, one has to understand the software and, to some extent, trust it.
If people are installing P2P software and letting it "Look for files to share" or just share "My Documents", then it's really the users' mistake.
If corporate or gov't data is being leaked as a result, it's really the organisations' mistake, whether it be lack of IT training or security.I'm automatically suspicious of legislation like this, since I know there's all too often that "not understanding what's being shared" didn't actually come as a result of "not being clearly told what's going to be shared".
Many users leaking data through a P2P shared home directory most likely gave informed consent, but just clicked right past that screen as part of the install.
Installer steps are important; they often help understand and customise how software is going to run.
Not paying heed and regretting it after the fact is a mistake, not something that needs legal subsidy (i.e.
protection against incompetence).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286864</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1267207260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they are more focused on software that sends out data from the user as opposed to data the user can download.  How many less techincal users understand that the P2P software not only allows them to download stuff but provides their stuff as downloadable by others?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they are more focused on software that sends out data from the user as opposed to data the user can download .
How many less techincal users understand that the P2P software not only allows them to download stuff but provides their stuff as downloadable by others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they are more focused on software that sends out data from the user as opposed to data the user can download.
How many less techincal users understand that the P2P software not only allows them to download stuff but provides their stuff as downloadable by others?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287040</id>
	<title>This is so stupid my eye is twitching.</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1267207800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, I find it hard to believe that it isn't already illegal to surreptitiously install software on someone's computer.  And even more illegal to install software that steals data.</p><p>Second, if that's not already illegal, why are they making a law that only targets one specific type of software?</p><p>Either the entire plan is utterly ignorant or this is a "foot in the door" to outlaw P2P.  Either way, I think our government has more important issues to deal with right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I find it hard to believe that it is n't already illegal to surreptitiously install software on someone 's computer .
And even more illegal to install software that steals data.Second , if that 's not already illegal , why are they making a law that only targets one specific type of software ? Either the entire plan is utterly ignorant or this is a " foot in the door " to outlaw P2P .
Either way , I think our government has more important issues to deal with right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I find it hard to believe that it isn't already illegal to surreptitiously install software on someone's computer.
And even more illegal to install software that steals data.Second, if that's not already illegal, why are they making a law that only targets one specific type of software?Either the entire plan is utterly ignorant or this is a "foot in the door" to outlaw P2P.
Either way, I think our government has more important issues to deal with right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289140</id>
	<title>Why so narrow?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267215000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Change P2P to any other application, and the idea is just as good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program .
Change P2P to any other application , and the idea is just as good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.
Change P2P to any other application, and the idea is just as good.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287254</id>
	<title>Fixing a non-existant problem</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1267208520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>their data is being leaked on P2P networks</p></div></blockquote><p>Because:<br>(a) Someone installed a P2P file-sharing program (deliberately)</p><p>(b) They accidently (or ignorantly) selected a folder to share that contained company data or they didn't specify which folders to share, so everything got shared by default</p><p>Just do a quick Google search and you can find all sorts of stuff that people have exposed to the Internet -- and you don't even have to secretly install any evil P2P software</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>their data is being leaked on P2P networksBecause : ( a ) Someone installed a P2P file-sharing program ( deliberately ) ( b ) They accidently ( or ignorantly ) selected a folder to share that contained company data or they did n't specify which folders to share , so everything got shared by defaultJust do a quick Google search and you can find all sorts of stuff that people have exposed to the Internet -- and you do n't even have to secretly install any evil P2P software</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their data is being leaked on P2P networksBecause:(a) Someone installed a P2P file-sharing program (deliberately)(b) They accidently (or ignorantly) selected a folder to share that contained company data or they didn't specify which folders to share, so everything got shared by defaultJust do a quick Google search and you can find all sorts of stuff that people have exposed to the Internet -- and you don't even have to secretly install any evil P2P software
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286936</id>
	<title>Need for P2P?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267207500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a reason this requires the term p2p and can't just say:</p><p>Programs that are installed on a computer without user consent are illegal.<br>Programs that send information from the user's machine must make it clear exactly what information is being sent.</p><p>Heck, I could get behind this kind of legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a reason this requires the term p2p and ca n't just say : Programs that are installed on a computer without user consent are illegal.Programs that send information from the user 's machine must make it clear exactly what information is being sent.Heck , I could get behind this kind of legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a reason this requires the term p2p and can't just say:Programs that are installed on a computer without user consent are illegal.Programs that send information from the user's machine must make it clear exactly what information is being sent.Heck, I could get behind this kind of legislation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287298</id>
	<title>Re:Why limit it to P2P programs?</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1267208700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As far as I'm concerned they should extend it further. It seems like a
good set of principles, why limit it to programs that communicate across
a network?</p></div><p>Why limit it to sharing files, rather than sharing information? Sending my MAC address to a server shouldn't be hidden.
<br>
<br>
Also, why limit it to "peers" rather than another computer? If software phones home why shouldn't we know what's being sent?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I 'm concerned they should extend it further .
It seems like a good set of principles , why limit it to programs that communicate across a network ? Why limit it to sharing files , rather than sharing information ?
Sending my MAC address to a server should n't be hidden .
Also , why limit it to " peers " rather than another computer ?
If software phones home why should n't we know what 's being sent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I'm concerned they should extend it further.
It seems like a
good set of principles, why limit it to programs that communicate across
a network?Why limit it to sharing files, rather than sharing information?
Sending my MAC address to a server shouldn't be hidden.
Also, why limit it to "peers" rather than another computer?
If software phones home why shouldn't we know what's being sent?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287858</id>
	<title>Re:Why limit it to P2P programs?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1267210560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very agreed -- same thing I was going to post.</p><p><i>would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user. The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.</i></p><p>Just change it to:</p><p><i>would prohibit programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user. The legislation would also prohibit software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a program and/or disabling or removing any program.</i></p><p>As you note, though, this would mean that the oligarchs would not be permitted to control the computers of the serfs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very agreed -- same thing I was going to post.would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user .
The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.Just change it to : would prohibit programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user .
The legislation would also prohibit software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a program and/or disabling or removing any program.As you note , though , this would mean that the oligarchs would not be permitted to control the computers of the serfs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very agreed -- same thing I was going to post.would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.
The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.Just change it to:would prohibit programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.
The legislation would also prohibit software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a program and/or disabling or removing any program.As you note, though, this would mean that the oligarchs would not be permitted to control the computers of the serfs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289324</id>
	<title>Re:How is this bad?</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1267215840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, this seems to be, in general a good start. A lot of programs have P2P components that people aren't aware of and I don't see the problem with requiring those programs to shout "hey, this is P2P and this is what we are sharing with the world". If you're okay with that, you click okay and away you go. I could easily see a situation were a P2P application (or a component of some other application) is installed and the user ends up burning up their data cap without understanding why.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , this seems to be , in general a good start .
A lot of programs have P2P components that people are n't aware of and I do n't see the problem with requiring those programs to shout " hey , this is P2P and this is what we are sharing with the world " .
If you 're okay with that , you click okay and away you go .
I could easily see a situation were a P2P application ( or a component of some other application ) is installed and the user ends up burning up their data cap without understanding why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, this seems to be, in general a good start.
A lot of programs have P2P components that people aren't aware of and I don't see the problem with requiring those programs to shout "hey, this is P2P and this is what we are sharing with the world".
If you're okay with that, you click okay and away you go.
I could easily see a situation were a P2P application (or a component of some other application) is installed and the user ends up burning up their data cap without understanding why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286912</id>
	<title>Re:Legislate a technical solution.</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1267207380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What's next, are we going to legislate against games being installed on workplace computers?</i></p><p>God, I hope so.  I'll change my title to Computer, and file a lawsuit the next time my superiors start playing their little reindeer games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next , are we going to legislate against games being installed on workplace computers ? God , I hope so .
I 'll change my title to Computer , and file a lawsuit the next time my superiors start playing their little reindeer games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next, are we going to legislate against games being installed on workplace computers?God, I hope so.
I'll change my title to Computer, and file a lawsuit the next time my superiors start playing their little reindeer games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287998</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>Jimmy King</author>
	<datestamp>1267211040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  I didn't RTFA, of course, but I did read the summary and the bit quoted in the summary sounds like something that should apply to software in general, not just p2p.  Don't install shit I didn't specifically say I want installed.  Don't stop me from disabling the software once it is installed.  It also sounds like something that will be completely ignored by the sort of people who are causing software to be installed without the user's consent already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I did n't RTFA , of course , but I did read the summary and the bit quoted in the summary sounds like something that should apply to software in general , not just p2p .
Do n't install shit I did n't specifically say I want installed .
Do n't stop me from disabling the software once it is installed .
It also sounds like something that will be completely ignored by the sort of people who are causing software to be installed without the user 's consent already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I didn't RTFA, of course, but I did read the summary and the bit quoted in the summary sounds like something that should apply to software in general, not just p2p.
Don't install shit I didn't specifically say I want installed.
Don't stop me from disabling the software once it is installed.
It also sounds like something that will be completely ignored by the sort of people who are causing software to be installed without the user's consent already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288632</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1267213080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They speak English on What?</p></div><p>No, if they did, anyone could understand what is going on. They speak legalese, the language crafted to assure that everyone is guilty of something... If I can find you guilty of something, there a pretty good chance you'll shut up and go away rather than risk drawing attention to yourself by meddling with my plans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They speak English on What ? No , if they did , anyone could understand what is going on .
They speak legalese , the language crafted to assure that everyone is guilty of something... If I can find you guilty of something , there a pretty good chance you 'll shut up and go away rather than risk drawing attention to yourself by meddling with my plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They speak English on What?No, if they did, anyone could understand what is going on.
They speak legalese, the language crafted to assure that everyone is guilty of something... If I can find you guilty of something, there a pretty good chance you'll shut up and go away rather than risk drawing attention to yourself by meddling with my plans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286770</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>bluewolfcub</author>
	<datestamp>1267206960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the magic ebul p2p software that prevent you installing p2p software...
<br> Maybe they're trying to counteract any possible "but I didn't know it was on my computer" defenses
<br>
Don't know though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the magic ebul p2p software that prevent you installing p2p software.. . Maybe they 're trying to counteract any possible " but I did n't know it was on my computer " defenses Do n't know though : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the magic ebul p2p software that prevent you installing p2p software...
 Maybe they're trying to counteract any possible "but I didn't know it was on my computer" defenses

Don't know though :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31293846</id>
	<title>Retards!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267197660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since it can be argued, that technically EVERYTHING that connects to another computer, sending and receiving data (even if it&rsquo;s just one bit), is a file sharing program, and since the computers are peers, is p2p file sharing, this means that we would have to shut down the whole Internet. All of it.</p><p>And yet another epic fail of combined greed and incompetency. (And laziness / being cattle, of the population.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it can be argued , that technically EVERYTHING that connects to another computer , sending and receiving data ( even if it    s just one bit ) , is a file sharing program , and since the computers are peers , is p2p file sharing , this means that we would have to shut down the whole Internet .
All of it.And yet another epic fail of combined greed and incompetency .
( And laziness / being cattle , of the population .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it can be argued, that technically EVERYTHING that connects to another computer, sending and receiving data (even if it’s just one bit), is a file sharing program, and since the computers are peers, is p2p file sharing, this means that we would have to shut down the whole Internet.
All of it.And yet another epic fail of combined greed and incompetency.
(And laziness / being cattle, of the population.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288392</id>
	<title>Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1267212300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>I don't know. I'm hugely suspicious of this, for two reasons: Congress has a nasty habit of not understanding the technological ramifications of their legislation.</em></p><p>The former Senator and head of the committee in charge of regulating the Internet, Ted Stevens, made this abundantly and very publicly clear to us indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
I 'm hugely suspicious of this , for two reasons : Congress has a nasty habit of not understanding the technological ramifications of their legislation.The former Senator and head of the committee in charge of regulating the Internet , Ted Stevens , made this abundantly and very publicly clear to us indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
I'm hugely suspicious of this, for two reasons: Congress has a nasty habit of not understanding the technological ramifications of their legislation.The former Senator and head of the committee in charge of regulating the Internet, Ted Stevens, made this abundantly and very publicly clear to us indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31290486</id>
	<title>Here's the explanation</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1267178160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's <a href="http://www.offbalance.com/art4.html" title="offbalance.com">quite simple</a> [offbalance.com].</p><p>If you can't read English, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-zR2pM\_S5U" title="youtube.com">here's the audio version</a> [youtube.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite simple [ offbalance.com ] .If you ca n't read English , here 's the audio version [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite simple [offbalance.com].If you can't read English, here's the audio version [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288136</id>
	<title>User accountability</title>
	<author>HydroPhonic</author>
	<datestamp>1267211460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>is what this law tries to ensure. No more users complaining ignorance of what their programs are "making available"... Definitely a boon for *AA organizations....</htmltext>
<tokenext>is what this law tries to ensure .
No more users complaining ignorance of what their programs are " making available " ... Definitely a boon for * AA organizations... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is what this law tries to ensure.
No more users complaining ignorance of what their programs are "making available"... Definitely a boon for *AA organizations....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286828</id>
	<title>Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1267207140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they are legislators. Legislators rarely speak any recognizable language when discussing the law. The longer an individual is in the legislature the worse this becomes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they are legislators .
Legislators rarely speak any recognizable language when discussing the law .
The longer an individual is in the legislature the worse this becomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they are legislators.
Legislators rarely speak any recognizable language when discussing the law.
The longer an individual is in the legislature the worse this becomes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31294684</id>
	<title>Wouldn't this apply to worms too?</title>
	<author>mentil</author>
	<datestamp>1267206420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't read the text of the bill, but wouldn't this apply to worms as well? They pass data from victim to victim (peer to peer) without authorization. I wouldn't want to be liable for violating this law just because my computer was infected with a worm.</p><p>Also I wonder if folding@home and similar programs would also be prohibited from being installed on computers without authorization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the text of the bill , but would n't this apply to worms as well ?
They pass data from victim to victim ( peer to peer ) without authorization .
I would n't want to be liable for violating this law just because my computer was infected with a worm.Also I wonder if folding @ home and similar programs would also be prohibited from being installed on computers without authorization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the text of the bill, but wouldn't this apply to worms as well?
They pass data from victim to victim (peer to peer) without authorization.
I wouldn't want to be liable for violating this law just because my computer was infected with a worm.Also I wonder if folding@home and similar programs would also be prohibited from being installed on computers without authorization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287950</id>
	<title>ANTI P2P??</title>
	<author>zcold</author>
	<datestamp>1267210920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't they really consider ANTI-Internet legislation? I have a hard time believing p2p is the cause of the leaks... More like the internet is the cause...even then.. without the internet, I would still burn discs and pass them to friends and family, who also pass it on... Its going to happen..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't they really consider ANTI-Internet legislation ?
I have a hard time believing p2p is the cause of the leaks... More like the internet is the cause...even then.. without the internet , I would still burn discs and pass them to friends and family , who also pass it on... Its going to happen. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't they really consider ANTI-Internet legislation?
I have a hard time believing p2p is the cause of the leaks... More like the internet is the cause...even then.. without the internet, I would still burn discs and pass them to friends and family, who also pass it on... Its going to happen..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774</id>
	<title>Legislate a technical solution.</title>
	<author>Kuroji</author>
	<datestamp>1267206960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's worked so well in the past, when some idiot is breaking the rules to install some sort of software that they're already not allowed to install...</p><p>What's next, are we going to legislate against games being installed on workplace computers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's worked so well in the past , when some idiot is breaking the rules to install some sort of software that they 're already not allowed to install...What 's next , are we going to legislate against games being installed on workplace computers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's worked so well in the past, when some idiot is breaking the rules to install some sort of software that they're already not allowed to install...What's next, are we going to legislate against games being installed on workplace computers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31292230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31296366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31292904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31290486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1531209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31292230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31296366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31292904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31289480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31286804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31290486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31291184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31288602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1531209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1531209.31287074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
