<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_19_2058240</id>
	<title>YouTube <em>Was</em> Evil, and Google Knew It</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268994840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>pcause writes <i>"Silicon Alley Insider has the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#heres-an-embarrassing-start-jawed-uses-dopey-slang-1">most damning evidence</a> released in the Viacom/YouTube suit. It seems clear from these snippets that YouTube knew it was pirating content, and did it to grow fast and sell for a lot of money. It also seems clear that Google knew the site contained pirated content and bought it and continued the pirating."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pcause writes " Silicon Alley Insider has the most damning evidence released in the Viacom/YouTube suit .
It seems clear from these snippets that YouTube knew it was pirating content , and did it to grow fast and sell for a lot of money .
It also seems clear that Google knew the site contained pirated content and bought it and continued the pirating .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pcause writes "Silicon Alley Insider has the most damning evidence released in the Viacom/YouTube suit.
It seems clear from these snippets that YouTube knew it was pirating content, and did it to grow fast and sell for a lot of money.
It also seems clear that Google knew the site contained pirated content and bought it and continued the pirating.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548188</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1269079920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's worth noting that at the time YouTube was bought there was no equivalent of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid" title="youtube.com">Content ID</a> [youtube.com] technology in use. It prevents people simply re-uploading content that was taken down - Google developed it in-house.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting that at the time YouTube was bought there was no equivalent of the Content ID [ youtube.com ] technology in use .
It prevents people simply re-uploading content that was taken down - Google developed it in-house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting that at the time YouTube was bought there was no equivalent of the Content ID [youtube.com] technology in use.
It prevents people simply re-uploading content that was taken down - Google developed it in-house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545134</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it unlikely that Google considers this evil.</p> </div><p>I suggest you RTFA. There is a quotation there, of one of Google's executives, which specifically says that infringing on someone's copyright, or knowingly aiding in such an infringement, is a violation of the "don't be evil" policy.</p><p>So, yes, the title of the story is spot on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it unlikely that Google considers this evil .
I suggest you RTFA .
There is a quotation there , of one of Google 's executives , which specifically says that infringing on someone 's copyright , or knowingly aiding in such an infringement , is a violation of the " do n't be evil " policy.So , yes , the title of the story is spot on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it unlikely that Google considers this evil.
I suggest you RTFA.
There is a quotation there, of one of Google's executives, which specifically says that infringing on someone's copyright, or knowingly aiding in such an infringement, is a violation of the "don't be evil" policy.So, yes, the title of the story is spot on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547984</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269117480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil.".</p></div><p>Um.... how can you say that everyone who thinks this "isn't evil" would "frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation?"</p><p>I know I sure as hell don't care about either violation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation , then turn around and say stuff like this " is n't evil. " .Um... .
how can you say that everyone who thinks this " is n't evil " would " frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation ?
" I know I sure as hell do n't care about either violation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil.".Um....
how can you say that everyone who thinks this "isn't evil" would "frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation?
"I know I sure as hell don't care about either violation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545660</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1269002640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And with Google in charge, there is a hair-trigger copyrighted material takedown policy.  Things are a lot different now than they were 4 years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And with Google in charge , there is a hair-trigger copyrighted material takedown policy .
Things are a lot different now than they were 4 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And with Google in charge, there is a hair-trigger copyrighted material takedown policy.
Things are a lot different now than they were 4 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546848</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1269013320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So both Viacom and Google uploaded Viacom copyrights without permission to drive traffic for their respective businesses? This shit just keeps getting more and more surreal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So both Viacom and Google uploaded Viacom copyrights without permission to drive traffic for their respective businesses ?
This shit just keeps getting more and more surreal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So both Viacom and Google uploaded Viacom copyrights without permission to drive traffic for their respective businesses?
This shit just keeps getting more and more surreal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545316</id>
	<title>Quality?</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1269000180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was the quality good enough to call it "pirated"?</p><p>I don't remember ever watching an entire commercial show or movie on YouTube.  It has a pretty bad reputation for clip length and resolution, so it's not exactly my first choice for watching, say, The Office.</p><p>Is it for anyone else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was the quality good enough to call it " pirated " ? I do n't remember ever watching an entire commercial show or movie on YouTube .
It has a pretty bad reputation for clip length and resolution , so it 's not exactly my first choice for watching , say , The Office.Is it for anyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was the quality good enough to call it "pirated"?I don't remember ever watching an entire commercial show or movie on YouTube.
It has a pretty bad reputation for clip length and resolution, so it's not exactly my first choice for watching, say, The Office.Is it for anyone else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545052</id>
	<title>Really? REALLY?</title>
	<author>justin12345</author>
	<datestamp>1268998860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, that's even debated? Did anyone honestly believe that the biggest <i>search engine</i> in the world was <i>completely blind</i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's even debated ?
Did anyone honestly believe that the biggest search engine in the world was completely blind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's even debated?
Did anyone honestly believe that the biggest search engine in the world was completely blind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545110</id>
	<title>Fool!</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268999100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you had been privy to the ACTA preceedings, you'd know "evil" has been redefined.  Fools.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had been privy to the ACTA preceedings , you 'd know " evil " has been redefined .
Fools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had been privy to the ACTA preceedings, you'd know "evil" has been redefined.
Fools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549564</id>
	<title>Re:What's more evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269100920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep reading this "copyright is evil" stuff. On food, on medicine, on science, I agree.</p><p>But on entertainment? I can sit down with my guitar and write a song. I can write a poem, a novel, a screenplay. All by myself.</p><p>Since you can do the same, I don't understand why the outrage about not being able to use someone else's creation. No one is stopping you from creating anything, they're just forcing you to be original.</p><p>There has got to be something in the world more important and worthy of such anger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep reading this " copyright is evil " stuff .
On food , on medicine , on science , I agree.But on entertainment ?
I can sit down with my guitar and write a song .
I can write a poem , a novel , a screenplay .
All by myself.Since you can do the same , I do n't understand why the outrage about not being able to use someone else 's creation .
No one is stopping you from creating anything , they 're just forcing you to be original.There has got to be something in the world more important and worthy of such anger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep reading this "copyright is evil" stuff.
On food, on medicine, on science, I agree.But on entertainment?
I can sit down with my guitar and write a song.
I can write a poem, a novel, a screenplay.
All by myself.Since you can do the same, I don't understand why the outrage about not being able to use someone else's creation.
No one is stopping you from creating anything, they're just forcing you to be original.There has got to be something in the world more important and worthy of such anger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547054</id>
	<title>Re:"Evil", maybe... but they were right</title>
	<author>brillow</author>
	<datestamp>1269015660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google should just delist all Viacom internet properties from its search engine.  See how they like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should just delist all Viacom internet properties from its search engine .
See how they like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google should just delist all Viacom internet properties from its search engine.
See how they like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545100</id>
	<title>Youtube is evil</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268999040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just upload videos of me and my friends; they're all from hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just upload videos of me and my friends ; they 're all from hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just upload videos of me and my friends; they're all from hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still waiting for the evil part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still waiting for the evil part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still waiting for the evil part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</id>
	<title>Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it unlikely that Google considers this evil. After all, given their stance toward books and other literature, they seem to think that they have every right to reproduce and host content at their whim.</p><p>This isn't a double standard at work. Google simply believes that it's above the law, and 'evil' can be conveniently redefined to mean whatever suits the company's interests at the time. Don't fall for the feelgood narrative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it unlikely that Google considers this evil .
After all , given their stance toward books and other literature , they seem to think that they have every right to reproduce and host content at their whim.This is n't a double standard at work .
Google simply believes that it 's above the law , and 'evil ' can be conveniently redefined to mean whatever suits the company 's interests at the time .
Do n't fall for the feelgood narrative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it unlikely that Google considers this evil.
After all, given their stance toward books and other literature, they seem to think that they have every right to reproduce and host content at their whim.This isn't a double standard at work.
Google simply believes that it's above the law, and 'evil' can be conveniently redefined to mean whatever suits the company's interests at the time.
Don't fall for the feelgood narrative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545208</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy?</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1268999520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Quit calling it piracy already.</p></div><p>But <i>The Copyright Infringer Bay</i> just doesn't have the same ring to it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit calling it piracy already.But The Copyright Infringer Bay just does n't have the same ring to it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit calling it piracy already.But The Copyright Infringer Bay just doesn't have the same ring to it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545236</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possibly, because you get into areas of "contributory copyright infringement" which took down Napster etc. These emails admit what everyone knew - YouTube was a filesharing site with a thin veneer of social networking.</p><p>If YouTube wasn't owned by an influential firm with deep pockets, its almost certain they would have been sued off the net years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly , because you get into areas of " contributory copyright infringement " which took down Napster etc .
These emails admit what everyone knew - YouTube was a filesharing site with a thin veneer of social networking.If YouTube was n't owned by an influential firm with deep pockets , its almost certain they would have been sued off the net years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly, because you get into areas of "contributory copyright infringement" which took down Napster etc.
These emails admit what everyone knew - YouTube was a filesharing site with a thin veneer of social networking.If YouTube wasn't owned by an influential firm with deep pockets, its almost certain they would have been sued off the net years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547234</id>
	<title>Re:What's more evil?</title>
	<author>Siker</author>
	<datestamp>1269018240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't have the right to ignore laws you don't agree with.</p><p>Sorry</p></div><p>Only in a literal sense. You don't "have the right" to ignore a law - that's just by definition of a law. He was talking about what's evil, not what's lawful. In fact, without even taking a stance on whether this particular law is evil or not, I think we could safely say that following an evil law may in itself be evil.</p><p>Some will say these copyright laws harm our cultural wellbeing. With or without a 'right' to do so, I can see how some would say the morally correct action is civil disobedience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have the right to ignore laws you do n't agree with.SorryOnly in a literal sense .
You do n't " have the right " to ignore a law - that 's just by definition of a law .
He was talking about what 's evil , not what 's lawful .
In fact , without even taking a stance on whether this particular law is evil or not , I think we could safely say that following an evil law may in itself be evil.Some will say these copyright laws harm our cultural wellbeing .
With or without a 'right ' to do so , I can see how some would say the morally correct action is civil disobedience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have the right to ignore laws you don't agree with.SorryOnly in a literal sense.
You don't "have the right" to ignore a law - that's just by definition of a law.
He was talking about what's evil, not what's lawful.
In fact, without even taking a stance on whether this particular law is evil or not, I think we could safely say that following an evil law may in itself be evil.Some will say these copyright laws harm our cultural wellbeing.
With or without a 'right' to do so, I can see how some would say the morally correct action is civil disobedience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545212</id>
	<title>damm youtube</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for creating a global repository for audio/visual culture spanning every single country on this marble, people said they could never deliver the bandwidth but amazingly they did</p><p>Viacom is just pissed that their content is no more popular than cat videos filmed with a mobile phone hence they have to employ marketing agencies just to get the views they do</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for creating a global repository for audio/visual culture spanning every single country on this marble , people said they could never deliver the bandwidth but amazingly they didViacom is just pissed that their content is no more popular than cat videos filmed with a mobile phone hence they have to employ marketing agencies just to get the views they do</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for creating a global repository for audio/visual culture spanning every single country on this marble, people said they could never deliver the bandwidth but amazingly they didViacom is just pissed that their content is no more popular than cat videos filmed with a mobile phone hence they have to employ marketing agencies just to get the views they do</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546224</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269006600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil."</p></div><p>This is completely consistent with the following position:</p><p>"Copyright should not exist.  All users should have access to the source code of their software; this right should be protected by a separate law."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation , then turn around and say stuff like this " is n't evil .
" This is completely consistent with the following position : " Copyright should not exist .
All users should have access to the source code of their software ; this right should be protected by a separate law .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil.
"This is completely consistent with the following position:"Copyright should not exist.
All users should have access to the source code of their software; this right should be protected by a separate law.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548472</id>
	<title>Re:Google is our friend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269086280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't think people's opinion of Google would change if they installed an application that uploaded to their servers anything that contained the word "copyright" in it and they then sold access to these gathered files</i></p><p>That's because you're a fucking idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think people 's opinion of Google would change if they installed an application that uploaded to their servers anything that contained the word " copyright " in it and they then sold access to these gathered filesThat 's because you 're a fucking idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think people's opinion of Google would change if they installed an application that uploaded to their servers anything that contained the word "copyright" in it and they then sold access to these gathered filesThat's because you're a fucking idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074</id>
	<title>Piracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? I didn't realize that YouTube (and Google) was illegally taking physical goods from ships at sea.</p><p>No, what YouTube (and Google) was allegedly involved in was gross copyright infringement. Quit calling it piracy already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I did n't realize that YouTube ( and Google ) was illegally taking physical goods from ships at sea.No , what YouTube ( and Google ) was allegedly involved in was gross copyright infringement .
Quit calling it piracy already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I didn't realize that YouTube (and Google) was illegally taking physical goods from ships at sea.No, what YouTube (and Google) was allegedly involved in was gross copyright infringement.
Quit calling it piracy already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545338</id>
	<title>[citation needed]</title>
	<author>aBaldrich</author>
	<datestamp>1269000300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>pirate == bad?<br>The law is not 'fair'. It can be changed. It <i>should</i> be changed.<br> <br>"Don't be evil" =! "Be legal"</htmltext>
<tokenext>pirate = = bad ? The law is not 'fair' .
It can be changed .
It should be changed .
" Do n't be evil " = !
" Be legal "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pirate == bad?The law is not 'fair'.
It can be changed.
It should be changed.
"Don't be evil" =!
"Be legal"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546068</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>jjo</author>
	<datestamp>1269005220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is silly.  Google's worst sin is that when the copyright holder cannot be found, it wants to be able to index the material, subject to a veto from the copyright holders, if they show up.  Ridiculously long copyright terms produce their own sort of evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is silly .
Google 's worst sin is that when the copyright holder can not be found , it wants to be able to index the material , subject to a veto from the copyright holders , if they show up .
Ridiculously long copyright terms produce their own sort of evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is silly.
Google's worst sin is that when the copyright holder cannot be found, it wants to be able to index the material, subject to a veto from the copyright holders, if they show up.
Ridiculously long copyright terms produce their own sort of evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546330</id>
	<title>Re:What's more evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That inconvenient 'owner of the copyright' is in the majority of cases the writer, cartoonist, artist, musician, etc whose days, evenings, weekends for months and years was given over to that work. Though their interests hardly get a mention. But if the \_government\_ came along and appropriated the fruit of ordinary peoples' work for the social good, there'd be great howls and screams of 'socialism!'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That inconvenient 'owner of the copyright ' is in the majority of cases the writer , cartoonist , artist , musician , etc whose days , evenings , weekends for months and years was given over to that work .
Though their interests hardly get a mention .
But if the \ _government \ _ came along and appropriated the fruit of ordinary peoples ' work for the social good , there 'd be great howls and screams of 'socialism !
' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That inconvenient 'owner of the copyright' is in the majority of cases the writer, cartoonist, artist, musician, etc whose days, evenings, weekends for months and years was given over to that work.
Though their interests hardly get a mention.
But if the \_government\_ came along and appropriated the fruit of ordinary peoples' work for the social good, there'd be great howls and screams of 'socialism!
'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462</id>
	<title>Yes, Piracy</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1269001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Quit calling it piracy already.</i></p><p>It's piracy. Get over it.  The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.</p><p>Language grows. "Hacker" used to mean a really bad golfer.  And "Geeks" bit the heads off chickens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit calling it piracy already.It 's piracy .
Get over it .
The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh 's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.Language grows .
" Hacker " used to mean a really bad golfer .
And " Geeks " bit the heads off chickens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit calling it piracy already.It's piracy.
Get over it.
The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.Language grows.
"Hacker" used to mean a really bad golfer.
And "Geeks" bit the heads off chickens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550704</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269111900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>=P<br> <br>

I have no opinion as to who is right in this case.  I just wanted to say that the ARTICLE sucked and was VERY biased.<br> <br>

I would agree to  mdwh2's (535323) post that most of the other examples appeared to be pointless bits of text as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>= P I have no opinion as to who is right in this case .
I just wanted to say that the ARTICLE sucked and was VERY biased .
I would agree to mdwh2 's ( 535323 ) post that most of the other examples appeared to be pointless bits of text as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>=P 

I have no opinion as to who is right in this case.
I just wanted to say that the ARTICLE sucked and was VERY biased.
I would agree to  mdwh2's (535323) post that most of the other examples appeared to be pointless bits of text as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545280</id>
	<title>Even more damning</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1268999880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think if they search harder, they may find that as a search engine, google indexed pages about <b>piracy, hate speech, and terrorism</b>.  How evil is that?<br> <br>

Don't get me started about the PHONE COMPANY.  They carry all sorts of damnable content.  I've heard copyrighted music over a phone, before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if they search harder , they may find that as a search engine , google indexed pages about piracy , hate speech , and terrorism .
How evil is that ?
Do n't get me started about the PHONE COMPANY .
They carry all sorts of damnable content .
I 've heard copyrighted music over a phone , before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if they search harder, they may find that as a search engine, google indexed pages about piracy, hate speech, and terrorism.
How evil is that?
Don't get me started about the PHONE COMPANY.
They carry all sorts of damnable content.
I've heard copyrighted music over a phone, before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547906</id>
	<title>GPL: the anti-copyright</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1269116040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others. Violating that is absolutely inexcusable. It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil."</p></div><p>If they believe in <i>sharing information</i>, wouldn't you expect them to support licenses like the GPL that promote sharing and oppose proprietary licenses that don't?</p><p>Personally, I only care about the GPL as a means to an end: promoting the free exchange and improvement of software. Copyright law takes away the ability to do that, and the GPL gives it back. But it's only necessary, and deserving of respect, to the extent that copyright law is taking that ability away in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under , and I respect the licenses chosen by others .
Violating that is absolutely inexcusable .
It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation , then turn around and say stuff like this " is n't evil .
" If they believe in sharing information , would n't you expect them to support licenses like the GPL that promote sharing and oppose proprietary licenses that do n't ? Personally , I only care about the GPL as a means to an end : promoting the free exchange and improvement of software .
Copyright law takes away the ability to do that , and the GPL gives it back .
But it 's only necessary , and deserving of respect , to the extent that copyright law is taking that ability away in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others.
Violating that is absolutely inexcusable.
It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil.
"If they believe in sharing information, wouldn't you expect them to support licenses like the GPL that promote sharing and oppose proprietary licenses that don't?Personally, I only care about the GPL as a means to an end: promoting the free exchange and improvement of software.
Copyright law takes away the ability to do that, and the GPL gives it back.
But it's only necessary, and deserving of respect, to the extent that copyright law is taking that ability away in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546952</id>
	<title>It's the DMCA</title>
	<author>bjourne</author>
	<datestamp>1269014520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway, would I really scream bloody murder over an ftp site that knew people were uploading stuff that violated the GPL, but decided not to care and just act as a neutral hosting service until a GPL software copyright holder contacted them? Even if the decision was made because "neutrality" benefited them? No, not really. I'd be pissed at the one who stripped the GPL notice off in the first place. Not the ftp site that decided not to get involved in the fight and just serve as an ftp site.</p></div><p>You can not compare YouTube which is making seriously lots of money to a random dump site. The comparison is faulty. Instead, compare it to PirateBay who was making just a little bit of money without hosting copyright infringements and just linking to it. They got sued and lost according to Swedish law and google would too if it was based in Sweden.</p><p>But in the US, they have the DMCA and the safe harbor provisions. Basically as long as they remove content copyright holders complain about, they don't have any lawsuit to fear. Since the onus is on the copyright holder to locate and file DMCA take-down notices, a lot of copyrighted material can stay up for a long time. And whoever is hosting it has ample time to profit from it.</p><p>YouTube is not alone in this. Basically every video site on the net hides behind that same safe harbour clause. Take all the porn tube sites for example. Their story is that their users upload movie scenes which they merely publish in low resolution. Then they make profit by enticing users to pay for subscriptions so that they can download high quality videos. Except it isn't users that upload videos, it is the site administrators themselves posing as users. Those who *do* rip and upload videos, uploads them to torrent networks, why would they even bother with porn tube sites?</p><p>There are sites showing Lost episodes, The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, Terminator Chronicles, Desperate Housewives etc. They all operate the same way and are all legal according to US law because of the DMCA. Whether taking advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provision is "evil" or not is not a relevant question, but it is understandable why every copyright holder in the movie industry whats that law changed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , would I really scream bloody murder over an ftp site that knew people were uploading stuff that violated the GPL , but decided not to care and just act as a neutral hosting service until a GPL software copyright holder contacted them ?
Even if the decision was made because " neutrality " benefited them ?
No , not really .
I 'd be pissed at the one who stripped the GPL notice off in the first place .
Not the ftp site that decided not to get involved in the fight and just serve as an ftp site.You can not compare YouTube which is making seriously lots of money to a random dump site .
The comparison is faulty .
Instead , compare it to PirateBay who was making just a little bit of money without hosting copyright infringements and just linking to it .
They got sued and lost according to Swedish law and google would too if it was based in Sweden.But in the US , they have the DMCA and the safe harbor provisions .
Basically as long as they remove content copyright holders complain about , they do n't have any lawsuit to fear .
Since the onus is on the copyright holder to locate and file DMCA take-down notices , a lot of copyrighted material can stay up for a long time .
And whoever is hosting it has ample time to profit from it.YouTube is not alone in this .
Basically every video site on the net hides behind that same safe harbour clause .
Take all the porn tube sites for example .
Their story is that their users upload movie scenes which they merely publish in low resolution .
Then they make profit by enticing users to pay for subscriptions so that they can download high quality videos .
Except it is n't users that upload videos , it is the site administrators themselves posing as users .
Those who * do * rip and upload videos , uploads them to torrent networks , why would they even bother with porn tube sites ? There are sites showing Lost episodes , The Simpsons , Futurama , Family Guy , Terminator Chronicles , Desperate Housewives etc .
They all operate the same way and are all legal according to US law because of the DMCA .
Whether taking advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provision is " evil " or not is not a relevant question , but it is understandable why every copyright holder in the movie industry whats that law changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, would I really scream bloody murder over an ftp site that knew people were uploading stuff that violated the GPL, but decided not to care and just act as a neutral hosting service until a GPL software copyright holder contacted them?
Even if the decision was made because "neutrality" benefited them?
No, not really.
I'd be pissed at the one who stripped the GPL notice off in the first place.
Not the ftp site that decided not to get involved in the fight and just serve as an ftp site.You can not compare YouTube which is making seriously lots of money to a random dump site.
The comparison is faulty.
Instead, compare it to PirateBay who was making just a little bit of money without hosting copyright infringements and just linking to it.
They got sued and lost according to Swedish law and google would too if it was based in Sweden.But in the US, they have the DMCA and the safe harbor provisions.
Basically as long as they remove content copyright holders complain about, they don't have any lawsuit to fear.
Since the onus is on the copyright holder to locate and file DMCA take-down notices, a lot of copyrighted material can stay up for a long time.
And whoever is hosting it has ample time to profit from it.YouTube is not alone in this.
Basically every video site on the net hides behind that same safe harbour clause.
Take all the porn tube sites for example.
Their story is that their users upload movie scenes which they merely publish in low resolution.
Then they make profit by enticing users to pay for subscriptions so that they can download high quality videos.
Except it isn't users that upload videos, it is the site administrators themselves posing as users.
Those who *do* rip and upload videos, uploads them to torrent networks, why would they even bother with porn tube sites?There are sites showing Lost episodes, The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, Terminator Chronicles, Desperate Housewives etc.
They all operate the same way and are all legal according to US law because of the DMCA.
Whether taking advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provision is "evil" or not is not a relevant question, but it is understandable why every copyright holder in the movie industry whats that law changed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545646</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269002520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  This is nothing more than Viacom desperately trying to spin against the release Youtube made yesterday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
This is nothing more than Viacom desperately trying to spin against the release Youtube made yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
This is nothing more than Viacom desperately trying to spin against the release Youtube made yesterday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550066</id>
	<title>"evil" for values of evil</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269106800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that have been misclassified, and are actually good</p><p>the overriding moral challenge facing us is exactly how hard we can financially damage media companies, with the goal of their dissolution and destruction</p><p>in punishment for sponsoring onerous copyright laws which impoverish our culture and weaken our commitments to protecting liberty and freedom</p><p>fuck you viacom</p><p>we will pirate you all to death</p><p>death to ip law</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that have been misclassified , and are actually goodthe overriding moral challenge facing us is exactly how hard we can financially damage media companies , with the goal of their dissolution and destructionin punishment for sponsoring onerous copyright laws which impoverish our culture and weaken our commitments to protecting liberty and freedomfuck you viacomwe will pirate you all to deathdeath to ip law</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that have been misclassified, and are actually goodthe overriding moral challenge facing us is exactly how hard we can financially damage media companies, with the goal of their dissolution and destructionin punishment for sponsoring onerous copyright laws which impoverish our culture and weaken our commitments to protecting liberty and freedomfuck you viacomwe will pirate you all to deathdeath to ip law</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1268999640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The word "evil" is actually used (as in the context of "I don't care how evil we have to be, just do it") in the emails and instant messaging transcripts disclosed in TFA. Other choice expressions include "fucking copyright assholes" and "we don't actually care, we're just doing this to avoid being sued." I'm an open source software author myself (reference <a href="http://www.rpush.org/" title="rpush.org">rpush.org</a> [rpush.org], among other things), and I choose to license my stuff quite liberally. However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others. Violating that is absolutely inexcusable. It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil."<br> <br>

If <b>ever</b> there were a case for RTFA, this is surely it. I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full. Other mods, please mod parent down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word " evil " is actually used ( as in the context of " I do n't care how evil we have to be , just do it " ) in the emails and instant messaging transcripts disclosed in TFA .
Other choice expressions include " fucking copyright assholes " and " we do n't actually care , we 're just doing this to avoid being sued .
" I 'm an open source software author myself ( reference rpush.org [ rpush.org ] , among other things ) , and I choose to license my stuff quite liberally .
However , I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under , and I respect the licenses chosen by others .
Violating that is absolutely inexcusable .
It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation , then turn around and say stuff like this " is n't evil .
" If ever there were a case for RTFA , this is surely it .
I would have modded you down , but felt it was better to respond in full .
Other mods , please mod parent down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word "evil" is actually used (as in the context of "I don't care how evil we have to be, just do it") in the emails and instant messaging transcripts disclosed in TFA.
Other choice expressions include "fucking copyright assholes" and "we don't actually care, we're just doing this to avoid being sued.
" I'm an open source software author myself (reference rpush.org [rpush.org], among other things), and I choose to license my stuff quite liberally.
However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others.
Violating that is absolutely inexcusable.
It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil.
" 

If ever there were a case for RTFA, this is surely it.
I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full.
Other mods, please mod parent down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545822</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>winthrop</author>
	<datestamp>1269003600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil."</p></div><p>Not everyone shares the same motivation / principles you do.  If your principle is: "respect the author's stated wishes", then it would seem hypocritical to complain about GPL violations but not other copyright infringement.  If your principle is: people should be allowed to copy everything freely, it's perfectly consistent to not complain about people infringing copyright in a way that facilitates further copying, but to complain about people infringing copyright in a way that makes further copying more difficult.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation , then turn around and say stuff like this " is n't evil .
" Not everyone shares the same motivation / principles you do .
If your principle is : " respect the author 's stated wishes " , then it would seem hypocritical to complain about GPL violations but not other copyright infringement .
If your principle is : people should be allowed to copy everything freely , it 's perfectly consistent to not complain about people infringing copyright in a way that facilitates further copying , but to complain about people infringing copyright in a way that makes further copying more difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil.
"Not everyone shares the same motivation / principles you do.
If your principle is: "respect the author's stated wishes", then it would seem hypocritical to complain about GPL violations but not other copyright infringement.
If your principle is: people should be allowed to copy everything freely, it's perfectly consistent to not complain about people infringing copyright in a way that facilitates further copying, but to complain about people infringing copyright in a way that makes further copying more difficult.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545118</id>
	<title>Article by our correspondent, Captain Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It also seems clear that Google knew the site contained pirated content</p></div><p>Well, yeah, it seems likely that they had in fact heard of YouTube before buying it and therefore knew that it contained pirated content. I think you need a little bit more than that to hang them or else the trial is going to be very very short.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also seems clear that Google knew the site contained pirated contentWell , yeah , it seems likely that they had in fact heard of YouTube before buying it and therefore knew that it contained pirated content .
I think you need a little bit more than that to hang them or else the trial is going to be very very short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also seems clear that Google knew the site contained pirated contentWell, yeah, it seems likely that they had in fact heard of YouTube before buying it and therefore knew that it contained pirated content.
I think you need a little bit more than that to hang them or else the trial is going to be very very short.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545154</id>
	<title>Nope</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1268999220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You tube ans its employees were the only ones on earth not aware of the stolen content. Oh, and Googlers too.</p><p>Next scoop: bittorrent creator WAS aware of copyrighted content being shared via his protocol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You tube ans its employees were the only ones on earth not aware of the stolen content .
Oh , and Googlers too.Next scoop : bittorrent creator WAS aware of copyrighted content being shared via his protocol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You tube ans its employees were the only ones on earth not aware of the stolen content.
Oh, and Googlers too.Next scoop: bittorrent creator WAS aware of copyrighted content being shared via his protocol.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545036</id>
	<title>Safe Harbor</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1268998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ethical status of doing all this notwithstanding, and especially \_knowingly\_ relying on it as part of one's business plan, it would appear that Youtube had safe harbor to do all this under the online copyright liability limitations enacted as part of the DMCA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ethical status of doing all this notwithstanding , and especially \ _knowingly \ _ relying on it as part of one 's business plan , it would appear that Youtube had safe harbor to do all this under the online copyright liability limitations enacted as part of the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ethical status of doing all this notwithstanding, and especially \_knowingly\_ relying on it as part of one's business plan, it would appear that Youtube had safe harbor to do all this under the online copyright liability limitations enacted as part of the DMCA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547060</id>
	<title>Boohoo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are *gasp* copyrighted videos on Youtube?!</p><p>Seriously, are you Slashdotters actually raging over this or is today copyright trolling day?</p><p>Fuck copyright. And hopefully, Youtube will continue to provide news clips* and whatnot for years to come.</p><p>* FTFA</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In a July 10, 2005 email to YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim reported that he had found a "copyright video" and stated: "Ordinarily I'd say reject it, but I agree with Steve, let's ease up on our strict policies for now. So let's just <b>leave copyrighted stuff there if it's news clips</b>. I still think we should reject some other (C) things tho..."; Chad Hurley replied, "ok man, save your meal money for some lawsuits!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) no really, I guess we'll just see what happens.""</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are * gasp * copyrighted videos on Youtube ?
! Seriously , are you Slashdotters actually raging over this or is today copyright trolling day ? Fuck copyright .
And hopefully , Youtube will continue to provide news clips * and whatnot for years to come .
* FTFAIn a July 10 , 2005 email to YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen , YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim reported that he had found a " copyright video " and stated : " Ordinarily I 'd say reject it , but I agree with Steve , let 's ease up on our strict policies for now .
So let 's just leave copyrighted stuff there if it 's news clips .
I still think we should reject some other ( C ) things tho... " ; Chad Hurley replied , " ok man , save your meal money for some lawsuits !
; ) no really , I guess we 'll just see what happens .
" "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are *gasp* copyrighted videos on Youtube?
!Seriously, are you Slashdotters actually raging over this or is today copyright trolling day?Fuck copyright.
And hopefully, Youtube will continue to provide news clips* and whatnot for years to come.
* FTFAIn a July 10, 2005 email to YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim reported that he had found a "copyright video" and stated: "Ordinarily I'd say reject it, but I agree with Steve, let's ease up on our strict policies for now.
So let's just leave copyrighted stuff there if it's news clips.
I still think we should reject some other (C) things tho..."; Chad Hurley replied, "ok man, save your meal money for some lawsuits!
;) no really, I guess we'll just see what happens.
""
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546790</id>
	<title>Re:What's more evil?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1269012900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have the right to ignore laws you don't agree with.</p><p>Sorry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have the right to ignore laws you do n't agree with.Sorry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have the right to ignore laws you don't agree with.Sorry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547126</id>
	<title>Re:What's more evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why doing lunch counter sit ins was immoral, correct?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why doing lunch counter sit ins was immoral , correct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why doing lunch counter sit ins was immoral, correct?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545752</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269003180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others. Violating that is absolutely inexcusable. It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil."</i></p><p><i>If ever there were a case for RTFA, this is surely it. </i></p><p>Okay I did, and the only truly Evil part was where that Jawed guy was actually posting copyrighted videos himself to drive hits, and the other founders told him to knock it off.  As they should have, because that just sucks.</p><p>The rest is basically them making a conscious decision to not care that a lot of user-uploaded videos were copyrighted, and to put the onus on the copyright holder to send them take down notices.</p><p>I get your point about the GPL.  I too see a lot of hypocrisy in attitudes on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., though I do understand it has a lot to do with the very human notion that we don't care as much about doing evil to evil people.  It may not be <i>just</i>, but it's human.</p><p>Anyway, would I really scream bloody murder over an <i>ftp site</i> that knew people were uploading stuff that violated the GPL, but decided not to care and just act as a neutral hosting service until a GPL software copyright holder contacted them?  Even if the decision was made because "neutrality" benefited them?  No, not really.  I'd be pissed at the one who stripped the GPL notice off in the first place.  Not the ftp site that decided not to get involved in the fight and just serve as an ftp site.</p><p>So yeah. Youtube was aware that copyrighted material appeared on their servers.  As if there's anyone on earth who was <i>not</i> aware.  So what?  I'm not seeing the "evil" until they either start ignoring take down notices (which they haven't) or start actively engaging in violations themselves (Which they apparently did at one point and which may end up getting them/google nailed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under , and I respect the licenses chosen by others .
Violating that is absolutely inexcusable .
It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation , then turn around and say stuff like this " is n't evil .
" If ever there were a case for RTFA , this is surely it .
Okay I did , and the only truly Evil part was where that Jawed guy was actually posting copyrighted videos himself to drive hits , and the other founders told him to knock it off .
As they should have , because that just sucks.The rest is basically them making a conscious decision to not care that a lot of user-uploaded videos were copyrighted , and to put the onus on the copyright holder to send them take down notices.I get your point about the GPL .
I too see a lot of hypocrisy in attitudes on /. , though I do understand it has a lot to do with the very human notion that we do n't care as much about doing evil to evil people .
It may not be just , but it 's human.Anyway , would I really scream bloody murder over an ftp site that knew people were uploading stuff that violated the GPL , but decided not to care and just act as a neutral hosting service until a GPL software copyright holder contacted them ?
Even if the decision was made because " neutrality " benefited them ?
No , not really .
I 'd be pissed at the one who stripped the GPL notice off in the first place .
Not the ftp site that decided not to get involved in the fight and just serve as an ftp site.So yeah .
Youtube was aware that copyrighted material appeared on their servers .
As if there 's anyone on earth who was not aware .
So what ?
I 'm not seeing the " evil " until they either start ignoring take down notices ( which they have n't ) or start actively engaging in violations themselves ( Which they apparently did at one point and which may end up getting them/google nailed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others.
Violating that is absolutely inexcusable.
It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil.
"If ever there were a case for RTFA, this is surely it.
Okay I did, and the only truly Evil part was where that Jawed guy was actually posting copyrighted videos himself to drive hits, and the other founders told him to knock it off.
As they should have, because that just sucks.The rest is basically them making a conscious decision to not care that a lot of user-uploaded videos were copyrighted, and to put the onus on the copyright holder to send them take down notices.I get your point about the GPL.
I too see a lot of hypocrisy in attitudes on /., though I do understand it has a lot to do with the very human notion that we don't care as much about doing evil to evil people.
It may not be just, but it's human.Anyway, would I really scream bloody murder over an ftp site that knew people were uploading stuff that violated the GPL, but decided not to care and just act as a neutral hosting service until a GPL software copyright holder contacted them?
Even if the decision was made because "neutrality" benefited them?
No, not really.
I'd be pissed at the one who stripped the GPL notice off in the first place.
Not the ftp site that decided not to get involved in the fight and just serve as an ftp site.So yeah.
Youtube was aware that copyrighted material appeared on their servers.
As if there's anyone on earth who was not aware.
So what?
I'm not seeing the "evil" until they either start ignoring take down notices (which they haven't) or start actively engaging in violations themselves (Which they apparently did at one point and which may end up getting them/google nailed).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550134</id>
	<title>Good thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that those very same a*holes apparently never heard of cover bands, given that one comment in the slideshow about performing a copyrighted song still being an infringement...</p><p>There used to be an EXTREMELY good cover band here several years ago...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and I've heard some pretty shit ones as well, but most are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that those very same a * holes apparently never heard of cover bands , given that one comment in the slideshow about performing a copyrighted song still being an infringement...There used to be an EXTREMELY good cover band here several years ago... ...and I 've heard some pretty shit ones as well , but most are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that those very same a*holes apparently never heard of cover bands, given that one comment in the slideshow about performing a copyrighted song still being an infringement...There used to be an EXTREMELY good cover band here several years ago... ...and I've heard some pretty shit ones as well, but most are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340</id>
	<title>What's more evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269000360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what's evil?  Copyright term of "70 years + life of the author".<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_term" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_term</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Almost every single thing creative that someone creates today will *never* enter the public domain within our lifetime.  Nothing.  The owner of the copyright must explicitly grant it to the public domain, or license it for other's use, distribution, sharing, mashing, basically anything more than fair use...  Copyright is no longer about promotion of creativity, its a legal exclusivity and an effectively permanent lock on all creative output by business interests.  Add WIPO and ACTA and soon within 10 years or so, it will be a global exclusive lock, again driven by business interests.</p><p>The current copyright laws are simply a denial of any sense of balance or social good in intellectual property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what 's evil ?
Copyright term of " 70 years + life of the author " .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright \ _term [ wikipedia.org ] Almost every single thing creative that someone creates today will * never * enter the public domain within our lifetime .
Nothing. The owner of the copyright must explicitly grant it to the public domain , or license it for other 's use , distribution , sharing , mashing , basically anything more than fair use... Copyright is no longer about promotion of creativity , its a legal exclusivity and an effectively permanent lock on all creative output by business interests .
Add WIPO and ACTA and soon within 10 years or so , it will be a global exclusive lock , again driven by business interests.The current copyright laws are simply a denial of any sense of balance or social good in intellectual property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what's evil?
Copyright term of "70 years + life of the author".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_term [wikipedia.org]Almost every single thing creative that someone creates today will *never* enter the public domain within our lifetime.
Nothing.  The owner of the copyright must explicitly grant it to the public domain, or license it for other's use, distribution, sharing, mashing, basically anything more than fair use...  Copyright is no longer about promotion of creativity, its a legal exclusivity and an effectively permanent lock on all creative output by business interests.
Add WIPO and ACTA and soon within 10 years or so, it will be a global exclusive lock, again driven by business interests.The current copyright laws are simply a denial of any sense of balance or social good in intellectual property.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548002</id>
	<title>Viacom wants a discovery war... youch!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269117720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Viacom wants to get in a datamining war with Google regarding email / discovery.  Umm... ok... good luck with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Viacom wants to get in a datamining war with Google regarding email / discovery .
Umm... ok... good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viacom wants to get in a datamining war with Google regarding email / discovery.
Umm... ok... good luck with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546414</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1269008640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full. Other mods, please mod parent down.</p></div><p>I thought downmodding was supposed to be used when a post just adds noise that makes it harder to extract actual signal from the conversation.  Modding someone down just because you disagree with their legitimate opinion is plain old censorship.</p><p>And to head back to the topic:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others.</p></div><p>Fortunately for all of us, licensing terms are not the end of the discussion when it comes to copyright.  The law itself provides for things like fair use and (in Google/YouTube's case) the DMCA ISP safe harbor.  And that applies regardless of whether you slap a GPL-esque license on your stuff or proudly proclaim all-rights-reserved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have modded you down , but felt it was better to respond in full .
Other mods , please mod parent down.I thought downmodding was supposed to be used when a post just adds noise that makes it harder to extract actual signal from the conversation .
Modding someone down just because you disagree with their legitimate opinion is plain old censorship.And to head back to the topic : However , I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under , and I respect the licenses chosen by others.Fortunately for all of us , licensing terms are not the end of the discussion when it comes to copyright .
The law itself provides for things like fair use and ( in Google/YouTube 's case ) the DMCA ISP safe harbor .
And that applies regardless of whether you slap a GPL-esque license on your stuff or proudly proclaim all-rights-reserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full.
Other mods, please mod parent down.I thought downmodding was supposed to be used when a post just adds noise that makes it harder to extract actual signal from the conversation.
Modding someone down just because you disagree with their legitimate opinion is plain old censorship.And to head back to the topic:However, I absolutely demand that others respect the licensing terms I distribute my materials under, and I respect the licenses chosen by others.Fortunately for all of us, licensing terms are not the end of the discussion when it comes to copyright.
The law itself provides for things like fair use and (in Google/YouTube's case) the DMCA ISP safe harbor.
And that applies regardless of whether you slap a GPL-esque license on your stuff or proudly proclaim all-rights-reserved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545326</id>
	<title>Re:Non-Story?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269000240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>404: Evil Not Found</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, the code for "Evil Not Found" error is 0666.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>404 : Evil Not FoundActually , the code for " Evil Not Found " error is 0666 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>404: Evil Not FoundActually, the code for "Evil Not Found" error is 0666.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548606</id>
	<title>And now it's not as much!</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1269089760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have my own thoughts about Google.  However I'm going to just consider this action around the purchase of youtube.</p><p>Google bought a company that was known to harbor copyright material illegally.  Google then implements several safe guards against and gives content owners the ability to have content removed at the very least.</p><p>I'm sorry but this is not an evil act in any way.  In this instance they are doing with dollars what police and lawyers could not do.  Thought not a 100\% fix it is an improvement.</p><p>This whole article is a very poor attempt to attack google.  Yes google needs to be knocked down a notch or six.  However this was a really really poor attempt.  Almost embarrassing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have my own thoughts about Google .
However I 'm going to just consider this action around the purchase of youtube.Google bought a company that was known to harbor copyright material illegally .
Google then implements several safe guards against and gives content owners the ability to have content removed at the very least.I 'm sorry but this is not an evil act in any way .
In this instance they are doing with dollars what police and lawyers could not do .
Thought not a 100 \ % fix it is an improvement.This whole article is a very poor attempt to attack google .
Yes google needs to be knocked down a notch or six .
However this was a really really poor attempt .
Almost embarrassing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have my own thoughts about Google.
However I'm going to just consider this action around the purchase of youtube.Google bought a company that was known to harbor copyright material illegally.
Google then implements several safe guards against and gives content owners the ability to have content removed at the very least.I'm sorry but this is not an evil act in any way.
In this instance they are doing with dollars what police and lawyers could not do.
Thought not a 100\% fix it is an improvement.This whole article is a very poor attempt to attack google.
Yes google needs to be knocked down a notch or six.
However this was a really really poor attempt.
Almost embarrassing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547664</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Dr.Boje</author>
	<datestamp>1269025260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I respect that you want to respect the licenses of others; that's a noble thing to say, especially from someone on the open source side of things.  However, since we live in a corrupt society (and don't mistake it for anything but), you need to take a step back and examine whether or not those licenses deserve to be respected.  Just because someone chooses an extremely restrictive license for "their" intellectual property doesn't mean it should be respected.  Everything we use today, whether it is language, clothing, housing, or pretty much anything else you can think of, was based off an idea that somebody else had.  Most of these former ideas were in existence before copyright, but I doubt their creators would have wanted to bleed their neighbors dry for the use of said idea.
<br> <br>
Given your viewpoint, I can understand why you might be irritated that your open source pals appear to be hypocrites.  However, since you don't seem to realize how corrupt our social structure actually is, I can't blame you for your misguided view.  The whole topic here is really just more proof of how outdated our social structure is.  For example, just look at any popular music.  People who are actually trained in music nearly always dislike popular music.  Why?  Because, it sucks ass.  Sure, there are a few songs here and there throughout the years that might stick in your head, but what songs can you point out that truly stand the test of time... songs that people today would listen to and appreciate?  I bet you can't name any.  That's because popular music artists aren't in it for the sake of art or for the sake of sharing their creation with others.  They are simply in it for the money.
<br> <br>
If you want to call anything "evil" (which is just another idea conjured up by the human mind), take a long, critical look at the concept of money in our world today and you'll see you're looking into the soul of the devil, if such a thing even exists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I respect that you want to respect the licenses of others ; that 's a noble thing to say , especially from someone on the open source side of things .
However , since we live in a corrupt society ( and do n't mistake it for anything but ) , you need to take a step back and examine whether or not those licenses deserve to be respected .
Just because someone chooses an extremely restrictive license for " their " intellectual property does n't mean it should be respected .
Everything we use today , whether it is language , clothing , housing , or pretty much anything else you can think of , was based off an idea that somebody else had .
Most of these former ideas were in existence before copyright , but I doubt their creators would have wanted to bleed their neighbors dry for the use of said idea .
Given your viewpoint , I can understand why you might be irritated that your open source pals appear to be hypocrites .
However , since you do n't seem to realize how corrupt our social structure actually is , I ca n't blame you for your misguided view .
The whole topic here is really just more proof of how outdated our social structure is .
For example , just look at any popular music .
People who are actually trained in music nearly always dislike popular music .
Why ? Because , it sucks ass .
Sure , there are a few songs here and there throughout the years that might stick in your head , but what songs can you point out that truly stand the test of time... songs that people today would listen to and appreciate ?
I bet you ca n't name any .
That 's because popular music artists are n't in it for the sake of art or for the sake of sharing their creation with others .
They are simply in it for the money .
If you want to call anything " evil " ( which is just another idea conjured up by the human mind ) , take a long , critical look at the concept of money in our world today and you 'll see you 're looking into the soul of the devil , if such a thing even exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I respect that you want to respect the licenses of others; that's a noble thing to say, especially from someone on the open source side of things.
However, since we live in a corrupt society (and don't mistake it for anything but), you need to take a step back and examine whether or not those licenses deserve to be respected.
Just because someone chooses an extremely restrictive license for "their" intellectual property doesn't mean it should be respected.
Everything we use today, whether it is language, clothing, housing, or pretty much anything else you can think of, was based off an idea that somebody else had.
Most of these former ideas were in existence before copyright, but I doubt their creators would have wanted to bleed their neighbors dry for the use of said idea.
Given your viewpoint, I can understand why you might be irritated that your open source pals appear to be hypocrites.
However, since you don't seem to realize how corrupt our social structure actually is, I can't blame you for your misguided view.
The whole topic here is really just more proof of how outdated our social structure is.
For example, just look at any popular music.
People who are actually trained in music nearly always dislike popular music.
Why?  Because, it sucks ass.
Sure, there are a few songs here and there throughout the years that might stick in your head, but what songs can you point out that truly stand the test of time... songs that people today would listen to and appreciate?
I bet you can't name any.
That's because popular music artists aren't in it for the sake of art or for the sake of sharing their creation with others.
They are simply in it for the money.
If you want to call anything "evil" (which is just another idea conjured up by the human mind), take a long, critical look at the concept of money in our world today and you'll see you're looking into the soul of the devil, if such a thing even exists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547678</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269025440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IANAL,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>you ANAL? really???</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , ...you ANAL ?
really ? ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, ...you ANAL?
really???
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545302</id>
	<title>Check the date on the slides</title>
	<author>mwolfe38</author>
	<datestamp>1269000060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>25 of the 27 slides on that site were from dates prior to google's acquisition..
I'm not sure if that excuses them but none the less its not quite the  "google is evil"  mantra the OP is trying to deliver.</htmltext>
<tokenext>25 of the 27 slides on that site were from dates prior to google 's acquisition. . I 'm not sure if that excuses them but none the less its not quite the " google is evil " mantra the OP is trying to deliver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>25 of the 27 slides on that site were from dates prior to google's acquisition..
I'm not sure if that excuses them but none the less its not quite the  "google is evil"  mantra the OP is trying to deliver.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547532</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, Piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269023700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you're a criminal for breaking the speed limit.  Get over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 're a criminal for breaking the speed limit .
Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you're a criminal for breaking the speed limit.
Get over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545242</id>
	<title>When knowing isn't the same as knowing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'd have to be idiots not to know YouTube was carrying <i>some</i> kind of infringing content <i>somewhere</i> in its library of user-uploaded videos. The important question is not whether they knew this general and largely inevitable fact, nor even whether they thought they might benefit from it. What's important is whether they knew of <i>specific</i> instances of infringement and did nothing to correct it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd have to be idiots not to know YouTube was carrying some kind of infringing content somewhere in its library of user-uploaded videos .
The important question is not whether they knew this general and largely inevitable fact , nor even whether they thought they might benefit from it .
What 's important is whether they knew of specific instances of infringement and did nothing to correct it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd have to be idiots not to know YouTube was carrying some kind of infringing content somewhere in its library of user-uploaded videos.
The important question is not whether they knew this general and largely inevitable fact, nor even whether they thought they might benefit from it.
What's important is whether they knew of specific instances of infringement and did nothing to correct it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547204</id>
	<title>You Tube is Video Grokster (!!?)</title>
	<author>WeirdJohn</author>
	<datestamp>1269017760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to slide on page 22 (sigh), You Tube is a "video Grokster".  So You Tube promotes discussion of abuses of the law by greedy litigious bastards whose business model hasn't changed with the times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to slide on page 22 ( sigh ) , You Tube is a " video Grokster " .
So You Tube promotes discussion of abuses of the law by greedy litigious bastards whose business model has n't changed with the times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to slide on page 22 (sigh), You Tube is a "video Grokster".
So You Tube promotes discussion of abuses of the law by greedy litigious bastards whose business model hasn't changed with the times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545256</id>
	<title>Youtube is a public service...</title>
	<author>Deorus</author>
	<datestamp>1268999820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to accuse anyone of piracy, then accuse individual users, not the site.  The site itself only serves as a distribution media, acting against reported violations upon request.</p><p>The problem is that it's not feasible to request every user to demonstrate that they own the copyright or are otherwise authorize to publish content.  If I want to publish movies of myself playing games (which is the only thing that I use Youtube for), the requirement to prove that the movie was in fact my property would be enough to turn me off, especially since I may well not even be the owner of those movies since they can be considered derivative works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to accuse anyone of piracy , then accuse individual users , not the site .
The site itself only serves as a distribution media , acting against reported violations upon request.The problem is that it 's not feasible to request every user to demonstrate that they own the copyright or are otherwise authorize to publish content .
If I want to publish movies of myself playing games ( which is the only thing that I use Youtube for ) , the requirement to prove that the movie was in fact my property would be enough to turn me off , especially since I may well not even be the owner of those movies since they can be considered derivative works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to accuse anyone of piracy, then accuse individual users, not the site.
The site itself only serves as a distribution media, acting against reported violations upon request.The problem is that it's not feasible to request every user to demonstrate that they own the copyright or are otherwise authorize to publish content.
If I want to publish movies of myself playing games (which is the only thing that I use Youtube for), the requirement to prove that the movie was in fact my property would be enough to turn me off, especially since I may well not even be the owner of those movies since they can be considered derivative works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546950</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You won at the internet argument. I hope you are happy, because this means the universe cannot continue to exist.<br>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You won at the internet argument .
I hope you are happy , because this means the universe can not continue to exist. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You won at the internet argument.
I hope you are happy, because this means the universe cannot continue to exist..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548394</id>
	<title>Not this straw man again...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1269084480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure that knowing about it changes anything. E.g., when people defend p2p websites, they're not ignorant that there's bound to be copyrighted material illegal distributed there - that's a straw man. The argument is that a p2p website shouldn't be held liable for what the torrents point to.</p><p>There's also the difference between knowing that YouTube must have copyrighted material on it somewhere, and knowing exactly what all of them are. In the latter case, there's an argument that they should then remove those individual videos - but simply knowing that Youtube has copyrighted material on it doesn't help you find it!</p><p><i>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil."</i></p><p>Ah, this straw man again. The "scream bloody murder" occurs when companies are distributing something commercially, and doing it themselves. This is not comparable to saying that the owners of a user-generated site should be responsible for what users upload. For all we know, there may be Creative Commons etc material on Youtube that doesn't follow the licence, but it isn't going to change my opinion of Google here.</p><p>I'm an open source author too. I'd be annoyed if someone making a profit didn't follow the licence. I wouldn't call a site owner "evil" simply because someone uploaded it in violation of the licence. Nor would I suggest that I deserve millions of dollars in damages, or that new laws be created to criminalise software to circumvent any protections on my software, or that people should be disconnected from the Internet if they distributed my GPL program without offering the source, or that websites doing this should be censored - you know, these are the actual things that people "scream bloody murder" about.</p><p>Can you imagine the story? "Linux binary uploaded to Google's server without source. Google are evil!" You really think people would give a damn, or conclude that Google are therefore at fault?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that knowing about it changes anything .
E.g. , when people defend p2p websites , they 're not ignorant that there 's bound to be copyrighted material illegal distributed there - that 's a straw man .
The argument is that a p2p website should n't be held liable for what the torrents point to.There 's also the difference between knowing that YouTube must have copyrighted material on it somewhere , and knowing exactly what all of them are .
In the latter case , there 's an argument that they should then remove those individual videos - but simply knowing that Youtube has copyrighted material on it does n't help you find it ! It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation , then turn around and say stuff like this " is n't evil .
" Ah , this straw man again .
The " scream bloody murder " occurs when companies are distributing something commercially , and doing it themselves .
This is not comparable to saying that the owners of a user-generated site should be responsible for what users upload .
For all we know , there may be Creative Commons etc material on Youtube that does n't follow the licence , but it is n't going to change my opinion of Google here.I 'm an open source author too .
I 'd be annoyed if someone making a profit did n't follow the licence .
I would n't call a site owner " evil " simply because someone uploaded it in violation of the licence .
Nor would I suggest that I deserve millions of dollars in damages , or that new laws be created to criminalise software to circumvent any protections on my software , or that people should be disconnected from the Internet if they distributed my GPL program without offering the source , or that websites doing this should be censored - you know , these are the actual things that people " scream bloody murder " about.Can you imagine the story ?
" Linux binary uploaded to Google 's server without source .
Google are evil !
" You really think people would give a damn , or conclude that Google are therefore at fault ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that knowing about it changes anything.
E.g., when people defend p2p websites, they're not ignorant that there's bound to be copyrighted material illegal distributed there - that's a straw man.
The argument is that a p2p website shouldn't be held liable for what the torrents point to.There's also the difference between knowing that YouTube must have copyrighted material on it somewhere, and knowing exactly what all of them are.
In the latter case, there's an argument that they should then remove those individual videos - but simply knowing that Youtube has copyrighted material on it doesn't help you find it!It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil.
"Ah, this straw man again.
The "scream bloody murder" occurs when companies are distributing something commercially, and doing it themselves.
This is not comparable to saying that the owners of a user-generated site should be responsible for what users upload.
For all we know, there may be Creative Commons etc material on Youtube that doesn't follow the licence, but it isn't going to change my opinion of Google here.I'm an open source author too.
I'd be annoyed if someone making a profit didn't follow the licence.
I wouldn't call a site owner "evil" simply because someone uploaded it in violation of the licence.
Nor would I suggest that I deserve millions of dollars in damages, or that new laws be created to criminalise software to circumvent any protections on my software, or that people should be disconnected from the Internet if they distributed my GPL program without offering the source, or that websites doing this should be censored - you know, these are the actual things that people "scream bloody murder" about.Can you imagine the story?
"Linux binary uploaded to Google's server without source.
Google are evil!
" You really think people would give a damn, or conclude that Google are therefore at fault?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545116</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Napster knew that they hosted copyrighted material, SCO knew that they didn't own Linux, and Mark McGuire's trainer knew that he took steroids.  This knowledge was related to personal gain.  Film at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Napster knew that they hosted copyrighted material , SCO knew that they did n't own Linux , and Mark McGuire 's trainer knew that he took steroids .
This knowledge was related to personal gain .
Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Napster knew that they hosted copyrighted material, SCO knew that they didn't own Linux, and Mark McGuire's trainer knew that he took steroids.
This knowledge was related to personal gain.
Film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545232</id>
	<title>"Evil", maybe... but they were right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably did need that infringing content to survive. But now, they've reached a point where that's no longer the case. If you really could remove all the stuff on YouTube that's unauthorized and doesn't qualify as fair use, it almost wouldn't matter any more. Nearly all the most-viewed videos now are some type of personal video, or something that's authorized and legit.</p><p>It's also really hard to make a claim that YouTube has hurt content providers more than it has helped them. You don't see full TV episodes or movies for instance. All you find is short clips that, if anything, function as advertising and get more people to purchase them than would have otherwise. Perhaps the same is not entirely true for audio tracks and music videos, but those have been so trivially easy to acquire illegally for years now, I'm not convinced YouTube had a net negative impact for those kinds of content providers either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably did need that infringing content to survive .
But now , they 've reached a point where that 's no longer the case .
If you really could remove all the stuff on YouTube that 's unauthorized and does n't qualify as fair use , it almost would n't matter any more .
Nearly all the most-viewed videos now are some type of personal video , or something that 's authorized and legit.It 's also really hard to make a claim that YouTube has hurt content providers more than it has helped them .
You do n't see full TV episodes or movies for instance .
All you find is short clips that , if anything , function as advertising and get more people to purchase them than would have otherwise .
Perhaps the same is not entirely true for audio tracks and music videos , but those have been so trivially easy to acquire illegally for years now , I 'm not convinced YouTube had a net negative impact for those kinds of content providers either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably did need that infringing content to survive.
But now, they've reached a point where that's no longer the case.
If you really could remove all the stuff on YouTube that's unauthorized and doesn't qualify as fair use, it almost wouldn't matter any more.
Nearly all the most-viewed videos now are some type of personal video, or something that's authorized and legit.It's also really hard to make a claim that YouTube has hurt content providers more than it has helped them.
You don't see full TV episodes or movies for instance.
All you find is short clips that, if anything, function as advertising and get more people to purchase them than would have otherwise.
Perhaps the same is not entirely true for audio tracks and music videos, but those have been so trivially easy to acquire illegally for years now, I'm not convinced YouTube had a net negative impact for those kinds of content providers either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546558</id>
	<title>But that's what RL evil IS</title>
	<author>Moraelin</author>
	<datestamp>1269010260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But unfortunately that's what RL "evil" \_is\_: not giving a fuck about morals or others' rights, as long as you get what you want.</p><p>Virtually nobody has it as their goal in life simply to spend pain and misfortune. They just want to gain something. Be it money, power, attention, or just a quick amusement.</p><p>Even if you take a serial killer like Ted Bundy, probably his ultimate goal wasn't just murder for murder sake. He just wanted to amuse himself, get a bit of thrill, etc. The fact that someone had to die for that amusement wasn't goal per se, but just a case of "who the fuck cares?"</p><p>Stalin, the guy who caused millions to be killed and millions more to be deported to Siberia, wasn't in it just for the sake of killing people. He just wanted to protect his throne at all cost, and sadly saw conspiracies against him everywhere. But there is no indication that he took pleasure in the actual killings or torture. The more brutal reality is that he didn't give a damn. He just didn't care how many innoncents have to suffer, just in the end result that he gets his goal: staying in power.</p><p>Now I'm not comparing a bit of copyright infringement at Google with serial murder, but the principle of the matter is the same: just not giving a flying fuck about those pesky other people.</p><p>If you want other examples, take your choice of guy who scammed some investors with a Ponzi scheme. There have been a couple since the '90's. They were not some comic-book Super-Villain, whose goal is to destroy some people's savings and make them miserable. They just wanted the money, the spotlight, the adrenaline rush maybe, the feeling of power and importance, or whatever other tangible personal goal. Scamming other people was a tool to an end. The misery caused was simply a case of "who cares about that?"</p><p>It's just that willingness to put oneself above laws and redefine morals on the fly (which you call redefining "evil") that \_is\_ what RL evil is all about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But unfortunately that 's what RL " evil " \ _is \ _ : not giving a fuck about morals or others ' rights , as long as you get what you want.Virtually nobody has it as their goal in life simply to spend pain and misfortune .
They just want to gain something .
Be it money , power , attention , or just a quick amusement.Even if you take a serial killer like Ted Bundy , probably his ultimate goal was n't just murder for murder sake .
He just wanted to amuse himself , get a bit of thrill , etc .
The fact that someone had to die for that amusement was n't goal per se , but just a case of " who the fuck cares ?
" Stalin , the guy who caused millions to be killed and millions more to be deported to Siberia , was n't in it just for the sake of killing people .
He just wanted to protect his throne at all cost , and sadly saw conspiracies against him everywhere .
But there is no indication that he took pleasure in the actual killings or torture .
The more brutal reality is that he did n't give a damn .
He just did n't care how many innoncents have to suffer , just in the end result that he gets his goal : staying in power.Now I 'm not comparing a bit of copyright infringement at Google with serial murder , but the principle of the matter is the same : just not giving a flying fuck about those pesky other people.If you want other examples , take your choice of guy who scammed some investors with a Ponzi scheme .
There have been a couple since the '90 's .
They were not some comic-book Super-Villain , whose goal is to destroy some people 's savings and make them miserable .
They just wanted the money , the spotlight , the adrenaline rush maybe , the feeling of power and importance , or whatever other tangible personal goal .
Scamming other people was a tool to an end .
The misery caused was simply a case of " who cares about that ?
" It 's just that willingness to put oneself above laws and redefine morals on the fly ( which you call redefining " evil " ) that \ _is \ _ what RL evil is all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But unfortunately that's what RL "evil" \_is\_: not giving a fuck about morals or others' rights, as long as you get what you want.Virtually nobody has it as their goal in life simply to spend pain and misfortune.
They just want to gain something.
Be it money, power, attention, or just a quick amusement.Even if you take a serial killer like Ted Bundy, probably his ultimate goal wasn't just murder for murder sake.
He just wanted to amuse himself, get a bit of thrill, etc.
The fact that someone had to die for that amusement wasn't goal per se, but just a case of "who the fuck cares?
"Stalin, the guy who caused millions to be killed and millions more to be deported to Siberia, wasn't in it just for the sake of killing people.
He just wanted to protect his throne at all cost, and sadly saw conspiracies against him everywhere.
But there is no indication that he took pleasure in the actual killings or torture.
The more brutal reality is that he didn't give a damn.
He just didn't care how many innoncents have to suffer, just in the end result that he gets his goal: staying in power.Now I'm not comparing a bit of copyright infringement at Google with serial murder, but the principle of the matter is the same: just not giving a flying fuck about those pesky other people.If you want other examples, take your choice of guy who scammed some investors with a Ponzi scheme.
There have been a couple since the '90's.
They were not some comic-book Super-Villain, whose goal is to destroy some people's savings and make them miserable.
They just wanted the money, the spotlight, the adrenaline rush maybe, the feeling of power and importance, or whatever other tangible personal goal.
Scamming other people was a tool to an end.
The misery caused was simply a case of "who cares about that?
"It's just that willingness to put oneself above laws and redefine morals on the fly (which you call redefining "evil") that \_is\_ what RL evil is all about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545554</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor</title>
	<author>chaboud</author>
	<datestamp>1269001920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent +1000.</p><p>One loses the safe harbor protection when they demonstrate awareness or knowledge of user-directed content's infringement.  What if one of the users was a representative of a copyright owner?  Just because something was expensive to make doesn't mean that your knee-jerk reflex should be removal.</p><p>Profit doesn't come into play in the general case, as they're not selling the content directly:<br>Title 17, Section 512.(c).(1).(B)<br>"does not receive a financial benefit <b>directly</b> attributable to the infringing activity"</p><p>Even if the majority of your files are infringing, that's not the same as direct attribution of financial benefit.</p><p>This <i>does</i> demonstrate some awareness of materials that have studio copyright naturally attributed to them, but it <b>doesn't</b> mean that the poster didn't have copyright.  Basically, there's a DMCA-specified procedure for notification, and many of these conversations discuss exactly how to go about handling those provisions.</p><p>Clips of shows like Leno and Conan could fall under fair use by users (news agencies do it), so, again, where's the beef?</p><p>This just plainly isn't that damning, and it's certainly not that evil.  The original poster needs to chill out.  Anyone who's ever sat in a meeting with lawyers discussing the ins and outs of the DMCA would find these statements in no way out of place.  Put them in the full context of the emails, and it looks like Viacom's just out to make a money grab from deep pockets.  The Viacom lawyers must be busy trying to wave shiny objects in front of executives to keep them from noticing the huge revenue loss that came from not sorting things out with Hulu...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent + 1000.One loses the safe harbor protection when they demonstrate awareness or knowledge of user-directed content 's infringement .
What if one of the users was a representative of a copyright owner ?
Just because something was expensive to make does n't mean that your knee-jerk reflex should be removal.Profit does n't come into play in the general case , as they 're not selling the content directly : Title 17 , Section 512. ( c ) . ( 1 ) .
( B ) " does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity " Even if the majority of your files are infringing , that 's not the same as direct attribution of financial benefit.This does demonstrate some awareness of materials that have studio copyright naturally attributed to them , but it does n't mean that the poster did n't have copyright .
Basically , there 's a DMCA-specified procedure for notification , and many of these conversations discuss exactly how to go about handling those provisions.Clips of shows like Leno and Conan could fall under fair use by users ( news agencies do it ) , so , again , where 's the beef ? This just plainly is n't that damning , and it 's certainly not that evil .
The original poster needs to chill out .
Anyone who 's ever sat in a meeting with lawyers discussing the ins and outs of the DMCA would find these statements in no way out of place .
Put them in the full context of the emails , and it looks like Viacom 's just out to make a money grab from deep pockets .
The Viacom lawyers must be busy trying to wave shiny objects in front of executives to keep them from noticing the huge revenue loss that came from not sorting things out with Hulu.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent +1000.One loses the safe harbor protection when they demonstrate awareness or knowledge of user-directed content's infringement.
What if one of the users was a representative of a copyright owner?
Just because something was expensive to make doesn't mean that your knee-jerk reflex should be removal.Profit doesn't come into play in the general case, as they're not selling the content directly:Title 17, Section 512.(c).(1).
(B)"does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"Even if the majority of your files are infringing, that's not the same as direct attribution of financial benefit.This does demonstrate some awareness of materials that have studio copyright naturally attributed to them, but it doesn't mean that the poster didn't have copyright.
Basically, there's a DMCA-specified procedure for notification, and many of these conversations discuss exactly how to go about handling those provisions.Clips of shows like Leno and Conan could fall under fair use by users (news agencies do it), so, again, where's the beef?This just plainly isn't that damning, and it's certainly not that evil.
The original poster needs to chill out.
Anyone who's ever sat in a meeting with lawyers discussing the ins and outs of the DMCA would find these statements in no way out of place.
Put them in the full context of the emails, and it looks like Viacom's just out to make a money grab from deep pockets.
The Viacom lawyers must be busy trying to wave shiny objects in front of executives to keep them from noticing the huge revenue loss that came from not sorting things out with Hulu...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545620</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>xwizbt</author>
	<datestamp>1269002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod him down? Naahh... he's as insightful as all hell at the moment.</p><p>I, on the other hand, add nothing to the discussion. Mark me as -1, with immediate effect. I only ever post on here when the UK pubs have tipped out, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod him down ?
Naahh... he 's as insightful as all hell at the moment.I , on the other hand , add nothing to the discussion .
Mark me as -1 , with immediate effect .
I only ever post on here when the UK pubs have tipped out , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod him down?
Naahh... he's as insightful as all hell at the moment.I, on the other hand, add nothing to the discussion.
Mark me as -1, with immediate effect.
I only ever post on here when the UK pubs have tipped out, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550040</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269106620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the "evil" part was when one of the founders was posting copyright infringing videos and the other founders knew about it.  The other founders chastised him, but I don't think any other action was taken (they may not have been able to do anything serious to him anyway) and I don't know if the guy stopped.</p><p>That was the part that Google said violated their "do no evil" policy.</p><p>I could certainly see them continuing with the purchase if this was the only case, as they would be more than capable of putting a stop to this particular case of infringement.</p><p>In all other cases, Google would have no knowledge that the poster of infringing material is <b>not</b> the copyright holder without the <b>real</b> copyright holder coming forward and saying so.  Thus the DMCA take down notices  (and copyright turf wars that potentially occur).</p><p>The onus is on the copyright holder to notify Google that someone is using YouTube to violate their copyrights.  Frankly, Google would be far more likely to be sued and viewed as "evil" if they simply started taking down videos they thought might be infringing without actually knowing if they were or weren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the " evil " part was when one of the founders was posting copyright infringing videos and the other founders knew about it .
The other founders chastised him , but I do n't think any other action was taken ( they may not have been able to do anything serious to him anyway ) and I do n't know if the guy stopped.That was the part that Google said violated their " do no evil " policy.I could certainly see them continuing with the purchase if this was the only case , as they would be more than capable of putting a stop to this particular case of infringement.In all other cases , Google would have no knowledge that the poster of infringing material is not the copyright holder without the real copyright holder coming forward and saying so .
Thus the DMCA take down notices ( and copyright turf wars that potentially occur ) .The onus is on the copyright holder to notify Google that someone is using YouTube to violate their copyrights .
Frankly , Google would be far more likely to be sued and viewed as " evil " if they simply started taking down videos they thought might be infringing without actually knowing if they were or were n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the "evil" part was when one of the founders was posting copyright infringing videos and the other founders knew about it.
The other founders chastised him, but I don't think any other action was taken (they may not have been able to do anything serious to him anyway) and I don't know if the guy stopped.That was the part that Google said violated their "do no evil" policy.I could certainly see them continuing with the purchase if this was the only case, as they would be more than capable of putting a stop to this particular case of infringement.In all other cases, Google would have no knowledge that the poster of infringing material is not the copyright holder without the real copyright holder coming forward and saying so.
Thus the DMCA take down notices  (and copyright turf wars that potentially occur).The onus is on the copyright holder to notify Google that someone is using YouTube to violate their copyrights.
Frankly, Google would be far more likely to be sued and viewed as "evil" if they simply started taking down videos they thought might be infringing without actually knowing if they were or weren't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545858</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269003780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Law and morality are NOT the same thing.<br>They overlap a lot, but there are plenty of areas where they don't.  Google ignoring the law (which I have seen absolutely no evidence of whatsoever anyway) does not make them evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Law and morality are NOT the same thing.They overlap a lot , but there are plenty of areas where they do n't .
Google ignoring the law ( which I have seen absolutely no evidence of whatsoever anyway ) does not make them evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Law and morality are NOT the same thing.They overlap a lot, but there are plenty of areas where they don't.
Google ignoring the law (which I have seen absolutely no evidence of whatsoever anyway) does not make them evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548524</id>
	<title>Re:Non-Story?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269087480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Pirating" should be named "sharing".<br>
Yeah. Evil, I know</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pirating " should be named " sharing " .
Yeah. Evil , I know</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pirating" should be named "sharing".
Yeah. Evil, I know</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545058</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed the quote from a Google exec, stating the need to take action, no matter how evil?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed the quote from a Google exec , stating the need to take action , no matter how evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed the quote from a Google exec, stating the need to take action, no matter how evil?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548870</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1269093420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But in this case Viacom is complicit in the upload of video files for streaming. Basically whilst YouTube has violated copyrights by the letter it has actually benefitted the monopoly rights holders who have made more money from the spread of their works. YouTube is now reigned in but the media corps are happy to benefit from what would, and IMO could, not have happened had YouTube not grown in this way of overlooking users rights violations until rights owners declared their interest in removal of works.</p><p>If you were selling your software, somebody leaked it and it became a de-facto standard resulting in many millions of pounds of sales for you then you'd be legally able to claim copyright infringement damaged you. When it was found that in fact some of the leaked copies originated from you...</p><p>That is why GPL violations are evil and this sort of thing can be considered not to be - because for profit sales are considered to be motivated solely by the profit and not by the source of the profit. Whilst GPL reproduction is considered to be centred around the moral rights to control distribution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But in this case Viacom is complicit in the upload of video files for streaming .
Basically whilst YouTube has violated copyrights by the letter it has actually benefitted the monopoly rights holders who have made more money from the spread of their works .
YouTube is now reigned in but the media corps are happy to benefit from what would , and IMO could , not have happened had YouTube not grown in this way of overlooking users rights violations until rights owners declared their interest in removal of works.If you were selling your software , somebody leaked it and it became a de-facto standard resulting in many millions of pounds of sales for you then you 'd be legally able to claim copyright infringement damaged you .
When it was found that in fact some of the leaked copies originated from you...That is why GPL violations are evil and this sort of thing can be considered not to be - because for profit sales are considered to be motivated solely by the profit and not by the source of the profit .
Whilst GPL reproduction is considered to be centred around the moral rights to control distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But in this case Viacom is complicit in the upload of video files for streaming.
Basically whilst YouTube has violated copyrights by the letter it has actually benefitted the monopoly rights holders who have made more money from the spread of their works.
YouTube is now reigned in but the media corps are happy to benefit from what would, and IMO could, not have happened had YouTube not grown in this way of overlooking users rights violations until rights owners declared their interest in removal of works.If you were selling your software, somebody leaked it and it became a de-facto standard resulting in many millions of pounds of sales for you then you'd be legally able to claim copyright infringement damaged you.
When it was found that in fact some of the leaked copies originated from you...That is why GPL violations are evil and this sort of thing can be considered not to be - because for profit sales are considered to be motivated solely by the profit and not by the source of the profit.
Whilst GPL reproduction is considered to be centred around the moral rights to control distribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545530</id>
	<title>403: Access Forbidden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269001800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now the serpent was craftier than anyone else the Lord God had let loose on the network. He asked the user, "Did God really say, 'You must not access any URL on the website'?"
<br> <br>
The woman said to the serpent, "We may access most pages, but He did say, 'You must not load any URL from this particular IP, or you will die.'"
<br> <br>
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you load of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
<br> <br>
When the woman saw that the response from the server was pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she bookmarked it. She also sent the link to her husband, who was following her twittering, and he clicked on it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they quickly searched for free antivirus software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the serpent was craftier than anyone else the Lord God had let loose on the network .
He asked the user , " Did God really say , 'You must not access any URL on the website ' ?
" The woman said to the serpent , " We may access most pages , but He did say , 'You must not load any URL from this particular IP , or you will die .
' " " You will not surely die , " the serpent said to the woman .
" For God knows that when you load of it your eyes will be opened , and you will be like God , knowing good and evil .
" When the woman saw that the response from the server was pleasing to the eye , and also desirable for gaining wisdom , she bookmarked it .
She also sent the link to her husband , who was following her twittering , and he clicked on it .
Then the eyes of both of them were opened , and they realized they were naked ; so they quickly searched for free antivirus software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the serpent was craftier than anyone else the Lord God had let loose on the network.
He asked the user, "Did God really say, 'You must not access any URL on the website'?
"
 
The woman said to the serpent, "We may access most pages, but He did say, 'You must not load any URL from this particular IP, or you will die.
'"
 
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
"For God knows that when you load of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
"
 
When the woman saw that the response from the server was pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she bookmarked it.
She also sent the link to her husband, who was following her twittering, and he clicked on it.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they quickly searched for free antivirus software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547748</id>
	<title>Re:alternate side of the story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269026820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Pirating" is such a slanted, unhelpful framing of using and sharing digital material without permission.</p></div></blockquote><p>Pirating is term with a long history of being used to refer to stealing other peoples intellectual property.  They only people I've seen object to it are those why are trying to (wrongly) convince themselves that they aren't stealing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pirating " is such a slanted , unhelpful framing of using and sharing digital material without permission.Pirating is term with a long history of being used to refer to stealing other peoples intellectual property .
They only people I 've seen object to it are those why are trying to ( wrongly ) convince themselves that they are n't stealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pirating" is such a slanted, unhelpful framing of using and sharing digital material without permission.Pirating is term with a long history of being used to refer to stealing other peoples intellectual property.
They only people I've seen object to it are those why are trying to (wrongly) convince themselves that they aren't stealing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545198</id>
	<title>alternate side of the story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html" title="blogspot.com">http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>"Pirating" is such a slanted, unhelpful framing of using and sharing digital material without permission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html [ blogspot.com ] " Pirating " is such a slanted , unhelpful framing of using and sharing digital material without permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html [blogspot.com]"Pirating" is such a slanted, unhelpful framing of using and sharing digital material without permission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545152</id>
	<title>Piracy</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1268999220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is a way of life, time to get over it and embrace it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is a way of life , time to get over it and embrace it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is a way of life, time to get over it and embrace it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034</id>
	<title>Non-Story?</title>
	<author>Kotoku</author>
	<datestamp>1268998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>404: Evil Not Found</htmltext>
<tokenext>404 : Evil Not Found</tokentext>
<sentencetext>404: Evil Not Found</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547148</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, Piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's piracy. Get over it. The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.</p><p>Language grows. "Hacker" used to mean a really bad golfer. And "Geeks" bit the heads off chickens.</p></div><p>Many people also spell "your" and "you're" as "ur" these days. Should we all conform to this, then?</p><p>And "piracy" is so 2005. It's now called file-sharing. Self-righteous copyright advocates will have to find a new term that will attempt to portray the action of downloading mp3s and such in a negative way. Get over it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's piracy .
Get over it .
The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh 's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.Language grows .
" Hacker " used to mean a really bad golfer .
And " Geeks " bit the heads off chickens.Many people also spell " your " and " you 're " as " ur " these days .
Should we all conform to this , then ? And " piracy " is so 2005 .
It 's now called file-sharing .
Self-righteous copyright advocates will have to find a new term that will attempt to portray the action of downloading mp3s and such in a negative way .
Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's piracy.
Get over it.
The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.Language grows.
"Hacker" used to mean a really bad golfer.
And "Geeks" bit the heads off chickens.Many people also spell "your" and "you're" as "ur" these days.
Should we all conform to this, then?And "piracy" is so 2005.
It's now called file-sharing.
Self-righteous copyright advocates will have to find a new term that will attempt to portray the action of downloading mp3s and such in a negative way.
Get over it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546874</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe just maybe those of us who are pro-open source and don't care if they allowed "pirating" of content is because we are against the concept of copyright. We may not necessarily be pirates ourselves. On the other hand... Maybe we pirate video and use only open source software. After all open source software is just better and there really isn't any such equivalent to the open source movement for film. We can't even donate to groups producing or recording raw copyright-free or public-domain like video. lol or something like that too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe just maybe those of us who are pro-open source and do n't care if they allowed " pirating " of content is because we are against the concept of copyright .
We may not necessarily be pirates ourselves .
On the other hand... Maybe we pirate video and use only open source software .
After all open source software is just better and there really is n't any such equivalent to the open source movement for film .
We ca n't even donate to groups producing or recording raw copyright-free or public-domain like video .
lol or something like that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe just maybe those of us who are pro-open source and don't care if they allowed "pirating" of content is because we are against the concept of copyright.
We may not necessarily be pirates ourselves.
On the other hand... Maybe we pirate video and use only open source software.
After all open source software is just better and there really isn't any such equivalent to the open source movement for film.
We can't even donate to groups producing or recording raw copyright-free or public-domain like video.
lol or something like that too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545484</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269001440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That rings exceptionally fucking hollow when you look at the last slide, and then measure Google's words versus its deeds.</p><p>Stop polishing Google's knob. Regardless of your position on copyright law, both parties knew why Youtube was such a money machine. <b>Just because Google is trying to turn Youtube into TV 2.0 by enticing content providers into playing nice with them doesn't mean that either party was justified to begin with.</b> The only redeeming part of this sequence of events is how Youtube proved the efficacy of the Internet as a content distribution medium, <b>but even that is purely by accident. Youtube was acting in purest self interest by using pirated content as the foundation of their get-rich-quick scheme,</b> not to prove a point or develop a new service, <b>and Google was perfectly okay with this, as evidenced by later statements from Eric Schmidt and the eventual acquisition.</b> Had the latter two been true, this might even have been justifiable.</p><p>But since the past is done, the only thing Google can do now is either lean against the wind and fight for whatever copyright reforms that would be necessary to make this kind of thing legal, or clean up Youtube and turn it into a proper and legal broadcasting service. Or continue believing that it's above the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That rings exceptionally fucking hollow when you look at the last slide , and then measure Google 's words versus its deeds.Stop polishing Google 's knob .
Regardless of your position on copyright law , both parties knew why Youtube was such a money machine .
Just because Google is trying to turn Youtube into TV 2.0 by enticing content providers into playing nice with them does n't mean that either party was justified to begin with .
The only redeeming part of this sequence of events is how Youtube proved the efficacy of the Internet as a content distribution medium , but even that is purely by accident .
Youtube was acting in purest self interest by using pirated content as the foundation of their get-rich-quick scheme , not to prove a point or develop a new service , and Google was perfectly okay with this , as evidenced by later statements from Eric Schmidt and the eventual acquisition .
Had the latter two been true , this might even have been justifiable.But since the past is done , the only thing Google can do now is either lean against the wind and fight for whatever copyright reforms that would be necessary to make this kind of thing legal , or clean up Youtube and turn it into a proper and legal broadcasting service .
Or continue believing that it 's above the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That rings exceptionally fucking hollow when you look at the last slide, and then measure Google's words versus its deeds.Stop polishing Google's knob.
Regardless of your position on copyright law, both parties knew why Youtube was such a money machine.
Just because Google is trying to turn Youtube into TV 2.0 by enticing content providers into playing nice with them doesn't mean that either party was justified to begin with.
The only redeeming part of this sequence of events is how Youtube proved the efficacy of the Internet as a content distribution medium, but even that is purely by accident.
Youtube was acting in purest self interest by using pirated content as the foundation of their get-rich-quick scheme, not to prove a point or develop a new service, and Google was perfectly okay with this, as evidenced by later statements from Eric Schmidt and the eventual acquisition.
Had the latter two been true, this might even have been justifiable.But since the past is done, the only thing Google can do now is either lean against the wind and fight for whatever copyright reforms that would be necessary to make this kind of thing legal, or clean up Youtube and turn it into a proper and legal broadcasting service.
Or continue believing that it's above the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545174</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy?</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1268999340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nowadays, words have more than one meaning.  If you think that's bad, you should probably avoid the topic of "Abbreviations" altogether.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nowadays , words have more than one meaning .
If you think that 's bad , you should probably avoid the topic of " Abbreviations " altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nowadays, words have more than one meaning.
If you think that's bad, you should probably avoid the topic of "Abbreviations" altogether.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547324</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, Piracy</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1269019740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Just because language evolves does not mean that the evolution it experiences is always good.</p><p>
&nbsp; Hacker also used to have a good meaning, wrt technology "geeks". It was media misuse of the term that produced it's bad meaning.</p><p>
&nbsp; BTW, "Piracy" didn't mean "parrots and yarrhs" until Disney got a hold of it. Mostly it meant - and still means - the theft of other people's material goods by force and violence. Hence, "Somalia pirates", etc.  Or are you going to argue that the Somalians carrying out that particular bit of thievery should be called something else? After all, language evolves...</p><p>
&nbsp; So where does the "force and violence" come in when some kid downloads an mp3 thru a peer to peer app? Do you really think that most of the people who are doing this are sitting in their basement with pirate hats on, fake parrots on their shoulders, saying "yarr" to their friends?</p><p>
&nbsp; Are you really that much of an idiot? Or are you just an astroturfer?</p><p>SB: Sarcastic Bastard, and stickin' to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Just because language evolves does not mean that the evolution it experiences is always good .
  Hacker also used to have a good meaning , wrt technology " geeks " .
It was media misuse of the term that produced it 's bad meaning .
  BTW , " Piracy " did n't mean " parrots and yarrhs " until Disney got a hold of it .
Mostly it meant - and still means - the theft of other people 's material goods by force and violence .
Hence , " Somalia pirates " , etc .
Or are you going to argue that the Somalians carrying out that particular bit of thievery should be called something else ?
After all , language evolves.. .   So where does the " force and violence " come in when some kid downloads an mp3 thru a peer to peer app ?
Do you really think that most of the people who are doing this are sitting in their basement with pirate hats on , fake parrots on their shoulders , saying " yarr " to their friends ?
  Are you really that much of an idiot ?
Or are you just an astroturfer ? SB : Sarcastic Bastard , and stickin ' to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Just because language evolves does not mean that the evolution it experiences is always good.
  Hacker also used to have a good meaning, wrt technology "geeks".
It was media misuse of the term that produced it's bad meaning.
  BTW, "Piracy" didn't mean "parrots and yarrhs" until Disney got a hold of it.
Mostly it meant - and still means - the theft of other people's material goods by force and violence.
Hence, "Somalia pirates", etc.
Or are you going to argue that the Somalians carrying out that particular bit of thievery should be called something else?
After all, language evolves...
  So where does the "force and violence" come in when some kid downloads an mp3 thru a peer to peer app?
Do you really think that most of the people who are doing this are sitting in their basement with pirate hats on, fake parrots on their shoulders, saying "yarr" to their friends?
  Are you really that much of an idiot?
Or are you just an astroturfer?SB: Sarcastic Bastard, and stickin' to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547896</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>patSPLAT</author>
	<datestamp>1269115920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the clean dismissal of 1 of the 27 slides.  Obviously the lawsuit has no merit&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the clean dismissal of 1 of the 27 slides .
Obviously the lawsuit has no merit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the clean dismissal of 1 of the 27 slides.
Obviously the lawsuit has no merit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547080</id>
	<title>Sensationalist title.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The premises are wrong here.  I, for one, don't think that allowing people to upload basically whatever to Youtube is evil.</p><p>It's just a tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The premises are wrong here .
I , for one , do n't think that allowing people to upload basically whatever to Youtube is evil.It 's just a tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The premises are wrong here.
I, for one, don't think that allowing people to upload basically whatever to Youtube is evil.It's just a tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547104</id>
	<title>Are you working for Viacom?</title>
	<author>atchijov</author>
	<datestamp>1269016320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the only explanation I can think of.  Either this or total failure to comprehend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the only explanation I can think of .
Either this or total failure to comprehend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the only explanation I can think of.
Either this or total failure to comprehend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546018</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1269004860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This isn't a double standard at work. Google simply believes that it's above the law, and 'evil' can be conveniently redefined to mean whatever suits the company's interests at the time. Don't fall for the feelgood narrative.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Or... in fact... Google isn't being evil. It could be that, as reasonable human beings, they believe that the terms of copyright is actually the thing that is evil. In which case, they'd most certainly be correct. The trial of Eichmann proved that it is the duty of everyone to fight against evil orders and laws -- perhaps that is Google's way of subverting evil laws? Copyright, as it stands, is against the will of the majority of people, and reduces the welfare of the majority of people -- that seems more like evil to me.<br> <br>

Let's be clear, despite Viacom's hollow protests, no-one is losing out here. The "pirated" content on YouTube simply acts as advertisements, and is a useful promotional tool for networks -- including Viacom, as was proven yesterday. <br> <br>

The Will of the People is not going to change copyright -- but the Will of Google just might. Especially if they are proving there's nothing to fear by allowing change. YouTube does prove that.<br> <br>

A victimless crime, is really not a crime. And in this case most certainly isn't evil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a double standard at work .
Google simply believes that it 's above the law , and 'evil ' can be conveniently redefined to mean whatever suits the company 's interests at the time .
Do n't fall for the feelgood narrative .
Or... in fact... Google is n't being evil .
It could be that , as reasonable human beings , they believe that the terms of copyright is actually the thing that is evil .
In which case , they 'd most certainly be correct .
The trial of Eichmann proved that it is the duty of everyone to fight against evil orders and laws -- perhaps that is Google 's way of subverting evil laws ?
Copyright , as it stands , is against the will of the majority of people , and reduces the welfare of the majority of people -- that seems more like evil to me .
Let 's be clear , despite Viacom 's hollow protests , no-one is losing out here .
The " pirated " content on YouTube simply acts as advertisements , and is a useful promotional tool for networks -- including Viacom , as was proven yesterday .
The Will of the People is not going to change copyright -- but the Will of Google just might .
Especially if they are proving there 's nothing to fear by allowing change .
YouTube does prove that .
A victimless crime , is really not a crime .
And in this case most certainly is n't evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a double standard at work.
Google simply believes that it's above the law, and 'evil' can be conveniently redefined to mean whatever suits the company's interests at the time.
Don't fall for the feelgood narrative.
Or... in fact... Google isn't being evil.
It could be that, as reasonable human beings, they believe that the terms of copyright is actually the thing that is evil.
In which case, they'd most certainly be correct.
The trial of Eichmann proved that it is the duty of everyone to fight against evil orders and laws -- perhaps that is Google's way of subverting evil laws?
Copyright, as it stands, is against the will of the majority of people, and reduces the welfare of the majority of people -- that seems more like evil to me.
Let's be clear, despite Viacom's hollow protests, no-one is losing out here.
The "pirated" content on YouTube simply acts as advertisements, and is a useful promotional tool for networks -- including Viacom, as was proven yesterday.
The Will of the People is not going to change copyright -- but the Will of Google just might.
Especially if they are proving there's nothing to fear by allowing change.
YouTube does prove that.
A victimless crime, is really not a crime.
And in this case most certainly isn't evil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548262</id>
	<title>EVERYBODY knew it, but can you prove that in court</title>
	<author>TermV</author>
	<datestamp>1269081420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how there's this assumption that Google was somehow oblivious to what kind of content was actually posted on youtube. That's just a pretense user-generated content providers maintain in the hopes of getting out of legal trouble. It's like the Pirate bay half-heartedly trying to convince a jury that they just host Linux distributions. If somebody with an IQ of 60 can figure it out how to find pirated content on youtube, then so can the collective executive and legal team at google. The only question is whether there's documentation that proves they actually knew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how there 's this assumption that Google was somehow oblivious to what kind of content was actually posted on youtube .
That 's just a pretense user-generated content providers maintain in the hopes of getting out of legal trouble .
It 's like the Pirate bay half-heartedly trying to convince a jury that they just host Linux distributions .
If somebody with an IQ of 60 can figure it out how to find pirated content on youtube , then so can the collective executive and legal team at google .
The only question is whether there 's documentation that proves they actually knew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how there's this assumption that Google was somehow oblivious to what kind of content was actually posted on youtube.
That's just a pretense user-generated content providers maintain in the hopes of getting out of legal trouble.
It's like the Pirate bay half-heartedly trying to convince a jury that they just host Linux distributions.
If somebody with an IQ of 60 can figure it out how to find pirated content on youtube, then so can the collective executive and legal team at google.
The only question is whether there's documentation that proves they actually knew.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547722</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, Piracy</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1269026220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Quit calling it piracy already.</i> </p><p>It's piracy. Get over it.  The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.</p><p>Language grows. "Hacker" used to mean a really bad golfer.  And "Geeks" bit the heads off chickens.</p></div><p>You are incorrect. I would call you wrong, but I believe your incorrect statements stem from ignorance, rather than failure to acknowledge reality.</p><p>Hacker refers to one who engages in activity without talent or skill. (see american idol tryouts). While it still could refer to a bad golfer, its has never (explicitly) meant such a thing. There are plenty of good golfers who are hackers. There are plenty of non-golfers who are hackers in many other subjects. You seem to be an English language hack. A bad golfer would be a golf hack.</p><p>Geek, on the other hand, refers to one who is peculiar or otherwise dislikeable (I have often been referred to as a geek, but while I take it as a compliment, I have never bitten the head off of a chicken). While someone who bites the heads off of chickens today would still be correctly referred to as a geek, geek has never meant chicken head biter and nothing else. Likewise, if an customary method of chicken killing in an area was human use head biting, it would be improper to call a chicken head biter a geek.</p><p>In both cases, the meaning of the word has not changed, simply the common pejorative use.</p><p>On the other hand, piracy has always referred to a person who robs or commits illegal violence at or on the shores of the sea. Referring to one who uses or reproduces without authorization or legal right is not the correct use of the noun pirate or verb to pirate. This instead has always been known as plagiarism, not piracy. The unauthorized use or close imitation of another's work as one's own.</p><p>I do not understand why are you trying to make new meanings for old words when there are other words in common use that better fit the meaning you wish to associate.</p><p>Now that you are no longer ignorant, you need to recognize that copyright infringement is not piracy. On the other hand, newly non-ignorant robot, parrots and yarrhs have never had anything to do with piracy either.  Hmmm...it seems that instead of using words incorrectly, you should learn their meanings first, and then use the correct ones.Next time, try that instead of parroting the mass media and yarring (yes, also a word, meaning to growl or snarl as a dog) on slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit calling it piracy already .
It 's piracy .
Get over it .
The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh 's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.Language grows .
" Hacker " used to mean a really bad golfer .
And " Geeks " bit the heads off chickens.You are incorrect .
I would call you wrong , but I believe your incorrect statements stem from ignorance , rather than failure to acknowledge reality.Hacker refers to one who engages in activity without talent or skill .
( see american idol tryouts ) .
While it still could refer to a bad golfer , its has never ( explicitly ) meant such a thing .
There are plenty of good golfers who are hackers .
There are plenty of non-golfers who are hackers in many other subjects .
You seem to be an English language hack .
A bad golfer would be a golf hack.Geek , on the other hand , refers to one who is peculiar or otherwise dislikeable ( I have often been referred to as a geek , but while I take it as a compliment , I have never bitten the head off of a chicken ) .
While someone who bites the heads off of chickens today would still be correctly referred to as a geek , geek has never meant chicken head biter and nothing else .
Likewise , if an customary method of chicken killing in an area was human use head biting , it would be improper to call a chicken head biter a geek.In both cases , the meaning of the word has not changed , simply the common pejorative use.On the other hand , piracy has always referred to a person who robs or commits illegal violence at or on the shores of the sea .
Referring to one who uses or reproduces without authorization or legal right is not the correct use of the noun pirate or verb to pirate .
This instead has always been known as plagiarism , not piracy .
The unauthorized use or close imitation of another 's work as one 's own.I do not understand why are you trying to make new meanings for old words when there are other words in common use that better fit the meaning you wish to associate.Now that you are no longer ignorant , you need to recognize that copyright infringement is not piracy .
On the other hand , newly non-ignorant robot , parrots and yarrhs have never had anything to do with piracy either .
Hmmm...it seems that instead of using words incorrectly , you should learn their meanings first , and then use the correct ones.Next time , try that instead of parroting the mass media and yarring ( yes , also a word , meaning to growl or snarl as a dog ) on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Quit calling it piracy already.
It's piracy.
Get over it.
The word has evolved beyond parrots and yarrh's to include appropriation and distribution of files for which no license to distribute was provided by the content creator.Language grows.
"Hacker" used to mean a really bad golfer.
And "Geeks" bit the heads off chickens.You are incorrect.
I would call you wrong, but I believe your incorrect statements stem from ignorance, rather than failure to acknowledge reality.Hacker refers to one who engages in activity without talent or skill.
(see american idol tryouts).
While it still could refer to a bad golfer, its has never (explicitly) meant such a thing.
There are plenty of good golfers who are hackers.
There are plenty of non-golfers who are hackers in many other subjects.
You seem to be an English language hack.
A bad golfer would be a golf hack.Geek, on the other hand, refers to one who is peculiar or otherwise dislikeable (I have often been referred to as a geek, but while I take it as a compliment, I have never bitten the head off of a chicken).
While someone who bites the heads off of chickens today would still be correctly referred to as a geek, geek has never meant chicken head biter and nothing else.
Likewise, if an customary method of chicken killing in an area was human use head biting, it would be improper to call a chicken head biter a geek.In both cases, the meaning of the word has not changed, simply the common pejorative use.On the other hand, piracy has always referred to a person who robs or commits illegal violence at or on the shores of the sea.
Referring to one who uses or reproduces without authorization or legal right is not the correct use of the noun pirate or verb to pirate.
This instead has always been known as plagiarism, not piracy.
The unauthorized use or close imitation of another's work as one's own.I do not understand why are you trying to make new meanings for old words when there are other words in common use that better fit the meaning you wish to associate.Now that you are no longer ignorant, you need to recognize that copyright infringement is not piracy.
On the other hand, newly non-ignorant robot, parrots and yarrhs have never had anything to do with piracy either.
Hmmm...it seems that instead of using words incorrectly, you should learn their meanings first, and then use the correct ones.Next time, try that instead of parroting the mass media and yarring (yes, also a word, meaning to growl or snarl as a dog) on slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545164</id>
	<title>Now 3 buttons...</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1268999280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, there are three buttons on the Google home page:<p>
1. Google Search<br>2. I'm Feeling Lucky<br>3. AARRRRR!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , there are three buttons on the Google home page : 1 .
Google Search2 .
I 'm Feeling Lucky3 .
AARRRRR ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, there are three buttons on the Google home page:
1.
Google Search2.
I'm Feeling Lucky3.
AARRRRR!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547472</id>
	<title>Evil?</title>
	<author>flytown</author>
	<datestamp>1269022620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is he saying pirates are evil?

Pirates aren't evil, they are lovable scallywags, aaaaarrrggghh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is he saying pirates are evil ?
Pirates are n't evil , they are lovable scallywags , aaaaarrrggghh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is he saying pirates are evil?
Pirates aren't evil, they are lovable scallywags, aaaaarrrggghh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546216</id>
	<title>Theft is the term which really bothers me.</title>
	<author>orichter</author>
	<datestamp>1269006540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't even mind the term Piracy since it is unlikely anyone will actually mistake it for actual high seas piracy, and while it certainly is a slanted term which implies theft, it is certainly a more convenient term than copyright infringement.  What really bothers me is when people call it Theft.  It is clearly not theft, yet people might easily confuse it for theft.  That is the battle I fight.  I fear the piracy battle is already lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't even mind the term Piracy since it is unlikely anyone will actually mistake it for actual high seas piracy , and while it certainly is a slanted term which implies theft , it is certainly a more convenient term than copyright infringement .
What really bothers me is when people call it Theft .
It is clearly not theft , yet people might easily confuse it for theft .
That is the battle I fight .
I fear the piracy battle is already lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't even mind the term Piracy since it is unlikely anyone will actually mistake it for actual high seas piracy, and while it certainly is a slanted term which implies theft, it is certainly a more convenient term than copyright infringement.
What really bothers me is when people call it Theft.
It is clearly not theft, yet people might easily confuse it for theft.
That is the battle I fight.
I fear the piracy battle is already lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545218</id>
	<title>Google is our friend</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1268999580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just remember that and keep saying it over and over.  Google is our friend.  Google is our friend.  Google is our friend.</p><p>I don't think people's opinion of Google would change if they installed an application that uploaded to their servers anything that contained the word "copyright" in it and they then sold access to these gathered files.  Better yet, just made the files available with embedded advertising.  Imagine getting access to movie scripts as works-in-progress with some topically relevent ads sprinkled in.  How about design documents for new consumer electronics gear, a year or so before it hit the market.  You could market this under the moniker "Open Google".</p><p>The problem with Google is they got so incredibly big so incredibly fast without ever having to learn anything about growth or ethics.  A lot of the senior staff are very young and have little experience other than Google.  If it can be monetized, there is no reason not to do so in their eyes, especially if it doesn't seem "evil" at first glance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just remember that and keep saying it over and over .
Google is our friend .
Google is our friend .
Google is our friend.I do n't think people 's opinion of Google would change if they installed an application that uploaded to their servers anything that contained the word " copyright " in it and they then sold access to these gathered files .
Better yet , just made the files available with embedded advertising .
Imagine getting access to movie scripts as works-in-progress with some topically relevent ads sprinkled in .
How about design documents for new consumer electronics gear , a year or so before it hit the market .
You could market this under the moniker " Open Google " .The problem with Google is they got so incredibly big so incredibly fast without ever having to learn anything about growth or ethics .
A lot of the senior staff are very young and have little experience other than Google .
If it can be monetized , there is no reason not to do so in their eyes , especially if it does n't seem " evil " at first glance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just remember that and keep saying it over and over.
Google is our friend.
Google is our friend.
Google is our friend.I don't think people's opinion of Google would change if they installed an application that uploaded to their servers anything that contained the word "copyright" in it and they then sold access to these gathered files.
Better yet, just made the files available with embedded advertising.
Imagine getting access to movie scripts as works-in-progress with some topically relevent ads sprinkled in.
How about design documents for new consumer electronics gear, a year or so before it hit the market.
You could market this under the moniker "Open Google".The problem with Google is they got so incredibly big so incredibly fast without ever having to learn anything about growth or ethics.
A lot of the senior staff are very young and have little experience other than Google.
If it can be monetized, there is no reason not to do so in their eyes, especially if it doesn't seem "evil" at first glance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550202</id>
	<title>Re:When knowing isn't the same as knowing</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269108000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a specific case of a YouTube founder posting copyright-infringing videos to boost YouTube's popularity.</p><p>The other founders disagreed with the practice, but it was well known among them and by Google that this was going on.</p><p>Now, I could still see them going forward with the purchase given the fact that they'd have the ability to shut the guy down with ease, but it sounds like they were contemplating not purchasing YouTube at all because of this.  In the end they did make the purchase, and now Viacom is trying to say Google knowingly assisted copyright infringement.  No doubt they are trying to argue that Google was promoting an environment where such things could occur, and if they did not immediately shut down this founder who they knew was infringing, then Viacom may have a case.  Otherwise, though, I think it's all bullshit and will be tossed by any reasonable judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a specific case of a YouTube founder posting copyright-infringing videos to boost YouTube 's popularity.The other founders disagreed with the practice , but it was well known among them and by Google that this was going on.Now , I could still see them going forward with the purchase given the fact that they 'd have the ability to shut the guy down with ease , but it sounds like they were contemplating not purchasing YouTube at all because of this .
In the end they did make the purchase , and now Viacom is trying to say Google knowingly assisted copyright infringement .
No doubt they are trying to argue that Google was promoting an environment where such things could occur , and if they did not immediately shut down this founder who they knew was infringing , then Viacom may have a case .
Otherwise , though , I think it 's all bullshit and will be tossed by any reasonable judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a specific case of a YouTube founder posting copyright-infringing videos to boost YouTube's popularity.The other founders disagreed with the practice, but it was well known among them and by Google that this was going on.Now, I could still see them going forward with the purchase given the fact that they'd have the ability to shut the guy down with ease, but it sounds like they were contemplating not purchasing YouTube at all because of this.
In the end they did make the purchase, and now Viacom is trying to say Google knowingly assisted copyright infringement.
No doubt they are trying to argue that Google was promoting an environment where such things could occur, and if they did not immediately shut down this founder who they knew was infringing, then Viacom may have a case.
Otherwise, though, I think it's all bullshit and will be tossed by any reasonable judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545202</id>
	<title>Slashdot doesn't think so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's perfectly viable that someone can run a site where up to 99\% of the content is pirated and be completely oblivious about this fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's perfectly viable that someone can run a site where up to 99 \ % of the content is pirated and be completely oblivious about this fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's perfectly viable that someone can run a site where up to 99\% of the content is pirated and be completely oblivious about this fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545632</id>
	<title>Re:Now 3 buttons...</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1269002460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=xx-pirate" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=xx-pirate</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/webhp ? hl = xx-pirate [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=xx-pirate [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545982</id>
	<title>Re:alternate side of the story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269004560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't like the term, build a time machine and complain to the 16th century guy that invented it. Centuries after the term entered the language is a bit late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the term , build a time machine and complain to the 16th century guy that invented it .
Centuries after the term entered the language is a bit late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the term, build a time machine and complain to the 16th century guy that invented it.
Centuries after the term entered the language is a bit late.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545196</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but the case about books and literature is much, much more complicated than that and has a wide ranging impact on the basics of referring information on the Internet, what constitutes fair use, and what counts as a "reproduction"</p><p>Don't fall for the feelgood idiot riffing on the "Evil Google" narrative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but the case about books and literature is much , much more complicated than that and has a wide ranging impact on the basics of referring information on the Internet , what constitutes fair use , and what counts as a " reproduction " Do n't fall for the feelgood idiot riffing on the " Evil Google " narrative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but the case about books and literature is much, much more complicated than that and has a wide ranging impact on the basics of referring information on the Internet, what constitutes fair use, and what counts as a "reproduction"Don't fall for the feelgood idiot riffing on the "Evil Google" narrative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545032</id>
	<title>me too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im also still waiting for the evil part. if anyone blabbers to the contrary, im ready with a phletora of evidences of REAL evil ranging from monsanto to comcast-nbc, viacom, microsoft, and many many more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>im also still waiting for the evil part .
if anyone blabbers to the contrary , im ready with a phletora of evidences of REAL evil ranging from monsanto to comcast-nbc , viacom , microsoft , and many many more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im also still waiting for the evil part.
if anyone blabbers to the contrary, im ready with a phletora of evidences of REAL evil ranging from monsanto to comcast-nbc, viacom, microsoft, and many many more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548536</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1269087900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that our 'loyalty', so to speak, isn't to the GPL per se but rather the rights contained within. It's not GPLv2 clause 3a we care about, it's the right to possess the source-code of the programs that run on our machines, the outcry over GPL violations is less because they violated the text of the license and more because we feel they infringed on our rights as users, and would do so even if the entirety of copyright law was abolished tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that our 'loyalty ' , so to speak , is n't to the GPL per se but rather the rights contained within .
It 's not GPLv2 clause 3a we care about , it 's the right to possess the source-code of the programs that run on our machines , the outcry over GPL violations is less because they violated the text of the license and more because we feel they infringed on our rights as users , and would do so even if the entirety of copyright law was abolished tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that our 'loyalty', so to speak, isn't to the GPL per se but rather the rights contained within.
It's not GPLv2 clause 3a we care about, it's the right to possess the source-code of the programs that run on our machines, the outcry over GPL violations is less because they violated the text of the license and more because we feel they infringed on our rights as users, and would do so even if the entirety of copyright law was abolished tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548480</id>
	<title>Re:me too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269086400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just find it funny we are still reffering to companies as good or evil. What are we all 14years old?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just find it funny we are still reffering to companies as good or evil .
What are we all 14years old ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just find it funny we are still reffering to companies as good or evil.
What are we all 14years old?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545332</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1269000300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it unlikely that Google considers this evil. After all, given their stance toward books and other literature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Google simply believes that it's above the law, and 'evil' can be conveniently redefined<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>That has to be the single most abhorrent abuse of the word "evil" I've ever seen. Google believes that the contents of libraries should be made available of the Web. They have a strong point, and I think I actually agree with them, though I realize that the increased ease of access will cause problems for the current publishing business model. What you appear to be saying is that any attempt to increase the public's access to content that would damage an existing business model is inherently evil. I believe that to be nonsensical (though if you simply disagree, I take no exception to that... it's the demonization of the concept of an electronic library that I think is wrong).</p><p>Now, on to YouTube: YouTube is a tough nut, and I think we'll be doing the world a disservice if we resolve it as if it were a single issue in a vacuum. The core question reverses the library/business model issue. It is suggested by Viacom et al. that the ready access to information creates an environment in which the standard protections afforded to those who provide physical space for information (e.g. cork boards) are not acceptable online and that carriers of that information must be held liable for the use of those spaces. We're not arguing that Google is evil, we're arguing that they knew they were getting themselves into a legal morass which would likely result in Google defending their side of the case in court and shaping the laws of our land with respect to the Internet. That is actually quite the opposite of evil.</p><p>In both cases, I'm cheering for an outcome that happens to coincide with Google's interests, but I would be (grudgingly) rooting for the same outcome were it Microsoft or Monsanto being attacked for the same reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it unlikely that Google considers this evil .
After all , given their stance toward books and other literature ... Google simply believes that it 's above the law , and 'evil ' can be conveniently redefined ...That has to be the single most abhorrent abuse of the word " evil " I 've ever seen .
Google believes that the contents of libraries should be made available of the Web .
They have a strong point , and I think I actually agree with them , though I realize that the increased ease of access will cause problems for the current publishing business model .
What you appear to be saying is that any attempt to increase the public 's access to content that would damage an existing business model is inherently evil .
I believe that to be nonsensical ( though if you simply disagree , I take no exception to that... it 's the demonization of the concept of an electronic library that I think is wrong ) .Now , on to YouTube : YouTube is a tough nut , and I think we 'll be doing the world a disservice if we resolve it as if it were a single issue in a vacuum .
The core question reverses the library/business model issue .
It is suggested by Viacom et al .
that the ready access to information creates an environment in which the standard protections afforded to those who provide physical space for information ( e.g .
cork boards ) are not acceptable online and that carriers of that information must be held liable for the use of those spaces .
We 're not arguing that Google is evil , we 're arguing that they knew they were getting themselves into a legal morass which would likely result in Google defending their side of the case in court and shaping the laws of our land with respect to the Internet .
That is actually quite the opposite of evil.In both cases , I 'm cheering for an outcome that happens to coincide with Google 's interests , but I would be ( grudgingly ) rooting for the same outcome were it Microsoft or Monsanto being attacked for the same reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it unlikely that Google considers this evil.
After all, given their stance toward books and other literature ... Google simply believes that it's above the law, and 'evil' can be conveniently redefined ...That has to be the single most abhorrent abuse of the word "evil" I've ever seen.
Google believes that the contents of libraries should be made available of the Web.
They have a strong point, and I think I actually agree with them, though I realize that the increased ease of access will cause problems for the current publishing business model.
What you appear to be saying is that any attempt to increase the public's access to content that would damage an existing business model is inherently evil.
I believe that to be nonsensical (though if you simply disagree, I take no exception to that... it's the demonization of the concept of an electronic library that I think is wrong).Now, on to YouTube: YouTube is a tough nut, and I think we'll be doing the world a disservice if we resolve it as if it were a single issue in a vacuum.
The core question reverses the library/business model issue.
It is suggested by Viacom et al.
that the ready access to information creates an environment in which the standard protections afforded to those who provide physical space for information (e.g.
cork boards) are not acceptable online and that carriers of that information must be held liable for the use of those spaces.
We're not arguing that Google is evil, we're arguing that they knew they were getting themselves into a legal morass which would likely result in Google defending their side of the case in court and shaping the laws of our land with respect to the Internet.
That is actually quite the opposite of evil.In both cases, I'm cheering for an outcome that happens to coincide with Google's interests, but I would be (grudgingly) rooting for the same outcome were it Microsoft or Monsanto being attacked for the same reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545468</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>mandelbr0t</author>
	<datestamp>1269001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil."</p></div><p>Yeah, well too bad. You need to work on your self-righteousness. Piracy is not evil in the face of laws that take away our Free Speech rights. It is definitely unlawful, but that's the nature of moral action when laws dictate amoral or immoral behavior.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation , then turn around and say stuff like this " is n't evil .
" Yeah , well too bad .
You need to work on your self-righteousness .
Piracy is not evil in the face of laws that take away our Free Speech rights .
It is definitely unlawful , but that 's the nature of moral action when laws dictate amoral or immoral behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It irritates me to no end that the open source community will frequently scream bloody murder over a GPL violation, then turn around and say stuff like this "isn't evil.
"Yeah, well too bad.
You need to work on your self-righteousness.
Piracy is not evil in the face of laws that take away our Free Speech rights.
It is definitely unlawful, but that's the nature of moral action when laws dictate amoral or immoral behavior.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545262</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1268999820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding is that the DMCA requires a copyright owner to notify the hosting site of each infringing item.  Knowing in general that content is posted without a license isn't infringement.</p><p>Viacom is trying to kill the entire possibility of letting the general public post anything at all, for fear somebody somewhere might think they own it.  Google's just a convenient target with deep pockets just in case a court is dumb enough to swallow.</p><p>IANAL. duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that the DMCA requires a copyright owner to notify the hosting site of each infringing item .
Knowing in general that content is posted without a license is n't infringement.Viacom is trying to kill the entire possibility of letting the general public post anything at all , for fear somebody somewhere might think they own it .
Google 's just a convenient target with deep pockets just in case a court is dumb enough to swallow.IANAL .
duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that the DMCA requires a copyright owner to notify the hosting site of each infringing item.
Knowing in general that content is posted without a license isn't infringement.Viacom is trying to kill the entire possibility of letting the general public post anything at all, for fear somebody somewhere might think they own it.
Google's just a convenient target with deep pockets just in case a court is dumb enough to swallow.IANAL.
duh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545162</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1268999280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is all for "openess" with content.. as long as its not theirs..</p><p>Google doesn't let anyone use their search results, which they claim to be their proprietary content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is all for " openess " with content.. as long as its not theirs..Google does n't let anyone use their search results , which they claim to be their proprietary content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is all for "openess" with content.. as long as its not theirs..Google doesn't let anyone use their search results, which they claim to be their proprietary content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548414</id>
	<title>As for RTFA - this story is a load of nonsense</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1269085260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did RTFA, and I see how biased the article is. E.g., <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3" title="businessinsider.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3</a> [businessinsider.com] . This to me seems entirely reasonable and correct - if they try to police it themselves, it's harder to claim that they are ignorant, or that they should be treated like a common carrier. It is far better to leave it to the users, then it's their liability. If you think that's evil, then it's the law that's a problem, not Google. Similarly for <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10" title="businessinsider.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10</a> [businessinsider.com] - anyone who thinks this means they supported copyright infringement is an idiot, who doesn't understand the law.</p><p>Oh, so they used the phrase "copyright bastards". So company execs use naughty words too - how "evil". I don't think that using the phrase is unreasonable, when you consider how groups like the RIAA have operated. This doesn't mean they think copyright infringement should be supported.</p><p>On the whole, most of the emails seem to be about reducing their liability, which seems an entirely reasonable and sensible thing.</p><p>Then there's this one - <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5" title="businessinsider.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5</a> [businessinsider.com] . How's that embarrassing? It shows that they are against copyright infringement, as he was telling them not to do it.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6" title="businessinsider.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6</a> [businessinsider.com] - what does this have to do with copyright? If it's entertaining, it must be infringing copyright? Nice spin there.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-17" title="businessinsider.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-17</a> [businessinsider.com] - a company is evil if an engineer calls people "a-holes"? I suspect that makes most companies evil.</p><p>As for "evil", it's completely out of context. It comes from <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11" title="businessinsider.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11</a> [businessinsider.com] , but the "evil" does not mean copyright infringement, it means "user metrics" and "views"! This is not evil, and nothing to do with copyright, it's about spinning their publicity. I suspect "evil" is not intended seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did RTFA , and I see how biased the article is .
E.g. , http : //www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3 # youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3 [ businessinsider.com ] .
This to me seems entirely reasonable and correct - if they try to police it themselves , it 's harder to claim that they are ignorant , or that they should be treated like a common carrier .
It is far better to leave it to the users , then it 's their liability .
If you think that 's evil , then it 's the law that 's a problem , not Google .
Similarly for http : //www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3 # youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10 [ businessinsider.com ] - anyone who thinks this means they supported copyright infringement is an idiot , who does n't understand the law.Oh , so they used the phrase " copyright bastards " .
So company execs use naughty words too - how " evil " .
I do n't think that using the phrase is unreasonable , when you consider how groups like the RIAA have operated .
This does n't mean they think copyright infringement should be supported.On the whole , most of the emails seem to be about reducing their liability , which seems an entirely reasonable and sensible thing.Then there 's this one - http : //www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3 # this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5 [ businessinsider.com ] .
How 's that embarrassing ?
It shows that they are against copyright infringement , as he was telling them not to do it.http : //www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3 # we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6 [ businessinsider.com ] - what does this have to do with copyright ?
If it 's entertaining , it must be infringing copyright ?
Nice spin there.http : //www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3 # -17 [ businessinsider.com ] - a company is evil if an engineer calls people " a-holes " ?
I suspect that makes most companies evil.As for " evil " , it 's completely out of context .
It comes from http : //www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3 # uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11 [ businessinsider.com ] , but the " evil " does not mean copyright infringement , it means " user metrics " and " views " !
This is not evil , and nothing to do with copyright , it 's about spinning their publicity .
I suspect " evil " is not intended seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did RTFA, and I see how biased the article is.
E.g., http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-tries-skirting-the-law-3 [businessinsider.com] .
This to me seems entirely reasonable and correct - if they try to police it themselves, it's harder to claim that they are ignorant, or that they should be treated like a common carrier.
It is far better to leave it to the users, then it's their liability.
If you think that's evil, then it's the law that's a problem, not Google.
Similarly for http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#youtube-was-getting-too-good-at-removing-illegal-content-which-worried-the-founders-10 [businessinsider.com] - anyone who thinks this means they supported copyright infringement is an idiot, who doesn't understand the law.Oh, so they used the phrase "copyright bastards".
So company execs use naughty words too - how "evil".
I don't think that using the phrase is unreasonable, when you consider how groups like the RIAA have operated.
This doesn't mean they think copyright infringement should be supported.On the whole, most of the emails seem to be about reducing their liability, which seems an entirely reasonable and sensible thing.Then there's this one - http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#this-doesnt-necessarily-kill-them-but-boy-is-it-embarrassing-5 [businessinsider.com] .
How's that embarrassing?
It shows that they are against copyright infringement, as he was telling them not to do it.http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#we-have-to-make-our-site-as-entertaining-as-tv-6 [businessinsider.com] - what does this have to do with copyright?
If it's entertaining, it must be infringing copyright?
Nice spin there.http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-17 [businessinsider.com] - a company is evil if an engineer calls people "a-holes"?
I suspect that makes most companies evil.As for "evil", it's completely out of context.
It comes from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#uh-ohhowever-evil-never-sounds-good-11 [businessinsider.com] , but the "evil" does not mean copyright infringement, it means "user metrics" and "views"!
This is not evil, and nothing to do with copyright, it's about spinning their publicity.
I suspect "evil" is not intended seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545458</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269001200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article is probably the worst one out there covering this topic.  They took the subject compeletly out of context.  Here is a better article that includes the context:<br> <br>

<a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/viacom-may-be-misrepresenting-youtube-founders-call-to-steal-it/" title="techcrunch.com">http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/viacom-may-be-misrepresenting-youtube-founders-call-to-steal-it/</a> [techcrunch.com] <br> <br>

Here is the source of the quote.  It is a thread of several emails, but only from one side:<blockquote><div><p>    SUBJECT: Re:http://www.filecabi.net/<br> <br>

    Jul 29, 2005  1:05 AM, Steve Chen wrote:<br> <br>

    steal it!<br> <br>

    Jul 29, 2005 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:25 AM, Chad Hurley wrote:<br> <br>

    hmm, steal the movies?<br> <br>

    Jul 29, 2005 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:33 AM, Steve Chen wrote:<br> <br>

    haha ya.<br> <br>

    or something.<br> <br>

    just something to watch out for. check out their alexa ranking.<br>
    -s<br> <br>

    Jul 29, 2005 7:45 AM, Chad Hurley wrote:<br> <br>

    hmm, i know they are getting a lot of traffic... but it's because they are a stupidvideos.com-type of site. they might make enough money to pay hosing bills, but sites like this and big-boys.com will never go public. I would really like to build something more valuable and more useful. actually build something that people will talk about and changes the way people use video on the internet.<br> <br>

    Jul 29 2005 6:51 AM, Steve Chen wrote:<br> <br>

    right, i understand those goals but, at the same time, we have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. how much traffic will we get from the personal videos? remember, the only reason why our traffic surged was due to a video of this type.
    i'm not really disagreeing with you but i also think we shouldn't be so high &amp; mighty and think we're better than these guys. viral videos will tend to be THOSE type of videos.<br>
    -s<br> <br>

    Jul 29 2005 6:56 AM, Steve Chen Wrote:<br> <br>

    another thing. still a fundamental difference between us and most of those other sites. we do have a community and it's ALL user generated content.<br> <br>

    -s</p></div></blockquote><p>

To me, when taken in context that sounds like a pretty reasonable half of a conversation.  He does not advocate copyright infringement.  He also states that they should not get all high and mighty against file sharers.  He then sums up saying that they have a community who makes its own content which other sites do not.<br> <br>

All seems pretty reasonable to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is probably the worst one out there covering this topic .
They took the subject compeletly out of context .
Here is a better article that includes the context : http : //techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/viacom-may-be-misrepresenting-youtube-founders-call-to-steal-it/ [ techcrunch.com ] Here is the source of the quote .
It is a thread of several emails , but only from one side : SUBJECT : Re : http : //www.filecabi.net/ Jul 29 , 2005 1 : 05 AM , Steve Chen wrote : steal it !
Jul 29 , 2005 1 : 25 AM , Chad Hurley wrote : hmm , steal the movies ?
Jul 29 , 2005 1 : 33 AM , Steve Chen wrote : haha ya .
or something .
just something to watch out for .
check out their alexa ranking .
-s Jul 29 , 2005 7 : 45 AM , Chad Hurley wrote : hmm , i know they are getting a lot of traffic... but it 's because they are a stupidvideos.com-type of site .
they might make enough money to pay hosing bills , but sites like this and big-boys.com will never go public .
I would really like to build something more valuable and more useful .
actually build something that people will talk about and changes the way people use video on the internet .
Jul 29 2005 6 : 51 AM , Steve Chen wrote : right , i understand those goals but , at the same time , we have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic .
how much traffic will we get from the personal videos ?
remember , the only reason why our traffic surged was due to a video of this type .
i 'm not really disagreeing with you but i also think we should n't be so high &amp; mighty and think we 're better than these guys .
viral videos will tend to be THOSE type of videos .
-s Jul 29 2005 6 : 56 AM , Steve Chen Wrote : another thing .
still a fundamental difference between us and most of those other sites .
we do have a community and it 's ALL user generated content .
-s To me , when taken in context that sounds like a pretty reasonable half of a conversation .
He does not advocate copyright infringement .
He also states that they should not get all high and mighty against file sharers .
He then sums up saying that they have a community who makes its own content which other sites do not .
All seems pretty reasonable to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is probably the worst one out there covering this topic.
They took the subject compeletly out of context.
Here is a better article that includes the context: 

http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/viacom-may-be-misrepresenting-youtube-founders-call-to-steal-it/ [techcrunch.com]  

Here is the source of the quote.
It is a thread of several emails, but only from one side:    SUBJECT: Re:http://www.filecabi.net/ 

    Jul 29, 2005  1:05 AM, Steve Chen wrote: 

    steal it!
Jul 29, 2005 1 :25 AM, Chad Hurley wrote: 

    hmm, steal the movies?
Jul 29, 2005 1 :33 AM, Steve Chen wrote: 

    haha ya.
or something.
just something to watch out for.
check out their alexa ranking.
-s 

    Jul 29, 2005 7:45 AM, Chad Hurley wrote: 

    hmm, i know they are getting a lot of traffic... but it's because they are a stupidvideos.com-type of site.
they might make enough money to pay hosing bills, but sites like this and big-boys.com will never go public.
I would really like to build something more valuable and more useful.
actually build something that people will talk about and changes the way people use video on the internet.
Jul 29 2005 6:51 AM, Steve Chen wrote: 

    right, i understand those goals but, at the same time, we have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic.
how much traffic will we get from the personal videos?
remember, the only reason why our traffic surged was due to a video of this type.
i'm not really disagreeing with you but i also think we shouldn't be so high &amp; mighty and think we're better than these guys.
viral videos will tend to be THOSE type of videos.
-s 

    Jul 29 2005 6:56 AM, Steve Chen Wrote: 

    another thing.
still a fundamental difference between us and most of those other sites.
we do have a community and it's ALL user generated content.
-s

To me, when taken in context that sounds like a pretty reasonable half of a conversation.
He does not advocate copyright infringement.
He also states that they should not get all high and mighty against file sharers.
He then sums up saying that they have a community who makes its own content which other sites do not.
All seems pretty reasonable to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548228</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1269080760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, and you know what, the gpl is about sharing, so a stance that code should be free as in Free Software could very well live in harmony with the stance that information and culture should be shared. It's not hypocrisy any more than thinking that one law is a rule to do the right thing and another isn't. (maybe a little confusing since both is about copyright law, but think of it like this: copyright law should, in a freedom (tm) mongers mind be used to enforce the gpl, but not to deny people of culture that could be distributed to everyone virtually for free...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , and you know what , the gpl is about sharing , so a stance that code should be free as in Free Software could very well live in harmony with the stance that information and culture should be shared .
It 's not hypocrisy any more than thinking that one law is a rule to do the right thing and another is n't .
( maybe a little confusing since both is about copyright law , but think of it like this : copyright law should , in a freedom ( tm ) mongers mind be used to enforce the gpl , but not to deny people of culture that could be distributed to everyone virtually for free... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, and you know what, the gpl is about sharing, so a stance that code should be free as in Free Software could very well live in harmony with the stance that information and culture should be shared.
It's not hypocrisy any more than thinking that one law is a rule to do the right thing and another isn't.
(maybe a little confusing since both is about copyright law, but think of it like this: copyright law should, in a freedom (tm) mongers mind be used to enforce the gpl, but not to deny people of culture that could be distributed to everyone virtually for free...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549300</id>
	<title>most mod points ever spent</title>
	<author>conspirator57</author>
	<datestamp>1269098100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on a single story.  well, maybe not ever, but damn, i've never seen so many +5 modded comments in a single story, many of which deserved -1 redundant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on a single story .
well , maybe not ever , but damn , i 've never seen so many + 5 modded comments in a single story , many of which deserved -1 redundant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on a single story.
well, maybe not ever, but damn, i've never seen so many +5 modded comments in a single story, many of which deserved -1 redundant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550178</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1269107820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where does that leave content owners who upload their content on purpose, hide their tracks, and then sue for infringement?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does that leave content owners who upload their content on purpose , hide their tracks , and then sue for infringement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does that leave content owners who upload their content on purpose, hide their tracks, and then sue for infringement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549612</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269101580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Google believes that the contents of libraries should be made available of the Web."<br>No, Google believes they should be able to take content which they have been notified is copyrighted and use it to make a profit via their advertising model without informing the copyright holder or negotiating the terms of the usage with the copyright holder.  The U.S. government promised the copyright holders that they would, in exchange for publishing their material, have control over the replication of their work in whole or in part.   Libraries do not violate this policy as they purchase a copy and loan it out.  Libraries do not replicate the copy.  Every time someone downloads a part of a copyrighted work which is hosted by Google from Google, Google replicates the part of the copyrighted work and transmits it to the end user.  So a copyright violation occurs.  Google's indexing of the internet did not result in a copyright violation by Google since they just redirected end users to the final site.  Google's caching of the internet sites may have resulted in copyright violations.  If the U.S. government changes the laws, the changes should not apply to existing copyrights only to future copyrights.  Otherwise, the U.S. government would be in violation of a contract with the existing copyright holders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Google believes that the contents of libraries should be made available of the Web .
" No , Google believes they should be able to take content which they have been notified is copyrighted and use it to make a profit via their advertising model without informing the copyright holder or negotiating the terms of the usage with the copyright holder .
The U.S. government promised the copyright holders that they would , in exchange for publishing their material , have control over the replication of their work in whole or in part .
Libraries do not violate this policy as they purchase a copy and loan it out .
Libraries do not replicate the copy .
Every time someone downloads a part of a copyrighted work which is hosted by Google from Google , Google replicates the part of the copyrighted work and transmits it to the end user .
So a copyright violation occurs .
Google 's indexing of the internet did not result in a copyright violation by Google since they just redirected end users to the final site .
Google 's caching of the internet sites may have resulted in copyright violations .
If the U.S. government changes the laws , the changes should not apply to existing copyrights only to future copyrights .
Otherwise , the U.S. government would be in violation of a contract with the existing copyright holders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Google believes that the contents of libraries should be made available of the Web.
"No, Google believes they should be able to take content which they have been notified is copyrighted and use it to make a profit via their advertising model without informing the copyright holder or negotiating the terms of the usage with the copyright holder.
The U.S. government promised the copyright holders that they would, in exchange for publishing their material, have control over the replication of their work in whole or in part.
Libraries do not violate this policy as they purchase a copy and loan it out.
Libraries do not replicate the copy.
Every time someone downloads a part of a copyrighted work which is hosted by Google from Google, Google replicates the part of the copyrighted work and transmits it to the end user.
So a copyright violation occurs.
Google's indexing of the internet did not result in a copyright violation by Google since they just redirected end users to the final site.
Google's caching of the internet sites may have resulted in copyright violations.
If the U.S. government changes the laws, the changes should not apply to existing copyrights only to future copyrights.
Otherwise, the U.S. government would be in violation of a contract with the existing copyright holders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548390</id>
	<title>"copyrighted"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269084360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google mentioned this in their blog post about Viacom, but....<br>"Copyrighted material" is everything that hasn't entered the public domain.  If you make a video of your dog and upload it to YouTube (or wherever), it is copyrighted material by default under US law, and most other country's laws.</p><p>So the issue is not whether people were uploading copyrighted videos, of course they were.  The issue is whether they were uploading copyrighted videos without the *permission* of the copyright owner.  Now, you might think that's silly, because nobody would care if someone upload a video of their dog, but Fox would for sure care if you upload an episode of "the Simpsons" - but you'd be wrong, since Viacom itself was uploading videos to Youtube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google mentioned this in their blog post about Viacom , but.... " Copyrighted material " is everything that has n't entered the public domain .
If you make a video of your dog and upload it to YouTube ( or wherever ) , it is copyrighted material by default under US law , and most other country 's laws.So the issue is not whether people were uploading copyrighted videos , of course they were .
The issue is whether they were uploading copyrighted videos without the * permission * of the copyright owner .
Now , you might think that 's silly , because nobody would care if someone upload a video of their dog , but Fox would for sure care if you upload an episode of " the Simpsons " - but you 'd be wrong , since Viacom itself was uploading videos to Youtube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google mentioned this in their blog post about Viacom, but...."Copyrighted material" is everything that hasn't entered the public domain.
If you make a video of your dog and upload it to YouTube (or wherever), it is copyrighted material by default under US law, and most other country's laws.So the issue is not whether people were uploading copyrighted videos, of course they were.
The issue is whether they were uploading copyrighted videos without the *permission* of the copyright owner.
Now, you might think that's silly, because nobody would care if someone upload a video of their dog, but Fox would for sure care if you upload an episode of "the Simpsons" - but you'd be wrong, since Viacom itself was uploading videos to Youtube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545078</id>
	<title>bickering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this is a direct response to <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/18/2059236/Google-Slams-Viacom-For-Secret-YouTube-Uploads" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/18/2059236/Google-Slams-Viacom-For-Secret-YouTube-Uploads</a> [slashdot.org] from Viacom ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is a direct response to http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/18/2059236/Google-Slams-Viacom-For-Secret-YouTube-Uploads [ slashdot.org ] from Viacom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is a direct response to http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/18/2059236/Google-Slams-Viacom-For-Secret-YouTube-Uploads [slashdot.org] from Viacom ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546796</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, Piracy</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1269012900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a geek and I still bite the heads off chickens you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a geek and I still bite the heads off chickens you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a geek and I still bite the heads off chickens you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545528</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>ady1</author>
	<datestamp>1269001740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found it very interesting that "was" in the title is formated to stand out. The question is, considering that they were evil and no longer are, why is viacom suing google, and didn't sue youtube? Isn't suing a bigger company just because they have deeper pockets evil?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found it very interesting that " was " in the title is formated to stand out .
The question is , considering that they were evil and no longer are , why is viacom suing google , and did n't sue youtube ?
Is n't suing a bigger company just because they have deeper pockets evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found it very interesting that "was" in the title is formated to stand out.
The question is, considering that they were evil and no longer are, why is viacom suing google, and didn't sue youtube?
Isn't suing a bigger company just because they have deeper pockets evil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547926</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>patSPLAT</author>
	<datestamp>1269116220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to say it again -- Theft in the past remains theft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to say it again -- Theft in the past remains theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to say it again -- Theft in the past remains theft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547088</id>
	<title>Viacom Already Far More Evil</title>
	<author>cc\_pirate</author>
	<datestamp>1269016140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Viacom is already far, far more evil through what it has done than Google can ever be.</p><p>Constant excessive attempts to invoke the DMCA on content that is short enough to be covered by fair use, etc., etc., etc.</p><p>AND, lest we forget, Viacom is a cornerstone member of the MPAA.  One of the most evil organizations in the world, with the possible exception of the RIAA.</p><p>So dear Viacom, please burn in the hell you deserve.  I won't shed tear one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Viacom is already far , far more evil through what it has done than Google can ever be.Constant excessive attempts to invoke the DMCA on content that is short enough to be covered by fair use , etc. , etc. , etc.AND , lest we forget , Viacom is a cornerstone member of the MPAA .
One of the most evil organizations in the world , with the possible exception of the RIAA.So dear Viacom , please burn in the hell you deserve .
I wo n't shed tear one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viacom is already far, far more evil through what it has done than Google can ever be.Constant excessive attempts to invoke the DMCA on content that is short enough to be covered by fair use, etc., etc., etc.AND, lest we forget, Viacom is a cornerstone member of the MPAA.
One of the most evil organizations in the world, with the possible exception of the RIAA.So dear Viacom, please burn in the hell you deserve.
I won't shed tear one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546676</id>
	<title>Breaking the law isn't evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if the law itself is evil. There is no such thing as imaginary property. We do not need to create it out of thin air and coercive force in order to have a prosperous society where ideas and art flourish. Google FTW. Since they don't appear to have broken any laws anyway, it hardly matters. Viacom is just following the old legal maxim: "If the facts are against you, bang on the law. If the law is against you, bang on the facts. If both are against you, bang on the table." Banging on the table isn't going to get Viacom very far against a well-funded defense.</p><p>Remember, Google bought YouTube, started their book scanning project, etc. partly just so that they could be party to these lawsuits. They want to make sure it's Google that gets sued, so that they have a chance to steer the case law as they wish. When you have billions in cash you can act this way, and it is a <i>good</i> thing for society. Viacom complaining about DMCA protections? I think that's funny. Maybe even ironic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if the law itself is evil .
There is no such thing as imaginary property .
We do not need to create it out of thin air and coercive force in order to have a prosperous society where ideas and art flourish .
Google FTW .
Since they do n't appear to have broken any laws anyway , it hardly matters .
Viacom is just following the old legal maxim : " If the facts are against you , bang on the law .
If the law is against you , bang on the facts .
If both are against you , bang on the table .
" Banging on the table is n't going to get Viacom very far against a well-funded defense.Remember , Google bought YouTube , started their book scanning project , etc .
partly just so that they could be party to these lawsuits .
They want to make sure it 's Google that gets sued , so that they have a chance to steer the case law as they wish .
When you have billions in cash you can act this way , and it is a good thing for society .
Viacom complaining about DMCA protections ?
I think that 's funny .
Maybe even ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the law itself is evil.
There is no such thing as imaginary property.
We do not need to create it out of thin air and coercive force in order to have a prosperous society where ideas and art flourish.
Google FTW.
Since they don't appear to have broken any laws anyway, it hardly matters.
Viacom is just following the old legal maxim: "If the facts are against you, bang on the law.
If the law is against you, bang on the facts.
If both are against you, bang on the table.
" Banging on the table isn't going to get Viacom very far against a well-funded defense.Remember, Google bought YouTube, started their book scanning project, etc.
partly just so that they could be party to these lawsuits.
They want to make sure it's Google that gets sued, so that they have a chance to steer the case law as they wish.
When you have billions in cash you can act this way, and it is a good thing for society.
Viacom complaining about DMCA protections?
I think that's funny.
Maybe even ironic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547780</id>
	<title>Re:What's more evil?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1269027360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The owner of the copyright must explicitly grant it to the public domain, or license it for other's use, distribution, sharing, mashing, basically anything more than fair use...</p></div></blockquote><p>Which is pretty much how copyright has worked for pretty much ever.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Copyright is no longer about promotion of creativity, its a legal exclusivity and an effectively permanent lock on all creative output by business interests.</p></div></blockquote><p>Legal exclusivity for a limited term is precisely what copy has <i>always</i> been about.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>The current copyright laws are simply a denial of any sense of balance or social good in intellectual property.</p></div></blockquote><p>Like the rest of your rant, this is utter bilge.  You keep making claims utterly at odds with the facts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The owner of the copyright must explicitly grant it to the public domain , or license it for other 's use , distribution , sharing , mashing , basically anything more than fair use...Which is pretty much how copyright has worked for pretty much ever .
  Copyright is no longer about promotion of creativity , its a legal exclusivity and an effectively permanent lock on all creative output by business interests.Legal exclusivity for a limited term is precisely what copy has always been about .
  The current copyright laws are simply a denial of any sense of balance or social good in intellectual property.Like the rest of your rant , this is utter bilge .
You keep making claims utterly at odds with the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The owner of the copyright must explicitly grant it to the public domain, or license it for other's use, distribution, sharing, mashing, basically anything more than fair use...Which is pretty much how copyright has worked for pretty much ever.
  Copyright is no longer about promotion of creativity, its a legal exclusivity and an effectively permanent lock on all creative output by business interests.Legal exclusivity for a limited term is precisely what copy has always been about.
  The current copyright laws are simply a denial of any sense of balance or social good in intellectual property.Like the rest of your rant, this is utter bilge.
You keep making claims utterly at odds with the facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546080</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269005340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to object on the grounds that I never claimed that I agreed with anyone's definition of the world 'evil' or even attempted to define it. Rather, I offer that the word 'evil' here is just a convenient hyperbolism.</p><p>As with Youtube, however, Google - which, I'd like to stress, is not a philanthropic organization and cannot guarantee its own benevolence - wants to host or index content in order to drive traffic. Roughly, that traffic enhances the profitability of their business. While it can't be proven outright (though in the Youtube case is strongly implied by none other than Eric Schmidt) I would say that Google's actual goal in creating its grand online library to extend their drive to index as much information as possible; to then drive as much traffic as possible with that information; to then collect as much data about usage and searching trends with regard to that information as possible; which in turn maximizes the value of their advertising services, increasing profits. That is, after all, their business model.</p><p>It's intent. I'm tremendously skeptical of Google's intentions, and we already know that Youtube's intentions were faulty and disgustingly self-interested. If there's a positive outcome here that somehow results in meaningful and equitable copyright reform, I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth, but Google strikes me as a tremendously creepy and parasitic company. (Perhaps more accurately, lopsidedly mutualistic.) There's nothing stopping consumers from participating in something like a non-for-profit Wowd, or Torrents-As-Hosting, which would allow the same kind of ambitious and noble projects as a 'Library of Mankind' to be realized in a reasonable frame of time. A search-and-host (or cloud computing) cooperative that commits most of its revenues to extending services like those would be the best possible option, but also represents the loftiest and most unreasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to object on the grounds that I never claimed that I agreed with anyone 's definition of the world 'evil ' or even attempted to define it .
Rather , I offer that the word 'evil ' here is just a convenient hyperbolism.As with Youtube , however , Google - which , I 'd like to stress , is not a philanthropic organization and can not guarantee its own benevolence - wants to host or index content in order to drive traffic .
Roughly , that traffic enhances the profitability of their business .
While it ca n't be proven outright ( though in the Youtube case is strongly implied by none other than Eric Schmidt ) I would say that Google 's actual goal in creating its grand online library to extend their drive to index as much information as possible ; to then drive as much traffic as possible with that information ; to then collect as much data about usage and searching trends with regard to that information as possible ; which in turn maximizes the value of their advertising services , increasing profits .
That is , after all , their business model.It 's intent .
I 'm tremendously skeptical of Google 's intentions , and we already know that Youtube 's intentions were faulty and disgustingly self-interested .
If there 's a positive outcome here that somehow results in meaningful and equitable copyright reform , I 'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth , but Google strikes me as a tremendously creepy and parasitic company .
( Perhaps more accurately , lopsidedly mutualistic .
) There 's nothing stopping consumers from participating in something like a non-for-profit Wowd , or Torrents-As-Hosting , which would allow the same kind of ambitious and noble projects as a 'Library of Mankind ' to be realized in a reasonable frame of time .
A search-and-host ( or cloud computing ) cooperative that commits most of its revenues to extending services like those would be the best possible option , but also represents the loftiest and most unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to object on the grounds that I never claimed that I agreed with anyone's definition of the world 'evil' or even attempted to define it.
Rather, I offer that the word 'evil' here is just a convenient hyperbolism.As with Youtube, however, Google - which, I'd like to stress, is not a philanthropic organization and cannot guarantee its own benevolence - wants to host or index content in order to drive traffic.
Roughly, that traffic enhances the profitability of their business.
While it can't be proven outright (though in the Youtube case is strongly implied by none other than Eric Schmidt) I would say that Google's actual goal in creating its grand online library to extend their drive to index as much information as possible; to then drive as much traffic as possible with that information; to then collect as much data about usage and searching trends with regard to that information as possible; which in turn maximizes the value of their advertising services, increasing profits.
That is, after all, their business model.It's intent.
I'm tremendously skeptical of Google's intentions, and we already know that Youtube's intentions were faulty and disgustingly self-interested.
If there's a positive outcome here that somehow results in meaningful and equitable copyright reform, I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth, but Google strikes me as a tremendously creepy and parasitic company.
(Perhaps more accurately, lopsidedly mutualistic.
) There's nothing stopping consumers from participating in something like a non-for-profit Wowd, or Torrents-As-Hosting, which would allow the same kind of ambitious and noble projects as a 'Library of Mankind' to be realized in a reasonable frame of time.
A search-and-host (or cloud computing) cooperative that commits most of its revenues to extending services like those would be the best possible option, but also represents the loftiest and most unreasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549374</id>
	<title>what Google knew and what Google actually did</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1269098760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>The emails and IMs also seem to show that Google knew about this plan when it bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in 2006</i>"<br> <br>

Everyone and his dog 'knew' there was copyrighted material on Youtube. What Google '<i>knew</i>' is moot. Googles actions and policies at the time are most relevent. According to the actual text of the emails, Google strongly opposed profiting from 'pirated material'. And elsewhere it shows that content owners were <a href="http://m.news.com/2166-12\_3-20000815-261.html" title="news.com">actively uploading</a> [news.com] content. "we've uploaded boatloads of clips onto YouTube for distribution", Viacom. If this is <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-damning-information-viacom-dug-up-on-google-and-youtube-2010-3#-21" title="businessinsider.com">The Most Damning Information Viacom Dug Up On Google And YouTube</a> [businessinsider.com], then not much is all I can say.<br> <br>

slide 23<br>
<i>162. In a June 28, 2006 email to numerous other Google executives, Google vice president of content partnerships David Eun stated: "as Sergey pointed out at our last GPS, is changing policy [t]o increase traffic knowing beforehand that we'll profit from illegal [d]ownloads how we want to conduct business? Is this Googley?<br> <br>

slide 24<br>
Google executive Partic Walker and email listing the "Top 10 reasons why we shouldn't stop screening for copyright violations," including: "1. It crosses the threshold of Don't be Evil to facilitate distribution of other people's intellectual property, and possible even allowing monetization of it by somebody who doesn't own the copyright";<br> <br>

"2. Just growing any traffic is a bad idea. This policy will drive us to build a giant index of pseudo porn, lady punches, and copyrighted material<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."'<br> <br>

"3. We should be able to win on features, a better [user interface] technology, advertising relationships - not just policy, It's a cop out to resort to dis-rob-ution";<br> <br>

"7. it makes it more difficult to do content deals with you have an index of pirated material</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The emails and IMs also seem to show that Google knew about this plan when it bought YouTube for $ 1.65 billion in 2006 " Everyone and his dog 'knew ' there was copyrighted material on Youtube .
What Google 'knew ' is moot .
Googles actions and policies at the time are most relevent .
According to the actual text of the emails , Google strongly opposed profiting from 'pirated material' .
And elsewhere it shows that content owners were actively uploading [ news.com ] content .
" we 've uploaded boatloads of clips onto YouTube for distribution " , Viacom .
If this is The Most Damning Information Viacom Dug Up On Google And YouTube [ businessinsider.com ] , then not much is all I can say .
slide 23 162 .
In a June 28 , 2006 email to numerous other Google executives , Google vice president of content partnerships David Eun stated : " as Sergey pointed out at our last GPS , is changing policy [ t ] o increase traffic knowing beforehand that we 'll profit from illegal [ d ] ownloads how we want to conduct business ?
Is this Googley ?
slide 24 Google executive Partic Walker and email listing the " Top 10 reasons why we should n't stop screening for copyright violations , " including : " 1 .
It crosses the threshold of Do n't be Evil to facilitate distribution of other people 's intellectual property , and possible even allowing monetization of it by somebody who does n't own the copyright " ; " 2 .
Just growing any traffic is a bad idea .
This policy will drive us to build a giant index of pseudo porn , lady punches , and copyrighted material ... " ' " 3 .
We should be able to win on features , a better [ user interface ] technology , advertising relationships - not just policy , It 's a cop out to resort to dis-rob-ution " ; " 7. it makes it more difficult to do content deals with you have an index of pirated material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The emails and IMs also seem to show that Google knew about this plan when it bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in 2006" 

Everyone and his dog 'knew' there was copyrighted material on Youtube.
What Google 'knew' is moot.
Googles actions and policies at the time are most relevent.
According to the actual text of the emails, Google strongly opposed profiting from 'pirated material'.
And elsewhere it shows that content owners were actively uploading [news.com] content.
"we've uploaded boatloads of clips onto YouTube for distribution", Viacom.
If this is The Most Damning Information Viacom Dug Up On Google And YouTube [businessinsider.com], then not much is all I can say.
slide 23
162.
In a June 28, 2006 email to numerous other Google executives, Google vice president of content partnerships David Eun stated: "as Sergey pointed out at our last GPS, is changing policy [t]o increase traffic knowing beforehand that we'll profit from illegal [d]ownloads how we want to conduct business?
Is this Googley?
slide 24
Google executive Partic Walker and email listing the "Top 10 reasons why we shouldn't stop screening for copyright violations," including: "1.
It crosses the threshold of Don't be Evil to facilitate distribution of other people's intellectual property, and possible even allowing monetization of it by somebody who doesn't own the copyright"; 

"2.
Just growing any traffic is a bad idea.
This policy will drive us to build a giant index of pseudo porn, lady punches, and copyrighted material ..."' 

"3.
We should be able to win on features, a better [user interface] technology, advertising relationships - not just policy, It's a cop out to resort to dis-rob-ution"; 

"7. it makes it more difficult to do content deals with you have an index of pirated material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548192</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1269079920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If ever there were a case for RTFA, this is surely it. I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full. Other mods, please mod parent down.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nope. Won't do that. Why should I mod someone down for expressing that there's a dissenting view on the definition of evil?</p><p>You can argue that we should go by googles definition, but your parent just said they didn't find anything evil, not specifying by whose standards, so presumably their own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If ever there were a case for RTFA , this is surely it .
I would have modded you down , but felt it was better to respond in full .
Other mods , please mod parent down.Nope .
Wo n't do that .
Why should I mod someone down for expressing that there 's a dissenting view on the definition of evil ? You can argue that we should go by googles definition , but your parent just said they did n't find anything evil , not specifying by whose standards , so presumably their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ever there were a case for RTFA, this is surely it.
I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full.
Other mods, please mod parent down.Nope.
Won't do that.
Why should I mod someone down for expressing that there's a dissenting view on the definition of evil?You can argue that we should go by googles definition, but your parent just said they didn't find anything evil, not specifying by whose standards, so presumably their own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545102</id>
	<title>Dark Helmet says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Druish princesses are often attracted to money, and power, and I have BOTH, and YOU KNOW IT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Druish princesses are often attracted to money , and power , and I have BOTH , and YOU KNOW IT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Druish princesses are often attracted to money, and power, and I have BOTH, and YOU KNOW IT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545494</id>
	<title>Re:Non-Story?</title>
	<author>ZeRu</author>
	<datestamp>1269001440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One might argue that piracy is evil, but RIAA is far greater evil. I'm downloading sogs because it's the lesser evil<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>One might argue that piracy is evil , but RIAA is far greater evil .
I 'm downloading sogs because it 's the lesser evil : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One might argue that piracy is evil, but RIAA is far greater evil.
I'm downloading sogs because it's the lesser evil :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546310</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1269007440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New publishing industries have always pirated.  </p><p>I hope google plays hardball with the content industries on this one, i.e. fine we'll take down pirated videos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New publishing industries have always pirated .
I hope google plays hardball with the content industries on this one , i.e .
fine we 'll take down pirated videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New publishing industries have always pirated.
I hope google plays hardball with the content industries on this one, i.e.
fine we'll take down pirated videos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546038</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269005040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So yeah. Youtube was aware that copyrighted material appeared on their servers.</p></div><p>Practically everything is copyrighted these days: it's automatic. But "copyrighted" does not mean the same thing as "infringing". Big difference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So yeah .
Youtube was aware that copyrighted material appeared on their servers.Practically everything is copyrighted these days : it 's automatic .
But " copyrighted " does not mean the same thing as " infringing " .
Big difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So yeah.
Youtube was aware that copyrighted material appeared on their servers.Practically everything is copyrighted these days: it's automatic.
But "copyrighted" does not mean the same thing as "infringing".
Big difference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548114</id>
	<title>That's okay</title>
	<author>crossmr</author>
	<datestamp>1269077820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there can't be anyone around slashdot that doesn't know you're a clueless sensationalist and yet they still let you pick stories.<br>pot kettle and all that..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there ca n't be anyone around slashdot that does n't know you 're a clueless sensationalist and yet they still let you pick stories.pot kettle and all that. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there can't be anyone around slashdot that doesn't know you're a clueless sensationalist and yet they still let you pick stories.pot kettle and all that..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545470</id>
	<title>Re:Piracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe someday, the people who argue
over semantics will win.  It'll go something
like this:  <b>Congratulations.  You won the semantic
argument.  We won everything else.</b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someday , the people who argue over semantics will win .
It 'll go something like this : Congratulations .
You won the semantic argument .
We won everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someday, the people who argue
over semantics will win.
It'll go something
like this:  Congratulations.
You won the semantic
argument.
We won everything else. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545838</id>
	<title>Re:What's more evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269003660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Almost every single thing creative that someone creates today will *never* enter the public domain within our lifetime."</p><p>So?  It was never meant to.  The benefit to the public is for posterity, not would-be competitors or people waiting for a free ride while there's still time to capitalize on the commercial success of a work.</p><p>If there's an economic benefit to be had, it goes to the creator.  The public domain is for works of cultural value that are still meaningful after a decade or two.  99\% of content created will be rightfully forgotten long before any living generation dies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Almost every single thing creative that someone creates today will * never * enter the public domain within our lifetime. " So ?
It was never meant to .
The benefit to the public is for posterity , not would-be competitors or people waiting for a free ride while there 's still time to capitalize on the commercial success of a work.If there 's an economic benefit to be had , it goes to the creator .
The public domain is for works of cultural value that are still meaningful after a decade or two .
99 \ % of content created will be rightfully forgotten long before any living generation dies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Almost every single thing creative that someone creates today will *never* enter the public domain within our lifetime."So?
It was never meant to.
The benefit to the public is for posterity, not would-be competitors or people waiting for a free ride while there's still time to capitalize on the commercial success of a work.If there's an economic benefit to be had, it goes to the creator.
The public domain is for works of cultural value that are still meaningful after a decade or two.
99\% of content created will be rightfully forgotten long before any living generation dies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547196</id>
	<title>it is frightening...</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1269017640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That top executives of one of the worlds biggest websites are stupid enough to incriminate themselves in that way in a series of blatantly obvious e-mails.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That top executives of one of the worlds biggest websites are stupid enough to incriminate themselves in that way in a series of blatantly obvious e-mails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That top executives of one of the worlds biggest websites are stupid enough to incriminate themselves in that way in a series of blatantly obvious e-mails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545096</id>
	<title>Don't be evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268999040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One interesting quote (by Patrick Walker of Google) was this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Top 10 reasons why we shouldn't stop screening for copyright violations: 1. It crosses the threshold of Don't be Evil to facilitate distribution of other people's intellectual property, and possibly even allowing monetization of it by somebody who doesn't own the copyright.</p></div><p>A handy assessment of copyright and IP from an ethical (as opposed to legal) point of view. Next time the topic on how Google "really" feels about copyrights comes up, you know the answer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One interesting quote ( by Patrick Walker of Google ) was this : Top 10 reasons why we should n't stop screening for copyright violations : 1 .
It crosses the threshold of Do n't be Evil to facilitate distribution of other people 's intellectual property , and possibly even allowing monetization of it by somebody who does n't own the copyright.A handy assessment of copyright and IP from an ethical ( as opposed to legal ) point of view .
Next time the topic on how Google " really " feels about copyrights comes up , you know the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One interesting quote (by Patrick Walker of Google) was this:Top 10 reasons why we shouldn't stop screening for copyright violations: 1.
It crosses the threshold of Don't be Evil to facilitate distribution of other people's intellectual property, and possibly even allowing monetization of it by somebody who doesn't own the copyright.A handy assessment of copyright and IP from an ethical (as opposed to legal) point of view.
Next time the topic on how Google "really" feels about copyrights comes up, you know the answer.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549154</id>
	<title>Re:What's more evil?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1269096660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes we all do have that right, we are not forced to follow any law. The consequences of breaking that law however is not something you can ignore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes we all do have that right , we are not forced to follow any law .
The consequences of breaking that law however is not something you can ignore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes we all do have that right, we are not forced to follow any law.
The consequences of breaking that law however is not something you can ignore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545086</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's easy to be good when you can decide what's evil and what's not on a whim. By those standards the guys from Enron were saints.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to be good when you can decide what 's evil and what 's not on a whim .
By those standards the guys from Enron were saints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to be good when you can decide what's evil and what's not on a whim.
By those standards the guys from Enron were saints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547912</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor</title>
	<author>Orestesx</author>
	<datestamp>1269116100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about pay-per-click ads on the same page as the copyrighted video? How is this not direct financial benefit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about pay-per-click ads on the same page as the copyrighted video ?
How is this not direct financial benefit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about pay-per-click ads on the same page as the copyrighted video?
How is this not direct financial benefit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545626</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1269002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't suing a bigger company just because they have deeper pockets evil?</p></div><p>Whether it's evil of not, it's standard practice in the business world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't suing a bigger company just because they have deeper pockets evil ? Whether it 's evil of not , it 's standard practice in the business world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't suing a bigger company just because they have deeper pockets evil?Whether it's evil of not, it's standard practice in the business world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550222</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>NoOneInParticular</author>
	<datestamp>1269108180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full. Other mods, please mod parent down.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Hey you, 'has mod points and not afraid to use them', care to explain why the parent should be modded down? Is he a 'troll', is his post 'redundant', 'flamebait', or is it 'overrated'? As you give the moderators advice, please state the exact moderation that you think the GP deserves, as I can't seem to find a good option. You do realize there's no moderation 'wrong', or 'disagree with', do you? You, 'insightful' person, should not be let near mod points until you learn that the GP's post is not subject to downmodding for stating their opinion, how wrong it may be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have modded you down , but felt it was better to respond in full .
Other mods , please mod parent down .
Hey you , 'has mod points and not afraid to use them ' , care to explain why the parent should be modded down ?
Is he a 'troll ' , is his post 'redundant ' , 'flamebait ' , or is it 'overrated ' ?
As you give the moderators advice , please state the exact moderation that you think the GP deserves , as I ca n't seem to find a good option .
You do realize there 's no moderation 'wrong ' , or 'disagree with ' , do you ?
You , 'insightful ' person , should not be let near mod points until you learn that the GP 's post is not subject to downmodding for stating their opinion , how wrong it may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have modded you down, but felt it was better to respond in full.
Other mods, please mod parent down.
Hey you, 'has mod points and not afraid to use them', care to explain why the parent should be modded down?
Is he a 'troll', is his post 'redundant', 'flamebait', or is it 'overrated'?
As you give the moderators advice, please state the exact moderation that you think the GP deserves, as I can't seem to find a good option.
You do realize there's no moderation 'wrong', or 'disagree with', do you?
You, 'insightful' person, should not be let near mod points until you learn that the GP's post is not subject to downmodding for stating their opinion, how wrong it may be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546408</id>
	<title>Re:Double Standards, or Above the Law? -</title>
	<author>jesset77</author>
	<datestamp>1269008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm cheering for an outcome that happens to coincide with Google's interests, but I would be (grudgingly) rooting for the same outcome were it Microsoft or Monsanto being attacked for the same reasons.</p></div><p>I agree with you, but I wouldn't grudge that much. I'll root for Microsoft or Apple or even The Chinese Goverment to win any fight they happen to accidentally find themselves on the morally positive side of, and then I'll continue to resist them on every other front they are on the wrong side of.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Case in point: Google continues to disrespect user privacy, most glaringly with their Behavioral Targeting program in Adsense. They appear to be slowly reversing this trend in new products (Google Wave Federation) and new PR babies (the Data Liberation Front), but they have not yet fully repented on a philosophic level. They need to learn that user privacy belongs to users, and that some problems are best left for others to solve. So, for example, don't offer me a cookie to express my wish not to be targeted by adsense, and then offer me a plugin to defend my right to clear cookies without losing your "opt-out" cookie. That is foxes guarding the hen house, and then more foxes to make sure the first foxes do their job.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm cheering for an outcome that happens to coincide with Google 's interests , but I would be ( grudgingly ) rooting for the same outcome were it Microsoft or Monsanto being attacked for the same reasons.I agree with you , but I would n't grudge that much .
I 'll root for Microsoft or Apple or even The Chinese Goverment to win any fight they happen to accidentally find themselves on the morally positive side of , and then I 'll continue to resist them on every other front they are on the wrong side of .
: ) Case in point : Google continues to disrespect user privacy , most glaringly with their Behavioral Targeting program in Adsense .
They appear to be slowly reversing this trend in new products ( Google Wave Federation ) and new PR babies ( the Data Liberation Front ) , but they have not yet fully repented on a philosophic level .
They need to learn that user privacy belongs to users , and that some problems are best left for others to solve .
So , for example , do n't offer me a cookie to express my wish not to be targeted by adsense , and then offer me a plugin to defend my right to clear cookies without losing your " opt-out " cookie .
That is foxes guarding the hen house , and then more foxes to make sure the first foxes do their job .
; P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm cheering for an outcome that happens to coincide with Google's interests, but I would be (grudgingly) rooting for the same outcome were it Microsoft or Monsanto being attacked for the same reasons.I agree with you, but I wouldn't grudge that much.
I'll root for Microsoft or Apple or even The Chinese Goverment to win any fight they happen to accidentally find themselves on the morally positive side of, and then I'll continue to resist them on every other front they are on the wrong side of.
:)Case in point: Google continues to disrespect user privacy, most glaringly with their Behavioral Targeting program in Adsense.
They appear to be slowly reversing this trend in new products (Google Wave Federation) and new PR babies (the Data Liberation Front), but they have not yet fully repented on a philosophic level.
They need to learn that user privacy belongs to users, and that some problems are best left for others to solve.
So, for example, don't offer me a cookie to express my wish not to be targeted by adsense, and then offer me a plugin to defend my right to clear cookies without losing your "opt-out" cookie.
That is foxes guarding the hen house, and then more foxes to make sure the first foxes do their job.
;P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547386</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Ken\_g6</author>
	<datestamp>1269020880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This still seems out of context.  I'd like to see what the parent email was before "Steal it!"  I can imagine something like:</p><p>Steve Chen: Watch out for competition from this site.</p><p>Chad Hurley: What are they going to do that can compete with our content?</p><p>Steve Chen: Steal It!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This still seems out of context .
I 'd like to see what the parent email was before " Steal it !
" I can imagine something like : Steve Chen : Watch out for competition from this site.Chad Hurley : What are they going to do that can compete with our content ? Steve Chen : Steal It !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This still seems out of context.
I'd like to see what the parent email was before "Steal it!
"  I can imagine something like:Steve Chen: Watch out for competition from this site.Chad Hurley: What are they going to do that can compete with our content?Steve Chen: Steal It!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547934</id>
	<title>berne</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269116340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the \% copyrighted material in the quotes is probably out of context, everything is copyrighted by their users via berne except for public domain stuff (most of google books especially). since video is relatively new most of it hasn't fallen into public domain yet. so saying a high percentage of the google stuff is copyrighted is a well duh and irrelevant. the only thing important is weather someone other than the user owned the right, and even then proving that they didn't have permission/liscence, and even then proving such use was outside the scope of fair use. given that viacom was uploading most of the stuff they are complaining about directly or via proxy, it will be very hard for them to show lack of license/permission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the \ % copyrighted material in the quotes is probably out of context , everything is copyrighted by their users via berne except for public domain stuff ( most of google books especially ) .
since video is relatively new most of it has n't fallen into public domain yet .
so saying a high percentage of the google stuff is copyrighted is a well duh and irrelevant .
the only thing important is weather someone other than the user owned the right , and even then proving that they did n't have permission/liscence , and even then proving such use was outside the scope of fair use .
given that viacom was uploading most of the stuff they are complaining about directly or via proxy , it will be very hard for them to show lack of license/permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the \% copyrighted material in the quotes is probably out of context, everything is copyrighted by their users via berne except for public domain stuff (most of google books especially).
since video is relatively new most of it hasn't fallen into public domain yet.
so saying a high percentage of the google stuff is copyrighted is a well duh and irrelevant.
the only thing important is weather someone other than the user owned the right, and even then proving that they didn't have permission/liscence, and even then proving such use was outside the scope of fair use.
given that viacom was uploading most of the stuff they are complaining about directly or via proxy, it will be very hard for them to show lack of license/permission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2058240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545660
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547926
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31549564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31544966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545458
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547896
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31550704
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547386
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545528
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545752
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546848
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31548480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31546216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31547748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2058240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2058240.31545096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
