<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_30_2352256</id>
	<title>New Litigation Targets 20,000 BitTorrent-Using Downloaders</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269950520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Hollywood Reporter reports that more than 20,000 individual movie torrent downloaders have been sued in the past few weeks in Washington, DC, federal court for copyright infringement, and another lawsuit targeting 30,000 more torrent downloaders on five more films is forthcoming in what could be a test run that <a href="http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/03/new-litigation-campaign-targets-tens-of-thousands-of-bittorrent-users.html">opens up the floodgates to massive litigation</a> against the millions of individuals who use BitTorrent to download movies. The <a href="http://www.savecinema.org/index-1.html">US Copyright Group</a>, a company owned by intellectual property lawyers, is using a new proprietary technology by German-based Guardaley IT that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents. According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the program captures IP addresses based on the time stamp that a download has occurred and then checks against a spreadsheet to make sure the downloading content is the copyright protected film and not a misnamed film or trailer. 'We're creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel,' says Jeffrey Weaver, another lawyer at the firm."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Hollywood Reporter reports that more than 20,000 individual movie torrent downloaders have been sued in the past few weeks in Washington , DC , federal court for copyright infringement , and another lawsuit targeting 30,000 more torrent downloaders on five more films is forthcoming in what could be a test run that opens up the floodgates to massive litigation against the millions of individuals who use BitTorrent to download movies .
The US Copyright Group , a company owned by intellectual property lawyers , is using a new proprietary technology by German-based Guardaley IT that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents .
According to Thomas Dunlap , a lawyer at the firm , the program captures IP addresses based on the time stamp that a download has occurred and then checks against a spreadsheet to make sure the downloading content is the copyright protected film and not a misnamed film or trailer .
'We 're creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel, ' says Jeffrey Weaver , another lawyer at the firm .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Hollywood Reporter reports that more than 20,000 individual movie torrent downloaders have been sued in the past few weeks in Washington, DC, federal court for copyright infringement, and another lawsuit targeting 30,000 more torrent downloaders on five more films is forthcoming in what could be a test run that opens up the floodgates to massive litigation against the millions of individuals who use BitTorrent to download movies.
The US Copyright Group, a company owned by intellectual property lawyers, is using a new proprietary technology by German-based Guardaley IT that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents.
According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the program captures IP addresses based on the time stamp that a download has occurred and then checks against a spreadsheet to make sure the downloading content is the copyright protected film and not a misnamed film or trailer.
'We're creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel,' says Jeffrey Weaver, another lawyer at the firm.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682852</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269970260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price.  But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?  That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they've done for years with tape players and vcrs?</p></div><p>IANAL, but there is a key difference. The Internet copy is from an illegal rip off unauthorized by the studios. In contrast, the TV or radio broadcast has a license. Appropriation of stolen goods is still illegal-- that makes it illegal on the Internet, unless specifically authorized by the studios.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In both cases you 've acquired the same content , in the same form , for the same price .
But now we 're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet , a crime has been committed ?
That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they 've done for years with tape players and vcrs ? IANAL , but there is a key difference .
The Internet copy is from an illegal rip off unauthorized by the studios .
In contrast , the TV or radio broadcast has a license .
Appropriation of stolen goods is still illegal-- that makes it illegal on the Internet , unless specifically authorized by the studios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price.
But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?
That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they've done for years with tape players and vcrs?IANAL, but there is a key difference.
The Internet copy is from an illegal rip off unauthorized by the studios.
In contrast, the TV or radio broadcast has a license.
Appropriation of stolen goods is still illegal-- that makes it illegal on the Internet, unless specifically authorized by the studios.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680734</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about you, it's about the creator getting recompense. If you timeshift or record a free-to-air show, that show has already been paid for by the station, and considerably more than just buying a DVD. The advertising on the station (regardless of whether you remove it from your recording) pays the creator for the broadcast. No-one pays the creator for the DVD you torrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about you , it 's about the creator getting recompense .
If you timeshift or record a free-to-air show , that show has already been paid for by the station , and considerably more than just buying a DVD .
The advertising on the station ( regardless of whether you remove it from your recording ) pays the creator for the broadcast .
No-one pays the creator for the DVD you torrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about you, it's about the creator getting recompense.
If you timeshift or record a free-to-air show, that show has already been paid for by the station, and considerably more than just buying a DVD.
The advertising on the station (regardless of whether you remove it from your recording) pays the creator for the broadcast.
No-one pays the creator for the DVD you torrent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681744</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269962760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It says 5 lawsuits against some large number of people...</p><p>So each suit names thousands of defendants... what if they all show up in court at the same time. With lawyers, and family and friends?</p><p>The logistics of handing a 10,000 defendant suit would be ridiculous.  And if every one filed first to sever their case from the others, they'd potentially have to fight 10,000 cases per film (although I suppose at some point early in the process precedent would make it all stop).  But imagine 50,000 people fighting back and having their lawyers flood this group with stuff to respond to.  If vigorously defended, each one as a separate case, this group of lawyers could spend the rest of their lives, and all their money, trying to get their investment back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It says 5 lawsuits against some large number of people...So each suit names thousands of defendants... what if they all show up in court at the same time .
With lawyers , and family and friends ? The logistics of handing a 10,000 defendant suit would be ridiculous .
And if every one filed first to sever their case from the others , they 'd potentially have to fight 10,000 cases per film ( although I suppose at some point early in the process precedent would make it all stop ) .
But imagine 50,000 people fighting back and having their lawyers flood this group with stuff to respond to .
If vigorously defended , each one as a separate case , this group of lawyers could spend the rest of their lives , and all their money , trying to get their investment back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says 5 lawsuits against some large number of people...So each suit names thousands of defendants... what if they all show up in court at the same time.
With lawyers, and family and friends?The logistics of handing a 10,000 defendant suit would be ridiculous.
And if every one filed first to sever their case from the others, they'd potentially have to fight 10,000 cases per film (although I suppose at some point early in the process precedent would make it all stop).
But imagine 50,000 people fighting back and having their lawyers flood this group with stuff to respond to.
If vigorously defended, each one as a separate case, this group of lawyers could spend the rest of their lives, and all their money, trying to get their investment back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683548</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269976740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, when was it exactly in the USA that you had the right to clearly and unashamedly violate copyright on a massive scale?  No really.  While I appreciate your generalized rant, it has no application whatsoever to this thread, as the piracy being committed by the torrent users has never been even remotely legal.  In fact, given the amount that most torrent users download, it could quite easily be reasonably construed as criminal copyright infringment.</p><p>and the amazing thing is that you're complaining about "mind jellifying mass media" while not appreciating that most of what is being torrented is mind jellifying mass entertainment media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , when was it exactly in the USA that you had the right to clearly and unashamedly violate copyright on a massive scale ?
No really .
While I appreciate your generalized rant , it has no application whatsoever to this thread , as the piracy being committed by the torrent users has never been even remotely legal .
In fact , given the amount that most torrent users download , it could quite easily be reasonably construed as criminal copyright infringment.and the amazing thing is that you 're complaining about " mind jellifying mass media " while not appreciating that most of what is being torrented is mind jellifying mass entertainment media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, when was it exactly in the USA that you had the right to clearly and unashamedly violate copyright on a massive scale?
No really.
While I appreciate your generalized rant, it has no application whatsoever to this thread, as the piracy being committed by the torrent users has never been even remotely legal.
In fact, given the amount that most torrent users download, it could quite easily be reasonably construed as criminal copyright infringment.and the amazing thing is that you're complaining about "mind jellifying mass media" while not appreciating that most of what is being torrented is mind jellifying mass entertainment media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269954960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.</i>
</p><p>The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying.
</p><p>I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base .
The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying .
I would have thought that would be pretty obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying.
I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691526</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1270066080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Completely offtopic, but your signature, and the signature of the parent post are entertaining when pitted against one another:<p><div class="quote"><p>I am the maverick of Slashdot</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't take the sky from me...</p></div><p>
I'll go back to lurking now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Completely offtopic , but your signature , and the signature of the parent post are entertaining when pitted against one another : I am the maverick of SlashdotYou ca n't take the sky from me.. . I 'll go back to lurking now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Completely offtopic, but your signature, and the signature of the parent post are entertaining when pitted against one another:I am the maverick of SlashdotYou can't take the sky from me...
I'll go back to lurking now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687918</id>
	<title>This is war</title>
	<author>AnonymousX</author>
	<datestamp>1270051140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think it's time for organized protests at their building.

1200 G St, NW, Suite 800, Washington DC, 20005.

Grab a mask, stay anonymous and go go go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think it 's time for organized protests at their building .
1200 G St , NW , Suite 800 , Washington DC , 20005 .
Grab a mask , stay anonymous and go go go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think it's time for organized protests at their building.
1200 G St, NW, Suite 800, Washington DC, 20005.
Grab a mask, stay anonymous and go go go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687974</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm actually curious about how much they are trying to get out of each person. I thought that the reason the music industry was able to get so much money was because they tracked that the people seeded the file. If this only checks if the file was downloaded shouldn't the damages be a lot less?</p><p> I'd also like to know which ISPs cooperated and which didn't for choosing my internet provider in the future.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm actually curious about how much they are trying to get out of each person .
I thought that the reason the music industry was able to get so much money was because they tracked that the people seeded the file .
If this only checks if the file was downloaded should n't the damages be a lot less ?
I 'd also like to know which ISPs cooperated and which did n't for choosing my internet provider in the future .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm actually curious about how much they are trying to get out of each person.
I thought that the reason the music industry was able to get so much money was because they tracked that the people seeded the file.
If this only checks if the file was downloaded shouldn't the damages be a lot less?
I'd also like to know which ISPs cooperated and which didn't for choosing my internet provider in the future.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682976</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269971400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext> I'm oooooold! And I'm not happy! And I don't like things now compared to the way they used to be. All this progress -- phooey! In my day, we didn't have these cash machines that would give you money when you needed it. There was only one bank in each state -- it was open only one hour a year. And you'd get in line, seventeen miles long, and the line became an angry mob of people -- fornicators and thieves, mutant children and circus freaks -- and you waited for years and by the time you got to the teller, you were senile and arthritic and you couldn't remember your own name. You were born, got in line, and ya died! And that's the way it was and we liked it!
<p>
Life was simpler then. There wasn't all this concern about hy-giene! It my days, we didn't have Kleenex. When you turned seventeen, you were given the family handkerchief.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It hadn't been washed in generations and it stood on its own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... filled with diseases and swarmin' with flies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... If you tried to blow your nose, you'd get an infection and your head would swell up and turn green and children would burst into tears at the sight o' ya! And that's the way it was and we liked it!
</p><p>
Life was a carnival! We entertained ourselves! We didn't need moooovin' pitchurrrres. In my day, there was only one show in town -- it was called "Stare at the sun!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... That's right! You'd sit in the middle of an open field and stare up at the sun till your eyeballs burst into flames! And you thought, "Oh, no! Maybe I shouldn't've stared directly into the burning sun with my eyes wide open." But it was too late! Your head was on fire and people were roastin' chickens over it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... And that's the way it was and we liked it!
</p><p>
Progress?! Flobble-de-flee! In my day, when we were angry and frustrated, we just said, "Flobble-de-flee!" 'cause we were idiots and we didn't know what else to say! Just a bunch o' illiterate Cro-Magnons, blowin' on crusty handkerchiefs, waitin' in lines for our head to burst into flame and that's the way it was and we liked it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm oooooold !
And I 'm not happy !
And I do n't like things now compared to the way they used to be .
All this progress -- phooey !
In my day , we did n't have these cash machines that would give you money when you needed it .
There was only one bank in each state -- it was open only one hour a year .
And you 'd get in line , seventeen miles long , and the line became an angry mob of people -- fornicators and thieves , mutant children and circus freaks -- and you waited for years and by the time you got to the teller , you were senile and arthritic and you could n't remember your own name .
You were born , got in line , and ya died !
And that 's the way it was and we liked it !
Life was simpler then .
There was n't all this concern about hy-giene !
It my days , we did n't have Kleenex .
When you turned seventeen , you were given the family handkerchief .
... It had n't been washed in generations and it stood on its own ... filled with diseases and swarmin ' with flies .
... If you tried to blow your nose , you 'd get an infection and your head would swell up and turn green and children would burst into tears at the sight o ' ya !
And that 's the way it was and we liked it !
Life was a carnival !
We entertained ourselves !
We did n't need moooovin ' pitchurrrres .
In my day , there was only one show in town -- it was called " Stare at the sun !
" ... That 's right !
You 'd sit in the middle of an open field and stare up at the sun till your eyeballs burst into flames !
And you thought , " Oh , no !
Maybe I should n't've stared directly into the burning sun with my eyes wide open .
" But it was too late !
Your head was on fire and people were roastin ' chickens over it .
... And that 's the way it was and we liked it !
Progress ? ! Flobble-de-flee !
In my day , when we were angry and frustrated , we just said , " Flobble-de-flee !
" 'cause we were idiots and we did n't know what else to say !
Just a bunch o ' illiterate Cro-Magnons , blowin ' on crusty handkerchiefs , waitin ' in lines for our head to burst into flame and that 's the way it was and we liked it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm oooooold!
And I'm not happy!
And I don't like things now compared to the way they used to be.
All this progress -- phooey!
In my day, we didn't have these cash machines that would give you money when you needed it.
There was only one bank in each state -- it was open only one hour a year.
And you'd get in line, seventeen miles long, and the line became an angry mob of people -- fornicators and thieves, mutant children and circus freaks -- and you waited for years and by the time you got to the teller, you were senile and arthritic and you couldn't remember your own name.
You were born, got in line, and ya died!
And that's the way it was and we liked it!
Life was simpler then.
There wasn't all this concern about hy-giene!
It my days, we didn't have Kleenex.
When you turned seventeen, you were given the family handkerchief.
... It hadn't been washed in generations and it stood on its own ... filled with diseases and swarmin' with flies.
... If you tried to blow your nose, you'd get an infection and your head would swell up and turn green and children would burst into tears at the sight o' ya!
And that's the way it was and we liked it!
Life was a carnival!
We entertained ourselves!
We didn't need moooovin' pitchurrrres.
In my day, there was only one show in town -- it was called "Stare at the sun!
" ... That's right!
You'd sit in the middle of an open field and stare up at the sun till your eyeballs burst into flames!
And you thought, "Oh, no!
Maybe I shouldn't've stared directly into the burning sun with my eyes wide open.
" But it was too late!
Your head was on fire and people were roastin' chickens over it.
... And that's the way it was and we liked it!
Progress?! Flobble-de-flee!
In my day, when we were angry and frustrated, we just said, "Flobble-de-flee!
" 'cause we were idiots and we didn't know what else to say!
Just a bunch o' illiterate Cro-Magnons, blowin' on crusty handkerchiefs, waitin' in lines for our head to burst into flame and that's the way it was and we liked it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178</id>
	<title>Can we bill them for the court's time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we bill them for the court's time? If they are going to use the court system to "create an alternative revenue stream", they can damn sure pay for the costs of handling all that paperwork. If an average citizen decided to do this (by using the court system to send out tens of thousands of nastygrams and collecting on the handful that pay) they'd be facing serious-ass jail time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we bill them for the court 's time ?
If they are going to use the court system to " create an alternative revenue stream " , they can damn sure pay for the costs of handling all that paperwork .
If an average citizen decided to do this ( by using the court system to send out tens of thousands of nastygrams and collecting on the handful that pay ) they 'd be facing serious-ass jail time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we bill them for the court's time?
If they are going to use the court system to "create an alternative revenue stream", they can damn sure pay for the costs of handling all that paperwork.
If an average citizen decided to do this (by using the court system to send out tens of thousands of nastygrams and collecting on the handful that pay) they'd be facing serious-ass jail time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681576</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>omglolbah</author>
	<datestamp>1269961800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I buy plenty of stuff. More than I should.</p><p>But when it comes to a lot of material I cant legally get hold of it. Delayed DVD releases is one thing that pisses me off.</p><p>And then there is the retardedness of pricing....</p><p>I went to buy the 7 seasons of Macgyver a while back and what was the price-tag? 600 fucking dollars. I am -not- paying that kind of money for 7 seasons of a tv-show from the 80s... I'ms orry.... It is a novelty to have on my shelf for geek cred, but I am NOT paying that much.</p><p>Hell, the local price of the Star Trek TNG series was 134 USD per season up until recently when they just plain stopped selling em as nobody bought em...</p><p>I'm sorry but for flippin' sake get the prices within the limits of sanity. If the 7 seasons of macgyver had been 150 dollars I would have had em sitting on my shelf right now instead of on my media-server... Probably in a lot better quality too!... Arg....</p><p>Disclaimer: I'm sleep deprived and annoyed at real life asshattery atm so my post is heavily colored by that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I buy plenty of stuff .
More than I should.But when it comes to a lot of material I cant legally get hold of it .
Delayed DVD releases is one thing that pisses me off.And then there is the retardedness of pricing....I went to buy the 7 seasons of Macgyver a while back and what was the price-tag ?
600 fucking dollars .
I am -not- paying that kind of money for 7 seasons of a tv-show from the 80s... I'ms orry.... It is a novelty to have on my shelf for geek cred , but I am NOT paying that much.Hell , the local price of the Star Trek TNG series was 134 USD per season up until recently when they just plain stopped selling em as nobody bought em...I 'm sorry but for flippin ' sake get the prices within the limits of sanity .
If the 7 seasons of macgyver had been 150 dollars I would have had em sitting on my shelf right now instead of on my media-server... Probably in a lot better quality too ! .. .
Arg....Disclaimer : I 'm sleep deprived and annoyed at real life asshattery atm so my post is heavily colored by that : -p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I buy plenty of stuff.
More than I should.But when it comes to a lot of material I cant legally get hold of it.
Delayed DVD releases is one thing that pisses me off.And then there is the retardedness of pricing....I went to buy the 7 seasons of Macgyver a while back and what was the price-tag?
600 fucking dollars.
I am -not- paying that kind of money for 7 seasons of a tv-show from the 80s... I'ms orry.... It is a novelty to have on my shelf for geek cred, but I am NOT paying that much.Hell, the local price of the Star Trek TNG series was 134 USD per season up until recently when they just plain stopped selling em as nobody bought em...I'm sorry but for flippin' sake get the prices within the limits of sanity.
If the 7 seasons of macgyver had been 150 dollars I would have had em sitting on my shelf right now instead of on my media-server... Probably in a lot better quality too!...
Arg....Disclaimer: I'm sleep deprived and annoyed at real life asshattery atm so my post is heavily colored by that :-p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683700</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>chichilalescu</author>
	<datestamp>1269977880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i like you. what we can do is deny consumerism. only buy what you need, and only work for as much money as you actually need.</p><p>as our numbers grow, we can hope that we'll be able to organize to actually do something to protect ourselves from the rest of mankind. and that's about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i like you .
what we can do is deny consumerism .
only buy what you need , and only work for as much money as you actually need.as our numbers grow , we can hope that we 'll be able to organize to actually do something to protect ourselves from the rest of mankind .
and that 's about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i like you.
what we can do is deny consumerism.
only buy what you need, and only work for as much money as you actually need.as our numbers grow, we can hope that we'll be able to organize to actually do something to protect ourselves from the rest of mankind.
and that's about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683038</id>
	<title>How about just saying no to the whole system?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269971880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if all the people who get sued simply refuse to respond to the lawsuits? They can't arrest them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if all the people who get sued simply refuse to respond to the lawsuits ?
They ca n't arrest them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if all the people who get sued simply refuse to respond to the lawsuits?
They can't arrest them all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684380</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>umghhh</author>
	<datestamp>1270027680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So there is in your view a clear division between buying (customers) and stealing (pirates) populations? I can see some people not buying stuff at all but majority of my friends belong to both worlds - they purchased some of their goods, they copied some of purchased goods for illegal purposes like backup etc and some stuff is just outright pirated. In such world hitting a man like me who has one of two pirated movies given to by friends is going to hit a customer. <p>I suppose they would not care if I did not buy anything from them anyway as after I was robbed this way they would have gotten all I owned anyway and would not be able to afford any new purchases or rentals for foreseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So there is in your view a clear division between buying ( customers ) and stealing ( pirates ) populations ?
I can see some people not buying stuff at all but majority of my friends belong to both worlds - they purchased some of their goods , they copied some of purchased goods for illegal purposes like backup etc and some stuff is just outright pirated .
In such world hitting a man like me who has one of two pirated movies given to by friends is going to hit a customer .
I suppose they would not care if I did not buy anything from them anyway as after I was robbed this way they would have gotten all I owned anyway and would not be able to afford any new purchases or rentals for foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there is in your view a clear division between buying (customers) and stealing (pirates) populations?
I can see some people not buying stuff at all but majority of my friends belong to both worlds - they purchased some of their goods, they copied some of purchased goods for illegal purposes like backup etc and some stuff is just outright pirated.
In such world hitting a man like me who has one of two pirated movies given to by friends is going to hit a customer.
I suppose they would not care if I did not buy anything from them anyway as after I was robbed this way they would have gotten all I owned anyway and would not be able to afford any new purchases or rentals for foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680176</id>
	<title>hahaha...</title>
	<author>el\_tedward</author>
	<datestamp>1269955080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad my university doesn't keep logs =]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad my university does n't keep logs = ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad my university doesn't keep logs =]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688282</id>
	<title>Good idea - Plausible deniability on BitTorrent</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1270052520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bittorrent clients could implement a "poison the well" feature where occasionally they privately request a random<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.torrent file from a single peer. The peer that receives this request will randomly either pass on a torrent from its own collection or perform a recursive operation and get a random torrent from any one of its peers - this way it won't be possible to remotely build an inventory of a peer's collection.</p><p>Once the original requester receives the torrent, it then downloads a few megabytes of that file from different peers to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null. That would give plausible deniability to all bittorrent users, which I'd say would be worth the relatively slight increase in bandwidth overhead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bittorrent clients could implement a " poison the well " feature where occasionally they privately request a random .torrent file from a single peer .
The peer that receives this request will randomly either pass on a torrent from its own collection or perform a recursive operation and get a random torrent from any one of its peers - this way it wo n't be possible to remotely build an inventory of a peer 's collection.Once the original requester receives the torrent , it then downloads a few megabytes of that file from different peers to /dev/null .
That would give plausible deniability to all bittorrent users , which I 'd say would be worth the relatively slight increase in bandwidth overhead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bittorrent clients could implement a "poison the well" feature where occasionally they privately request a random .torrent file from a single peer.
The peer that receives this request will randomly either pass on a torrent from its own collection or perform a recursive operation and get a random torrent from any one of its peers - this way it won't be possible to remotely build an inventory of a peer's collection.Once the original requester receives the torrent, it then downloads a few megabytes of that file from different peers to /dev/null.
That would give plausible deniability to all bittorrent users, which I'd say would be worth the relatively slight increase in bandwidth overhead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682480</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1269967140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base. You have to *buy* something to be a customer.</p></div><p>In practice, there is considerable overlap between pirates and customers. Rare is the pirate who does not also buy content.</p><p>I would imagine that even rarer is the pirate who, having been dragged into court by the MPAA and found liable for an insane sum, will <i>ever</i> spend another dime on an MPAA product -- or even be <i>able</i> to.</p><p>What's even less plausible is that there will be very much sympathy for the MPAA among the general public when virtually all other civil cases are indefinitely deferred while <i>fifty thousand</i> piracy lawsuits drag the court system to a screeching halt. Injured on the job? Cheated by a contractor? Shafted by your bank? Well, in ten years or so, maybe a judge will be available to hear your case. In the meantime, someone needs to be brought to justice for making a free copy of <i>The Lion King</i> instead of paying a buck to Netflix to see it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base .
You have to * buy * something to be a customer.In practice , there is considerable overlap between pirates and customers .
Rare is the pirate who does not also buy content.I would imagine that even rarer is the pirate who , having been dragged into court by the MPAA and found liable for an insane sum , will ever spend another dime on an MPAA product -- or even be able to.What 's even less plausible is that there will be very much sympathy for the MPAA among the general public when virtually all other civil cases are indefinitely deferred while fifty thousand piracy lawsuits drag the court system to a screeching halt .
Injured on the job ?
Cheated by a contractor ?
Shafted by your bank ?
Well , in ten years or so , maybe a judge will be available to hear your case .
In the meantime , someone needs to be brought to justice for making a free copy of The Lion King instead of paying a buck to Netflix to see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base.
You have to *buy* something to be a customer.In practice, there is considerable overlap between pirates and customers.
Rare is the pirate who does not also buy content.I would imagine that even rarer is the pirate who, having been dragged into court by the MPAA and found liable for an insane sum, will ever spend another dime on an MPAA product -- or even be able to.What's even less plausible is that there will be very much sympathy for the MPAA among the general public when virtually all other civil cases are indefinitely deferred while fifty thousand piracy lawsuits drag the court system to a screeching halt.
Injured on the job?
Cheated by a contractor?
Shafted by your bank?
Well, in ten years or so, maybe a judge will be available to hear your case.
In the meantime, someone needs to be brought to justice for making a free copy of The Lion King instead of paying a buck to Netflix to see it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682056</id>
	<title>Who invented it?</title>
	<author>woodsworth</author>
	<datestamp>1269964620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US Copyright Group, a company owned by intellectual property lawyers, is using a new proprietary technology by <b>German-based Guardaley IT</b> that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents.</p></div><p>You got to praise German engineering...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Copyright Group , a company owned by intellectual property lawyers , is using a new proprietary technology by German-based Guardaley IT that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents.You got to praise German engineering.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Copyright Group, a company owned by intellectual property lawyers, is using a new proprietary technology by German-based Guardaley IT that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents.You got to praise German engineering...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base.  You have to *buy* something to be a customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base .
You have to * buy * something to be a customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base.
You have to *buy* something to be a customer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682900</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269970800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, a bit confused here. Are you stating three things?</p><p>One, recording a show from TV.<br>Two, recording a show from YouTube, Hulu, etc.<br>Three, downloading a copy someone illegally put up online (torrenting)?</p><p>I assume ONE and TWO are covered by the Betamax decision, but THREE cannot be justified since it is something totally separate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , a bit confused here .
Are you stating three things ? One , recording a show from TV.Two , recording a show from YouTube , Hulu , etc.Three , downloading a copy someone illegally put up online ( torrenting ) ? I assume ONE and TWO are covered by the Betamax decision , but THREE can not be justified since it is something totally separate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, a bit confused here.
Are you stating three things?One, recording a show from TV.Two, recording a show from YouTube, Hulu, etc.Three, downloading a copy someone illegally put up online (torrenting)?I assume ONE and TWO are covered by the Betamax decision, but THREE cannot be justified since it is something totally separate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680660</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>mccrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269957060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.</p> </div><p>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing the lazy leeches with a bellicose sense of entitlement who feel entitled to illegally appropriate their hard earned property.</p><p>FTFY.  All clear now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base .
I 'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing the lazy leeches with a bellicose sense of entitlement who feel entitled to illegally appropriate their hard earned property.FTFY .
All clear now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing the lazy leeches with a bellicose sense of entitlement who feel entitled to illegally appropriate their hard earned property.FTFY.
All clear now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683274</id>
	<title>I2P has anonymous bittorrent</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1269973800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How long until we have BitTorrent with TOR and encryption built in?</p></div><p>TOR wasn't designed to handle large P2P transfers. The only anonymous network I've seen that is robustly handling torrent traffic <a href="http://www.i2p2.de/" title="i2p2.de">is I2P.</a> [i2p2.de] One you install it and set the proxy on your browser, just go to tracker2.postman.i2p to see what is on the most popular tracker.</p><p>The I2P software is open source and comes with anonymized email, bittorrent and http software built in. Other programs either written for or adapted to I2P are available, such as Tahoe-LAFS file system and iMule. I2P just recently got a new plugin architecture to make it easy to distribute new apps to interested users, and they could use some coding talent on the many ideas bouncing around on the main forum site.</p><p>It seems that I2P aims to be very TOR-like in terms of internal routing and anonymizing capability (they call it "garlic routing"), but in a mostly darknet fashion. This means that the trackers, torrents and web sites you visit through I2P will be 'inside' the anon network. However, there are 'gift' gateways to regular www as well as to freenet and TOR. Another difference with TOR is that all running I2P 'clients' are also routers and route at least a minimal amount of traffic for the network (this increases anonymity because there is no built-in "exit node" capability). Yet another difference is that the I2P network is supposed to be less centralized, though I'm not intimate with the code and can't say for sure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until we have BitTorrent with TOR and encryption built in ? TOR was n't designed to handle large P2P transfers .
The only anonymous network I 've seen that is robustly handling torrent traffic is I2P .
[ i2p2.de ] One you install it and set the proxy on your browser , just go to tracker2.postman.i2p to see what is on the most popular tracker.The I2P software is open source and comes with anonymized email , bittorrent and http software built in .
Other programs either written for or adapted to I2P are available , such as Tahoe-LAFS file system and iMule .
I2P just recently got a new plugin architecture to make it easy to distribute new apps to interested users , and they could use some coding talent on the many ideas bouncing around on the main forum site.It seems that I2P aims to be very TOR-like in terms of internal routing and anonymizing capability ( they call it " garlic routing " ) , but in a mostly darknet fashion .
This means that the trackers , torrents and web sites you visit through I2P will be 'inside ' the anon network .
However , there are 'gift ' gateways to regular www as well as to freenet and TOR .
Another difference with TOR is that all running I2P 'clients ' are also routers and route at least a minimal amount of traffic for the network ( this increases anonymity because there is no built-in " exit node " capability ) .
Yet another difference is that the I2P network is supposed to be less centralized , though I 'm not intimate with the code and ca n't say for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until we have BitTorrent with TOR and encryption built in?TOR wasn't designed to handle large P2P transfers.
The only anonymous network I've seen that is robustly handling torrent traffic is I2P.
[i2p2.de] One you install it and set the proxy on your browser, just go to tracker2.postman.i2p to see what is on the most popular tracker.The I2P software is open source and comes with anonymized email, bittorrent and http software built in.
Other programs either written for or adapted to I2P are available, such as Tahoe-LAFS file system and iMule.
I2P just recently got a new plugin architecture to make it easy to distribute new apps to interested users, and they could use some coding talent on the many ideas bouncing around on the main forum site.It seems that I2P aims to be very TOR-like in terms of internal routing and anonymizing capability (they call it "garlic routing"), but in a mostly darknet fashion.
This means that the trackers, torrents and web sites you visit through I2P will be 'inside' the anon network.
However, there are 'gift' gateways to regular www as well as to freenet and TOR.
Another difference with TOR is that all running I2P 'clients' are also routers and route at least a minimal amount of traffic for the network (this increases anonymity because there is no built-in "exit node" capability).
Yet another difference is that the I2P network is supposed to be less centralized, though I'm not intimate with the code and can't say for sure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686704</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270046340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can't just go around breaking laws you don't like and pretending that everything is okay and you're in the right.</i></p><p>Tell that to Rosa Parks.</p><p><i>I hate speeding laws, but I don't complain about the horrible injustice of the system when I get a ticket.</i></p><p>Yet you'll still pay 200 dollars for a radar scanner so you can tear ass at 80 in a 50 zone, then slow down just before the camera zone to ease your social conscience.</p><p>Laws are created to define sensible / acceptable behaviour within society. They are NOT cast in stone for all eternity. If enough people feel a law is unjust, it will be changed eventually (as per my Rosa Parks comment above), but usually there is some form of social unrest or disturbance before the lawmakers get their heads out of their asses and realise anything is wrong.</p><p>I see this whole piracy thing simply as the cyberspace equivalent of civil disobedience against laws which were neither written by the people, or for the people, but exist only by virtue of  large cash deposits into government coffers from large corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't just go around breaking laws you do n't like and pretending that everything is okay and you 're in the right.Tell that to Rosa Parks.I hate speeding laws , but I do n't complain about the horrible injustice of the system when I get a ticket.Yet you 'll still pay 200 dollars for a radar scanner so you can tear ass at 80 in a 50 zone , then slow down just before the camera zone to ease your social conscience.Laws are created to define sensible / acceptable behaviour within society .
They are NOT cast in stone for all eternity .
If enough people feel a law is unjust , it will be changed eventually ( as per my Rosa Parks comment above ) , but usually there is some form of social unrest or disturbance before the lawmakers get their heads out of their asses and realise anything is wrong.I see this whole piracy thing simply as the cyberspace equivalent of civil disobedience against laws which were neither written by the people , or for the people , but exist only by virtue of large cash deposits into government coffers from large corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't just go around breaking laws you don't like and pretending that everything is okay and you're in the right.Tell that to Rosa Parks.I hate speeding laws, but I don't complain about the horrible injustice of the system when I get a ticket.Yet you'll still pay 200 dollars for a radar scanner so you can tear ass at 80 in a 50 zone, then slow down just before the camera zone to ease your social conscience.Laws are created to define sensible / acceptable behaviour within society.
They are NOT cast in stone for all eternity.
If enough people feel a law is unjust, it will be changed eventually (as per my Rosa Parks comment above), but usually there is some form of social unrest or disturbance before the lawmakers get their heads out of their asses and realise anything is wrong.I see this whole piracy thing simply as the cyberspace equivalent of civil disobedience against laws which were neither written by the people, or for the people, but exist only by virtue of  large cash deposits into government coffers from large corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686950</id>
	<title>The 5 films they are suing over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270047480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 5 films they are suing over are "Steam Experiment," "Far Cry," "Uncross the Stars," "Gray Man" and "Call of the Wild 3D."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 5 films they are suing over are " Steam Experiment , " " Far Cry , " " Uncross the Stars , " " Gray Man " and " Call of the Wild 3D .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 5 films they are suing over are "Steam Experiment," "Far Cry," "Uncross the Stars," "Gray Man" and "Call of the Wild 3D.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682490</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1269967200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because TV stations assume full legal responsibility for what they broadcast, if a person records something the station wasn't authorized to transmit, the person recording it isn't legally on the hook for any infringement.  The TV station takes the rap for it... and the penalties are pretty damn big, so they will take great care to avoid it happening in the first place.  On the internet, however, most people have not assumed any legally recognizable responsibility for what they transmit, so a recipient receives any content from them at their own risk, and can be found guilty of infringing on copyright if they copied any copyrighted content that the transmitter was not authorized to broadcast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because TV stations assume full legal responsibility for what they broadcast , if a person records something the station was n't authorized to transmit , the person recording it is n't legally on the hook for any infringement .
The TV station takes the rap for it... and the penalties are pretty damn big , so they will take great care to avoid it happening in the first place .
On the internet , however , most people have not assumed any legally recognizable responsibility for what they transmit , so a recipient receives any content from them at their own risk , and can be found guilty of infringing on copyright if they copied any copyrighted content that the transmitter was not authorized to broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because TV stations assume full legal responsibility for what they broadcast, if a person records something the station wasn't authorized to transmit, the person recording it isn't legally on the hook for any infringement.
The TV station takes the rap for it... and the penalties are pretty damn big, so they will take great care to avoid it happening in the first place.
On the internet, however, most people have not assumed any legally recognizable responsibility for what they transmit, so a recipient receives any content from them at their own risk, and can be found guilty of infringing on copyright if they copied any copyrighted content that the transmitter was not authorized to broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680218</id>
	<title>futile..!</title>
	<author>Becausegodhasmademe</author>
	<datestamp>1269955200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Litigation, even on this scale is unlikely to prevent piracy. As anti-piracy technology and techniques evolve, so will the technology and methods used in filesharing. How long until we have BitTorrent with TOR and encryption built in?

The copyright juntas will always be chasing the pirates tails, and unfortunately they're likely to continue throwing money at hopeless schemes like this until they've bankrupted themselves, rather than develop a successful business model for the 21st century.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Litigation , even on this scale is unlikely to prevent piracy .
As anti-piracy technology and techniques evolve , so will the technology and methods used in filesharing .
How long until we have BitTorrent with TOR and encryption built in ?
The copyright juntas will always be chasing the pirates tails , and unfortunately they 're likely to continue throwing money at hopeless schemes like this until they 've bankrupted themselves , rather than develop a successful business model for the 21st century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Litigation, even on this scale is unlikely to prevent piracy.
As anti-piracy technology and techniques evolve, so will the technology and methods used in filesharing.
How long until we have BitTorrent with TOR and encryption built in?
The copyright juntas will always be chasing the pirates tails, and unfortunately they're likely to continue throwing money at hopeless schemes like this until they've bankrupted themselves, rather than develop a successful business model for the 21st century.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681250</id>
	<title>They deserve it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fellow pirates,</p><p>I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am overjoyed.</p><p>Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take. I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.</p><p>I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work. I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software. When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work. I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted. If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one, amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.</p><p>According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours." Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do. John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming. It's genius. The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate. We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work. Excellent job.</p><p>I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are. Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda. I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me. It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something. Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is. That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.</p><p>EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good. Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code." I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me. I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL. I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences. I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.</p><p>Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching. Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt. Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations. Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.</p><p>Yours truly,<br>A fellow Slashbot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fellow pirates,I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty .
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong , but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever , it 's easier for me to accept what I 'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy .
Once on the forefront of relevant IT news , Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership .
I am overjoyed.Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking , I 'm just going to take .
I 'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.I do n't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work .
I 'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software .
When their game comes out , I 'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work .
I 'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted .
If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty , I 'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint , such as this one , amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.According to that study , it 's okay to not pay people for their work because there 's some vague hope that they 'll make up the difference in income through " concerts and speaking tours .
" Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do .
John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming .
It 's genius .
The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate .
We 've managed to stretch the truth so far that we 're actually telling ourselves that we 're helping artists by not paying them for their work .
Excellent job.I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are .
Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement , and they 've pretended to care about plagiarism , we 're supposed to go along with Slashdot 's anti-copyright agenda .
I 'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me .
It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something .
Remember , I 'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is .
That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong , yet the GPL is good .
Piracy is n't theft , yet GPL violations are referred to as " stolen GPL code .
" I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me .
I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law , and if I want to get rid of copyright , my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL .
I do n't care , because I 'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free , not about the consequences .
I want to get rid of copyrights because I 've been told that copyrights are the bad guy , and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.Fellow pirates , let us continue our selfish leeching .
Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt .
Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations .
Making money is wrong , even though Slashdot displays ads , and it cost me money to buy the computer I 'm using to pirate stuff.Yours truly,A fellow Slashbot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fellow pirates,I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty.
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy.
Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership.
I am overjoyed.Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take.
I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work.
I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software.
When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work.
I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted.
If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one, amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours.
" Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do.
John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming.
It's genius.
The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate.
We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work.
Excellent job.I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are.
Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda.
I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me.
It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something.
Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is.
That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good.
Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code.
" I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me.
I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL.
I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences.
I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching.
Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt.
Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations.
Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.Yours truly,A fellow Slashbot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683216</id>
	<title>"and then checks against a spreadsheet "</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1269973440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are they for real? a spreadsheet?! sounds like bullshit to me.<p>
oh and i highly doubt 20,000 people have been sued in the last week in a DC court. courts take months to process even a single straight forward claim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are they for real ?
a spreadsheet ? !
sounds like bullshit to me .
oh and i highly doubt 20,000 people have been sued in the last week in a DC court .
courts take months to process even a single straight forward claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are they for real?
a spreadsheet?!
sounds like bullshit to me.
oh and i highly doubt 20,000 people have been sued in the last week in a DC court.
courts take months to process even a single straight forward claim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681274</id>
	<title>Fine .. be that way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Foolishness like this is why you configure your network to retain IP-&gt;User details only as long as needed for your own internal network management.<br> <br>By the time I see any of these subpoenas for our users, the requested information simply will not exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Foolishness like this is why you configure your network to retain IP- &gt; User details only as long as needed for your own internal network management .
By the time I see any of these subpoenas for our users , the requested information simply will not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foolishness like this is why you configure your network to retain IP-&gt;User details only as long as needed for your own internal network management.
By the time I see any of these subpoenas for our users, the requested information simply will not exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680318</id>
	<title>Not directly comparable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the first, content providers have explicitly opted to broadcast it.  Incidentally, I don't think sharing a recording you make is considered ok.</p><p>In the latter, content is being acquired and redistributed without permission.</p><p>A more direct comparison would be suing people for saving youtube videos to home storage that the publisher uploads.  I don't think I've heard of someone saying they want to go after youtube users for things like youtube-dl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the first , content providers have explicitly opted to broadcast it .
Incidentally , I do n't think sharing a recording you make is considered ok.In the latter , content is being acquired and redistributed without permission.A more direct comparison would be suing people for saving youtube videos to home storage that the publisher uploads .
I do n't think I 've heard of someone saying they want to go after youtube users for things like youtube-dl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the first, content providers have explicitly opted to broadcast it.
Incidentally, I don't think sharing a recording you make is considered ok.In the latter, content is being acquired and redistributed without permission.A more direct comparison would be suing people for saving youtube videos to home storage that the publisher uploads.
I don't think I've heard of someone saying they want to go after youtube users for things like youtube-dl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685246</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270036140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Count me as one!</p><p>I own 2300+ DVDs and 300+ Blu-rays and I do exactly that - download to sample. If it's crap I delete it right away. If it's gold I delete it when the title hits my shelves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Count me as one ! I own 2300 + DVDs and 300 + Blu-rays and I do exactly that - download to sample .
If it 's crap I delete it right away .
If it 's gold I delete it when the title hits my shelves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Count me as one!I own 2300+ DVDs and 300+ Blu-rays and I do exactly that - download to sample.
If it's crap I delete it right away.
If it's gold I delete it when the title hits my shelves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682674</id>
	<title>What about MSN &amp; Bluetooth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269968700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Young people in Denmark share their songs through Microsoft Messenger and mobile phones' bluetooth. Biggest IP in Denmark, as a part of its internet service offers free download of a millions of songs. Play these songs in Microsoft Player, record them with Audacity, transfer them via bluetooth to you mobile phone and all your friends have them. And if you don't care so much about excellent quality, just go to YouTube, and with one click download &amp; convert any music video to mp3 directly to you computer. Guys, sharing is here to stay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Young people in Denmark share their songs through Microsoft Messenger and mobile phones ' bluetooth .
Biggest IP in Denmark , as a part of its internet service offers free download of a millions of songs .
Play these songs in Microsoft Player , record them with Audacity , transfer them via bluetooth to you mobile phone and all your friends have them .
And if you do n't care so much about excellent quality , just go to YouTube , and with one click download &amp; convert any music video to mp3 directly to you computer .
Guys , sharing is here to stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Young people in Denmark share their songs through Microsoft Messenger and mobile phones' bluetooth.
Biggest IP in Denmark, as a part of its internet service offers free download of a millions of songs.
Play these songs in Microsoft Player, record them with Audacity, transfer them via bluetooth to you mobile phone and all your friends have them.
And if you don't care so much about excellent quality, just go to YouTube, and with one click download &amp; convert any music video to mp3 directly to you computer.
Guys, sharing is here to stay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681904</id>
	<title>Why doesn't everyone pirate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269963720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a lot of friends, myself included, who purchase movies/music/games instead of pirating them - at least some/most of the time.</p><p>Why do we do this when pirating is so easy? It's not because of a threat of litigation, it's because we think some of it is worth paying for.</p><p>DRM is more likely to stop people buying it than stop people torrenting it. Good quality entertainment that's affordable and portable is worth paying for, and most people will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of friends , myself included , who purchase movies/music/games instead of pirating them - at least some/most of the time.Why do we do this when pirating is so easy ?
It 's not because of a threat of litigation , it 's because we think some of it is worth paying for.DRM is more likely to stop people buying it than stop people torrenting it .
Good quality entertainment that 's affordable and portable is worth paying for , and most people will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of friends, myself included, who purchase movies/music/games instead of pirating them - at least some/most of the time.Why do we do this when pirating is so easy?
It's not because of a threat of litigation, it's because we think some of it is worth paying for.DRM is more likely to stop people buying it than stop people torrenting it.
Good quality entertainment that's affordable and portable is worth paying for, and most people will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680552</id>
	<title>Dear Judge</title>
	<author>asamad</author>
	<datestamp>1269956580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi</p><p>I am sorry I stopped the download once I realised what it was - never downloaded the whole thing, never able to play it - prove otherwise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HiI am sorry I stopped the download once I realised what it was - never downloaded the whole thing , never able to play it - prove otherwise : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HiI am sorry I stopped the download once I realised what it was - never downloaded the whole thing, never able to play it - prove otherwise :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680382</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If the only way to keep a business model working is to "open up the floodgates to massive litigation" then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat."<br> <br>

It probably has something to do with the fact that those businesses have tremendous lobbying power and wield greater influence over the government than the citizens themselves.  It is time for people to wake up and start electing politicians that work for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If the only way to keep a business model working is to " open up the floodgates to massive litigation " then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat .
" It probably has something to do with the fact that those businesses have tremendous lobbying power and wield greater influence over the government than the citizens themselves .
It is time for people to wake up and start electing politicians that work for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If the only way to keep a business model working is to "open up the floodgates to massive litigation" then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat.
" 

It probably has something to do with the fact that those businesses have tremendous lobbying power and wield greater influence over the government than the citizens themselves.
It is time for people to wake up and start electing politicians that work for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681884</id>
	<title>We've seen this before...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269963600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that it is now established in law that a dynamic thing like an IP address can't be used as an identifier for someone. These guys are recording IP ADDRESSES and saying that they are going to take PEOPLE to court. How much money are the lawyers making pretending that they can somehow fix a flawed &amp; unprofitable business model.</p><p>Copyright falls automatically to the creator of a work (it is called Mechanical Copyright because it happens automatically).</p><p>Record &amp; Movie distribution companies are NOT the creators of the works. They never had copyright!</p><p>Legally, copyright used to be about attribution, duplication for sale and broadcast of a work.</p><p>People who download are NOT broadcasting, duplicating for sale or attributing themselves as the creator of the work (it is possible, but they are not). They are, therefore, NOT infringing copyright.</p><p>The recording/movie companies and distributors ARE infringing copyright (they are broadcasting the work, are claiming ownership of something they did not create and are duplicating for sale). Their entire business model is based upon illegal activity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that it is now established in law that a dynamic thing like an IP address ca n't be used as an identifier for someone .
These guys are recording IP ADDRESSES and saying that they are going to take PEOPLE to court .
How much money are the lawyers making pretending that they can somehow fix a flawed &amp; unprofitable business model.Copyright falls automatically to the creator of a work ( it is called Mechanical Copyright because it happens automatically ) .Record &amp; Movie distribution companies are NOT the creators of the works .
They never had copyright ! Legally , copyright used to be about attribution , duplication for sale and broadcast of a work.People who download are NOT broadcasting , duplicating for sale or attributing themselves as the creator of the work ( it is possible , but they are not ) .
They are , therefore , NOT infringing copyright.The recording/movie companies and distributors ARE infringing copyright ( they are broadcasting the work , are claiming ownership of something they did not create and are duplicating for sale ) .
Their entire business model is based upon illegal activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that it is now established in law that a dynamic thing like an IP address can't be used as an identifier for someone.
These guys are recording IP ADDRESSES and saying that they are going to take PEOPLE to court.
How much money are the lawyers making pretending that they can somehow fix a flawed &amp; unprofitable business model.Copyright falls automatically to the creator of a work (it is called Mechanical Copyright because it happens automatically).Record &amp; Movie distribution companies are NOT the creators of the works.
They never had copyright!Legally, copyright used to be about attribution, duplication for sale and broadcast of a work.People who download are NOT broadcasting, duplicating for sale or attributing themselves as the creator of the work (it is possible, but they are not).
They are, therefore, NOT infringing copyright.The recording/movie companies and distributors ARE infringing copyright (they are broadcasting the work, are claiming ownership of something they did not create and are duplicating for sale).
Their entire business model is based upon illegal activity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684306</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270026960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The discrepancy is that by recording via the radio or TV you are getting a slightly flawed version (talking over the beginning/end, commercials, etc) vs. getting a completely loss-less version, similar to the retail version, with no financial transaction with the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The discrepancy is that by recording via the radio or TV you are getting a slightly flawed version ( talking over the beginning/end , commercials , etc ) vs. getting a completely loss-less version , similar to the retail version , with no financial transaction with the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The discrepancy is that by recording via the radio or TV you are getting a slightly flawed version (talking over the beginning/end, commercials, etc) vs. getting a completely loss-less version, similar to the retail version, with no financial transaction with the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That may be the case, but I'd be willing to bet that group filing the lawsuits will offer defendants a standard settlement option which most defendants will accept. If each of those 50,000 people is being sued for ~$100k and is offered a ~$1k settlement, most will take it since a) they did what they're being accused of and/or b) it's less than a lawyer would cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be the case , but I 'd be willing to bet that group filing the lawsuits will offer defendants a standard settlement option which most defendants will accept .
If each of those 50,000 people is being sued for ~ $ 100k and is offered a ~ $ 1k settlement , most will take it since a ) they did what they 're being accused of and/or b ) it 's less than a lawyer would cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be the case, but I'd be willing to bet that group filing the lawsuits will offer defendants a standard settlement option which most defendants will accept.
If each of those 50,000 people is being sued for ~$100k and is offered a ~$1k settlement, most will take it since a) they did what they're being accused of and/or b) it's less than a lawyer would cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683002</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>slashqwerty</author>
	<datestamp>1269971580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio\_Home\_Recording\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">Audio Home Recording Act</a> [wikipedia.org] (AHRA) puts restrictions on how you can record.  Specifically, you must use equipment that has had royalties paid on it.  You must use media that has had royalties paid on it (the difference between an audio CD and a data CD).  And the equipment can not allow serial copying, meaning it can not allow you to make a copy of a copy.

<br> <br>If I'm not mistaken AHRA only applies to audio recordings, so it does not apply to video.  Television broadcasts can be "time-shifted" with a VCR as a matter of fair use.  That precedent was set in Sony v Universal Studios eight years prior to the AHRA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Audio Home Recording Act [ wikipedia.org ] ( AHRA ) puts restrictions on how you can record .
Specifically , you must use equipment that has had royalties paid on it .
You must use media that has had royalties paid on it ( the difference between an audio CD and a data CD ) .
And the equipment can not allow serial copying , meaning it can not allow you to make a copy of a copy .
If I 'm not mistaken AHRA only applies to audio recordings , so it does not apply to video .
Television broadcasts can be " time-shifted " with a VCR as a matter of fair use .
That precedent was set in Sony v Universal Studios eight years prior to the AHRA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Audio Home Recording Act [wikipedia.org] (AHRA) puts restrictions on how you can record.
Specifically, you must use equipment that has had royalties paid on it.
You must use media that has had royalties paid on it (the difference between an audio CD and a data CD).
And the equipment can not allow serial copying, meaning it can not allow you to make a copy of a copy.
If I'm not mistaken AHRA only applies to audio recordings, so it does not apply to video.
Television broadcasts can be "time-shifted" with a VCR as a matter of fair use.
That precedent was set in Sony v Universal Studios eight years prior to the AHRA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681836</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269963240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to take under consideration the fact that the copyrighted media which is broadcast over tv or radio is licensed.  When you upload a copyrighted work, you have no license to do so.  What the recorder/download paid is irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to take under consideration the fact that the copyrighted media which is broadcast over tv or radio is licensed .
When you upload a copyrighted work , you have no license to do so .
What the recorder/download paid is irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to take under consideration the fact that the copyrighted media which is broadcast over tv or radio is licensed.
When you upload a copyrighted work, you have no license to do so.
What the recorder/download paid is irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680914</id>
	<title>Trying to justify paying through the ass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269958440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Research suggests that once a copyright infringer is forced to pay settlement damages far in excess of the actual cost of the stolen content, he will never steal copyrighted material again." http://www.savecinema.org/index-1.html</p><p>Yea because hes living out of a card board box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Research suggests that once a copyright infringer is forced to pay settlement damages far in excess of the actual cost of the stolen content , he will never steal copyrighted material again .
" http : //www.savecinema.org/index-1.htmlYea because hes living out of a card board box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Research suggests that once a copyright infringer is forced to pay settlement damages far in excess of the actual cost of the stolen content, he will never steal copyrighted material again.
" http://www.savecinema.org/index-1.htmlYea because hes living out of a card board box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680586</id>
	<title>Does 1-2,094</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1269956760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now how are these first 2094 does even going to know they've been sued?  Oh wait, they don't need to know; they are presumed guilty by the plaintiff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now how are these first 2094 does even going to know they 've been sued ?
Oh wait , they do n't need to know ; they are presumed guilty by the plaintiff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now how are these first 2094 does even going to know they've been sued?
Oh wait, they don't need to know; they are presumed guilty by the plaintiff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681314</id>
	<title>Scarcity and Information</title>
	<author>agrif</author>
	<datestamp>1269960420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not an economist, but...</p><p>The fundamental problem with selling music or other media over the internet is that data is not a scarce commodity. Copying music does not deprive anyone else of access to that music. It's much like copying an entire book without buying it. The book is still available for buying, and the store still owns it, so who cares?</p><p>Of course, this is a harmful position to take. If everyone thought nothing of "pirating" music, then artists would receive no compensation for their efforts, which is <em>wrong</em>. (Of course, imagine for a second an ideal world where all music purchases went right to the artist. The RIAA/MPAA just muddies things a bit.) Artists deserve compensation, but it will never work to sell data, which is inherently non-scarce, for money, which is scarce. Why spend money on something that has no actual scarce value at all? At least, there will always be people who will say that.</p><p>(Yes, the creative work of the songs themselves would be a scarce work, but in the end you're paying for a copy of the work, not the idea of the work itself. More on that in a second.)</p><p>The best solution would be for us to pay for copies of music with some non-scarce currency, but that sort of system is hard to set up and harder to maintain inside a predominately scarcity-based economy, because people tend to attach no value to non-scarce goods when there are scarce goods around. The two economic systems don't mix well at all. I suggest that, instead, artists give music away for free (or for Whuffie, real or imaginary), and sell the primary scarce thing they have left to sell: performance. Get artists to make their money on tour! Give the music away for free to get fans, and the fans will come to the concerts!</p><p>...</p><p>For more fun, consider that numbers cannot be copyrighted, and that all data can be represented by one really long number. I'm not so much trying to say that data can't be copyrighted, as I am that copyright should be seriously looked at again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not an economist , but...The fundamental problem with selling music or other media over the internet is that data is not a scarce commodity .
Copying music does not deprive anyone else of access to that music .
It 's much like copying an entire book without buying it .
The book is still available for buying , and the store still owns it , so who cares ? Of course , this is a harmful position to take .
If everyone thought nothing of " pirating " music , then artists would receive no compensation for their efforts , which is wrong .
( Of course , imagine for a second an ideal world where all music purchases went right to the artist .
The RIAA/MPAA just muddies things a bit .
) Artists deserve compensation , but it will never work to sell data , which is inherently non-scarce , for money , which is scarce .
Why spend money on something that has no actual scarce value at all ?
At least , there will always be people who will say that .
( Yes , the creative work of the songs themselves would be a scarce work , but in the end you 're paying for a copy of the work , not the idea of the work itself .
More on that in a second .
) The best solution would be for us to pay for copies of music with some non-scarce currency , but that sort of system is hard to set up and harder to maintain inside a predominately scarcity-based economy , because people tend to attach no value to non-scarce goods when there are scarce goods around .
The two economic systems do n't mix well at all .
I suggest that , instead , artists give music away for free ( or for Whuffie , real or imaginary ) , and sell the primary scarce thing they have left to sell : performance .
Get artists to make their money on tour !
Give the music away for free to get fans , and the fans will come to the concerts ! ...For more fun , consider that numbers can not be copyrighted , and that all data can be represented by one really long number .
I 'm not so much trying to say that data ca n't be copyrighted , as I am that copyright should be seriously looked at again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not an economist, but...The fundamental problem with selling music or other media over the internet is that data is not a scarce commodity.
Copying music does not deprive anyone else of access to that music.
It's much like copying an entire book without buying it.
The book is still available for buying, and the store still owns it, so who cares?Of course, this is a harmful position to take.
If everyone thought nothing of "pirating" music, then artists would receive no compensation for their efforts, which is wrong.
(Of course, imagine for a second an ideal world where all music purchases went right to the artist.
The RIAA/MPAA just muddies things a bit.
) Artists deserve compensation, but it will never work to sell data, which is inherently non-scarce, for money, which is scarce.
Why spend money on something that has no actual scarce value at all?
At least, there will always be people who will say that.
(Yes, the creative work of the songs themselves would be a scarce work, but in the end you're paying for a copy of the work, not the idea of the work itself.
More on that in a second.
)The best solution would be for us to pay for copies of music with some non-scarce currency, but that sort of system is hard to set up and harder to maintain inside a predominately scarcity-based economy, because people tend to attach no value to non-scarce goods when there are scarce goods around.
The two economic systems don't mix well at all.
I suggest that, instead, artists give music away for free (or for Whuffie, real or imaginary), and sell the primary scarce thing they have left to sell: performance.
Get artists to make their money on tour!
Give the music away for free to get fans, and the fans will come to the concerts!...For more fun, consider that numbers cannot be copyrighted, and that all data can be represented by one really long number.
I'm not so much trying to say that data can't be copyrighted, as I am that copyright should be seriously looked at again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683590</id>
	<title>Non issue</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1269977160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's obvious how this is going to play out. If I click on a Family Guy video on YouTube, I haven't broken any laws. That's what takedown notices are for, stopping the guy who did break a law. Clicking on Family Guy: The Movie is no different. All Torrent users have to do is not seed, problem solved. All you IANAL and IALBNYL types can quote anything you want but in the end this is going to hold true.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's obvious how this is going to play out .
If I click on a Family Guy video on YouTube , I have n't broken any laws .
That 's what takedown notices are for , stopping the guy who did break a law .
Clicking on Family Guy : The Movie is no different .
All Torrent users have to do is not seed , problem solved .
All you IANAL and IALBNYL types can quote anything you want but in the end this is going to hold true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's obvious how this is going to play out.
If I click on a Family Guy video on YouTube, I haven't broken any laws.
That's what takedown notices are for, stopping the guy who did break a law.
Clicking on Family Guy: The Movie is no different.
All Torrent users have to do is not seed, problem solved.
All you IANAL and IALBNYL types can quote anything you want but in the end this is going to hold true.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685622</id>
	<title>"massive BS"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270039560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in the stories case, how is the government "forcing you"? It's clearly not the government forcing people to download torrents illegally. It is the laws of the government and the due process that's finding people guilty of violating copyright. But then the argument could be made that either the government shouldn't find copyright infringement illegal and hence prosecutable, or simply not be in the business of enforcing laws period. The latter is absurd and as for the former I've found none that have came up with a demonstratively better allocation scheme than the preexisting system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in the stories case , how is the government " forcing you " ?
It 's clearly not the government forcing people to download torrents illegally .
It is the laws of the government and the due process that 's finding people guilty of violating copyright .
But then the argument could be made that either the government should n't find copyright infringement illegal and hence prosecutable , or simply not be in the business of enforcing laws period .
The latter is absurd and as for the former I 've found none that have came up with a demonstratively better allocation scheme than the preexisting system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in the stories case, how is the government "forcing you"?
It's clearly not the government forcing people to download torrents illegally.
It is the laws of the government and the due process that's finding people guilty of violating copyright.
But then the argument could be made that either the government shouldn't find copyright infringement illegal and hence prosecutable, or simply not be in the business of enforcing laws period.
The latter is absurd and as for the former I've found none that have came up with a demonstratively better allocation scheme than the preexisting system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691222</id>
	<title>Re:An invasion of privacy??</title>
	<author>srvivn21</author>
	<datestamp>1270064760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Couldn't this proprietary software package being used to track downloads be construed as a wire tap ergo inadmissible in a court of law?</p></div><p>IANAL, but no.  A wire tap is placed by a third party to eavesdrop on a conversation.  The only way I can see it working (unless they are actually "tapping" the internet backbones or data streams at individual ISPs), this software advertises as a BT client with data to share and makes note of the clients that contact it.</p><p>Going back to the phone metaphor, it's more akin to advertising a phone number and recording calls made to it (along with the originating phone number).  No entrapment, no wire tap.</p><p>If you are one of the listed defendants, please try that argument.  I'd love to be proven wrong.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or is this AC being a silly little AC again?</p><p>With love</p><p>The Anonymous Coward</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't this proprietary software package being used to track downloads be construed as a wire tap ergo inadmissible in a court of law ? IANAL , but no .
A wire tap is placed by a third party to eavesdrop on a conversation .
The only way I can see it working ( unless they are actually " tapping " the internet backbones or data streams at individual ISPs ) , this software advertises as a BT client with data to share and makes note of the clients that contact it.Going back to the phone metaphor , it 's more akin to advertising a phone number and recording calls made to it ( along with the originating phone number ) .
No entrapment , no wire tap.If you are one of the listed defendants , please try that argument .
I 'd love to be proven wrong.Or is this AC being a silly little AC again ? With loveThe Anonymous Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't this proprietary software package being used to track downloads be construed as a wire tap ergo inadmissible in a court of law?IANAL, but no.
A wire tap is placed by a third party to eavesdrop on a conversation.
The only way I can see it working (unless they are actually "tapping" the internet backbones or data streams at individual ISPs), this software advertises as a BT client with data to share and makes note of the clients that contact it.Going back to the phone metaphor, it's more akin to advertising a phone number and recording calls made to it (along with the originating phone number).
No entrapment, no wire tap.If you are one of the listed defendants, please try that argument.
I'd love to be proven wrong.Or is this AC being a silly little AC again?With loveThe Anonymous Coward
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685126</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270035060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should stop watching the world through a TV screen. Try to socialize more and you'll see that humanity is not so bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should stop watching the world through a TV screen .
Try to socialize more and you 'll see that humanity is not so bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should stop watching the world through a TV screen.
Try to socialize more and you'll see that humanity is not so bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31698820</id>
	<title>user7777</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270120980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>quite witty, if i encode my real name to A=6 b=12 c=18 and then add up the sum etc, i end up with the number 606, which happens to be in the date/time<br>of my prior entry, guess this must have been my fate to write this more or less adept. or not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;<br>what i find most amuzing is that i've already looked beyond the kosmos, and that most of 'our' issues are truly trivial and banal.<br>and you wouldn't believe what i found. OHMY how i sincerely adore it ALL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>quite witty , if i encode my real name to A = 6 b = 12 c = 18 and then add up the sum etc , i end up with the number 606 , which happens to be in the date/timeof my prior entry , guess this must have been my fate to write this more or less adept .
or not : &gt; what i find most amuzing is that i 've already looked beyond the kosmos , and that most of 'our ' issues are truly trivial and banal.and you would n't believe what i found .
OHMY how i sincerely adore it ALL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quite witty, if i encode my real name to A=6 b=12 c=18 and then add up the sum etc, i end up with the number 606, which happens to be in the date/timeof my prior entry, guess this must have been my fate to write this more or less adept.
or not :&gt;what i find most amuzing is that i've already looked beyond the kosmos, and that most of 'our' issues are truly trivial and banal.and you wouldn't believe what i found.
OHMY how i sincerely adore it ALL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682320</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1269966240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bought a bunch of Bly-rays.  Don't know how to rip 'em, just downloaded them instead so I could have them on my media pc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought a bunch of Bly-rays .
Do n't know how to rip 'em , just downloaded them instead so I could have them on my media pc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought a bunch of Bly-rays.
Don't know how to rip 'em, just downloaded them instead so I could have them on my media pc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681956</id>
	<title>Contact and Spam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm,</p><p>Reading the link to one of the sample requests to the ISP for a name to go with the IP one comes upon some interesting information.</p><p>Thomas M. Dunlap (D.C. Bar # 471319)<br>Ellis L. Bennett (D.C. Bar # 479059)<br>David Ludwig (D.C. Bar # 975891)<br>Nicholas A. Kurtz (D.C. Bar # 980091)<br>DUNLAP, GRUBB &amp; WEAVER, PLLC<br>1200 G Street, NW Suite 800<br>Washington, DC 20005<br>Telephone: 202-316-8558<br>Facsimile: 202-318-0242<br>tdunlap@dglegal.com<br>Attorneys for the Plaintiff</p><p>I think we should consider spamming this phone and email.  Me thinks much fun could be had for all involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm,Reading the link to one of the sample requests to the ISP for a name to go with the IP one comes upon some interesting information.Thomas M. Dunlap ( D.C. Bar # 471319 ) Ellis L. Bennett ( D.C. Bar # 479059 ) David Ludwig ( D.C. Bar # 975891 ) Nicholas A. Kurtz ( D.C. Bar # 980091 ) DUNLAP , GRUBB &amp; WEAVER , PLLC1200 G Street , NW Suite 800Washington , DC 20005Telephone : 202-316-8558Facsimile : 202-318-0242tdunlap @ dglegal.comAttorneys for the PlaintiffI think we should consider spamming this phone and email .
Me thinks much fun could be had for all involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm,Reading the link to one of the sample requests to the ISP for a name to go with the IP one comes upon some interesting information.Thomas M. Dunlap (D.C. Bar # 471319)Ellis L. Bennett (D.C. Bar # 479059)David Ludwig (D.C. Bar # 975891)Nicholas A. Kurtz (D.C. Bar # 980091)DUNLAP, GRUBB &amp; WEAVER, PLLC1200 G Street, NW Suite 800Washington, DC 20005Telephone: 202-316-8558Facsimile: 202-318-0242tdunlap@dglegal.comAttorneys for the PlaintiffI think we should consider spamming this phone and email.
Me thinks much fun could be had for all involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684890</id>
	<title>quality vs quantity might make a difference to</title>
	<author>Gorbashsan</author>
	<datestamp>1270032480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
really, what does hollywood have to bitch about? They are one of the few industries still showing growth in profits with the american economy in the shitter, they are making more last year than the year before, and that trend CONTINUES. In fact, since the advent of easily accessible internet sources for copies of media, the film and music industries have never done better. But my main complaint is that the quality of films latley vs the number in theaters is ridiculous.
The quality of films up until around the mid 90's to early 2000's really were leaps and strides above previous films in terms of cinematic technology, but the fact is that a large portion of films seeing theater time today are utter shit compared to titles produced 15, 20, or even 30 or more years ago. Look at how rare it is to see a film hailed as a true gem of a film, we have the occasional one, but look at the kind of ratings vs number of films coming out today compares to film history taken on a whole, how many films like Seven Samurai, the Godfather, Star wars, Schindlers list, Shawshank Redemption, Lord of the rings, casablanca, Cross of Iron, Snow White, Toy Story, The nightmare before Christmas, Monty Python, Animal house, Die Hard, Wizard of Oz, the Exorcist, Haloween, Jaws, Psycho, the Matrix, 6th sense, Forrest gump, Jurrasic Park, singing in the rain, Apocalypse Now, and Harry Potter. Now how many of these were made recently? Maybe we would come see your movies in the theater if they were bloody worth watching.

You know what we have had lately? I can name very few off the top of my head. The dark Knight, Serenity, Sin City, Murderball (all films that were made to please the kind of people who pirate allot of movies, the overlap of net savvy individuals and comic book nerds is high) and you know what? A massive number of people went and saw them in the theater, even if they pirated it, I know I did, because if its a good film, you WANT to see it on the big screen, and you WANT to own a copy of the DVD and buy merchandise related to it. The damn Harry Pottter films are on the top 100 highest grossing films list, so is Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars, you know why? because they were GOOD films, and yet those were also on the top 100 most downloaded movies list of all times for places the pirate bay, demonoid, isohunt, and a dozen other torrent sites. Guess what, a couple of them are still on the top 100 most popluar torrents (most seeds/downloaders active), and DVD sales are still higher than average on all of those based on how long they have been available.
So the most pirated films of all time are making the most money and have the longest curve on dvd sales. Well film industry, you just keep alienating your core group of supporters and see what happens to your profit margin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>really , what does hollywood have to bitch about ?
They are one of the few industries still showing growth in profits with the american economy in the shitter , they are making more last year than the year before , and that trend CONTINUES .
In fact , since the advent of easily accessible internet sources for copies of media , the film and music industries have never done better .
But my main complaint is that the quality of films latley vs the number in theaters is ridiculous .
The quality of films up until around the mid 90 's to early 2000 's really were leaps and strides above previous films in terms of cinematic technology , but the fact is that a large portion of films seeing theater time today are utter shit compared to titles produced 15 , 20 , or even 30 or more years ago .
Look at how rare it is to see a film hailed as a true gem of a film , we have the occasional one , but look at the kind of ratings vs number of films coming out today compares to film history taken on a whole , how many films like Seven Samurai , the Godfather , Star wars , Schindlers list , Shawshank Redemption , Lord of the rings , casablanca , Cross of Iron , Snow White , Toy Story , The nightmare before Christmas , Monty Python , Animal house , Die Hard , Wizard of Oz , the Exorcist , Haloween , Jaws , Psycho , the Matrix , 6th sense , Forrest gump , Jurrasic Park , singing in the rain , Apocalypse Now , and Harry Potter .
Now how many of these were made recently ?
Maybe we would come see your movies in the theater if they were bloody worth watching .
You know what we have had lately ?
I can name very few off the top of my head .
The dark Knight , Serenity , Sin City , Murderball ( all films that were made to please the kind of people who pirate allot of movies , the overlap of net savvy individuals and comic book nerds is high ) and you know what ?
A massive number of people went and saw them in the theater , even if they pirated it , I know I did , because if its a good film , you WANT to see it on the big screen , and you WANT to own a copy of the DVD and buy merchandise related to it .
The damn Harry Pottter films are on the top 100 highest grossing films list , so is Dark Knight , Lord of the Rings , and Star Wars , you know why ?
because they were GOOD films , and yet those were also on the top 100 most downloaded movies list of all times for places the pirate bay , demonoid , isohunt , and a dozen other torrent sites .
Guess what , a couple of them are still on the top 100 most popluar torrents ( most seeds/downloaders active ) , and DVD sales are still higher than average on all of those based on how long they have been available .
So the most pirated films of all time are making the most money and have the longest curve on dvd sales .
Well film industry , you just keep alienating your core group of supporters and see what happens to your profit margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
really, what does hollywood have to bitch about?
They are one of the few industries still showing growth in profits with the american economy in the shitter, they are making more last year than the year before, and that trend CONTINUES.
In fact, since the advent of easily accessible internet sources for copies of media, the film and music industries have never done better.
But my main complaint is that the quality of films latley vs the number in theaters is ridiculous.
The quality of films up until around the mid 90's to early 2000's really were leaps and strides above previous films in terms of cinematic technology, but the fact is that a large portion of films seeing theater time today are utter shit compared to titles produced 15, 20, or even 30 or more years ago.
Look at how rare it is to see a film hailed as a true gem of a film, we have the occasional one, but look at the kind of ratings vs number of films coming out today compares to film history taken on a whole, how many films like Seven Samurai, the Godfather, Star wars, Schindlers list, Shawshank Redemption, Lord of the rings, casablanca, Cross of Iron, Snow White, Toy Story, The nightmare before Christmas, Monty Python, Animal house, Die Hard, Wizard of Oz, the Exorcist, Haloween, Jaws, Psycho, the Matrix, 6th sense, Forrest gump, Jurrasic Park, singing in the rain, Apocalypse Now, and Harry Potter.
Now how many of these were made recently?
Maybe we would come see your movies in the theater if they were bloody worth watching.
You know what we have had lately?
I can name very few off the top of my head.
The dark Knight, Serenity, Sin City, Murderball (all films that were made to please the kind of people who pirate allot of movies, the overlap of net savvy individuals and comic book nerds is high) and you know what?
A massive number of people went and saw them in the theater, even if they pirated it, I know I did, because if its a good film, you WANT to see it on the big screen, and you WANT to own a copy of the DVD and buy merchandise related to it.
The damn Harry Pottter films are on the top 100 highest grossing films list, so is Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars, you know why?
because they were GOOD films, and yet those were also on the top 100 most downloaded movies list of all times for places the pirate bay, demonoid, isohunt, and a dozen other torrent sites.
Guess what, a couple of them are still on the top 100 most popluar torrents (most seeds/downloaders active), and DVD sales are still higher than average on all of those based on how long they have been available.
So the most pirated films of all time are making the most money and have the longest curve on dvd sales.
Well film industry, you just keep alienating your core group of supporters and see what happens to your profit margin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680698</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ul><li>Recording a song or a movie from the radio or tv is not only legal, but explicitly so (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the audio home recording act makes this legal).</li><li>OTOH, downloading it from a non-broadcast source (i.e. the internet), is supposedly copyright infringement, with steep statutory fines.</li></ul></div><p>This sums pretty much up why "our friends" are pushing for the broadcast flag. That makes it <i>de facto</i> illegal to record it, since you will have to circumvent this copy protection device to do so. In other words: once the flag is set to one, home recording is over and done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording a song or a movie from the radio or tv is not only legal , but explicitly so ( IANAL , but I 'm pretty sure the audio home recording act makes this legal ) .OTOH , downloading it from a non-broadcast source ( i.e .
the internet ) , is supposedly copyright infringement , with steep statutory fines.This sums pretty much up why " our friends " are pushing for the broadcast flag .
That makes it de facto illegal to record it , since you will have to circumvent this copy protection device to do so .
In other words : once the flag is set to one , home recording is over and done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording a song or a movie from the radio or tv is not only legal, but explicitly so (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the audio home recording act makes this legal).OTOH, downloading it from a non-broadcast source (i.e.
the internet), is supposedly copyright infringement, with steep statutory fines.This sums pretty much up why "our friends" are pushing for the broadcast flag.
That makes it de facto illegal to record it, since you will have to circumvent this copy protection device to do so.
In other words: once the flag is set to one, home recording is over and done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681696</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1269962460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple.</p><p>Racketeering by mopping up settlement money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple.Racketeering by mopping up settlement money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.Racketeering by mopping up settlement money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683822</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269978960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,</p><p>What's going on isn't that people are lazy, but that they're being lied to, constantly.  These lies get so ingrained that they become conventional wisdom, so much so that in your rant you recited some of them without wondering how you know.</p><p>Let's take the claim that inflation is raping the dollar.  We've been hearing that ever since Obama took office because his opponents are willing to say anything, even irresponsible things, to embarrass him.  We've also been hearing it from people who think that returning to the gold standard will make them richer ever since the seventies, when we left the gold standard (which had been in place since the beginning of the 20th century, having replaced gold and silver against the strident protests of William Jennings Bryan).</p><p>People see the prices they pay for things increase, and think that there's something wrong, especially as their salaries aren't increasing nearly as fast (thanks to 40 years of unionbusting, offshoring, skyrocketing CxO salaries, and importation of foreign workers who are then treated like shit).  People are then told that inflation is the problem, not the fact that they're being asked to work for less so the big boss can get a bonus.  And the suggestion to return to the gold standard makes sense when that's the only thing you're looking at- it would be more difficult to cut wages than simply refuse to raise them, which is the same thing with inflation.  Plus, inflation makes your money rot in the bank.</p><p>I don't know why, but inflation is a necessary part of how economies work.  Unfortunately, it's hard to trust economists because half of them are liars who will say anything to try to make rich people richer.  Still, Paul Krugman seems trustworthy, and at any rate he has a <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/america-is-not-indonesia/" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">graph of inflation on his blog</a> [nytimes.com] which should indicate that the dollar is not being raped.</p><p>I'm not sure what to say.  It's hard to find out who's not lying to you and easy to accept intentional fallacies by liars.  I mean, after the hottest decade on record, they sound like Baghdad Bob continuing to deny that the globe is warming!  Most of the sheeple aren't sure what to believe either and go with what people they trust tell them.  You can't be an expert on everything and liars have been poisoning the well on expertise for decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi,What 's going on is n't that people are lazy , but that they 're being lied to , constantly .
These lies get so ingrained that they become conventional wisdom , so much so that in your rant you recited some of them without wondering how you know.Let 's take the claim that inflation is raping the dollar .
We 've been hearing that ever since Obama took office because his opponents are willing to say anything , even irresponsible things , to embarrass him .
We 've also been hearing it from people who think that returning to the gold standard will make them richer ever since the seventies , when we left the gold standard ( which had been in place since the beginning of the 20th century , having replaced gold and silver against the strident protests of William Jennings Bryan ) .People see the prices they pay for things increase , and think that there 's something wrong , especially as their salaries are n't increasing nearly as fast ( thanks to 40 years of unionbusting , offshoring , skyrocketing CxO salaries , and importation of foreign workers who are then treated like shit ) .
People are then told that inflation is the problem , not the fact that they 're being asked to work for less so the big boss can get a bonus .
And the suggestion to return to the gold standard makes sense when that 's the only thing you 're looking at- it would be more difficult to cut wages than simply refuse to raise them , which is the same thing with inflation .
Plus , inflation makes your money rot in the bank.I do n't know why , but inflation is a necessary part of how economies work .
Unfortunately , it 's hard to trust economists because half of them are liars who will say anything to try to make rich people richer .
Still , Paul Krugman seems trustworthy , and at any rate he has a graph of inflation on his blog [ nytimes.com ] which should indicate that the dollar is not being raped.I 'm not sure what to say .
It 's hard to find out who 's not lying to you and easy to accept intentional fallacies by liars .
I mean , after the hottest decade on record , they sound like Baghdad Bob continuing to deny that the globe is warming !
Most of the sheeple are n't sure what to believe either and go with what people they trust tell them .
You ca n't be an expert on everything and liars have been poisoning the well on expertise for decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,What's going on isn't that people are lazy, but that they're being lied to, constantly.
These lies get so ingrained that they become conventional wisdom, so much so that in your rant you recited some of them without wondering how you know.Let's take the claim that inflation is raping the dollar.
We've been hearing that ever since Obama took office because his opponents are willing to say anything, even irresponsible things, to embarrass him.
We've also been hearing it from people who think that returning to the gold standard will make them richer ever since the seventies, when we left the gold standard (which had been in place since the beginning of the 20th century, having replaced gold and silver against the strident protests of William Jennings Bryan).People see the prices they pay for things increase, and think that there's something wrong, especially as their salaries aren't increasing nearly as fast (thanks to 40 years of unionbusting, offshoring, skyrocketing CxO salaries, and importation of foreign workers who are then treated like shit).
People are then told that inflation is the problem, not the fact that they're being asked to work for less so the big boss can get a bonus.
And the suggestion to return to the gold standard makes sense when that's the only thing you're looking at- it would be more difficult to cut wages than simply refuse to raise them, which is the same thing with inflation.
Plus, inflation makes your money rot in the bank.I don't know why, but inflation is a necessary part of how economies work.
Unfortunately, it's hard to trust economists because half of them are liars who will say anything to try to make rich people richer.
Still, Paul Krugman seems trustworthy, and at any rate he has a graph of inflation on his blog [nytimes.com] which should indicate that the dollar is not being raped.I'm not sure what to say.
It's hard to find out who's not lying to you and easy to accept intentional fallacies by liars.
I mean, after the hottest decade on record, they sound like Baghdad Bob continuing to deny that the globe is warming!
Most of the sheeple aren't sure what to believe either and go with what people they trust tell them.
You can't be an expert on everything and liars have been poisoning the well on expertise for decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685848</id>
	<title>VPN services?</title>
	<author>valnar</author>
	<datestamp>1270041540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not advocating this, but doesn't a VPN service like ipredator or strongvpn hide your IP address when using Bittorrent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not advocating this , but does n't a VPN service like ipredator or strongvpn hide your IP address when using Bittorrent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not advocating this, but doesn't a VPN service like ipredator or strongvpn hide your IP address when using Bittorrent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31692916</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270027920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YEAH!  That's what I'm talking about!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YEAH !
That 's what I 'm talking about !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YEAH!
That's what I'm talking about!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687610</id>
	<title>Alternate Solution...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1270050180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judge Judy, Joe Brown, and the rest just got their seasons all extended by 5 years!</p><p>Seriously though, put enough of this in the public face, and not behind closed doors, and we shall see how long thing travesty goes on for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judge Judy , Joe Brown , and the rest just got their seasons all extended by 5 years ! Seriously though , put enough of this in the public face , and not behind closed doors , and we shall see how long thing travesty goes on for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judge Judy, Joe Brown, and the rest just got their seasons all extended by 5 years!Seriously though, put enough of this in the public face, and not behind closed doors, and we shall see how long thing travesty goes on for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686916</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>keithjr</author>
	<datestamp>1270047300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd relax, at least in this case.  I don't really see how downloader lawsuits have much to do with individual freedoms.  You could make the case that the limitless extension of copyright terms erodes the public domain, but making the leap from that to destruction of civil liberties is a bit of a stretch.  Let's be honest here, movie piracy isn't a fundamental right of man.  It exists because in an information age, the cost of information can become trivially low, unless it is artificially raised.  <br> <br>

I do not mean to trivialize the problem you see, as it is indeed quite dire on other fronts.  But this particular story is just an example of a dinosaur industry thrashing about in a series of increasingly violent death throws.   Nothing more, nothing less.  This sign of desperation should give you hope, friend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd relax , at least in this case .
I do n't really see how downloader lawsuits have much to do with individual freedoms .
You could make the case that the limitless extension of copyright terms erodes the public domain , but making the leap from that to destruction of civil liberties is a bit of a stretch .
Let 's be honest here , movie piracy is n't a fundamental right of man .
It exists because in an information age , the cost of information can become trivially low , unless it is artificially raised .
I do not mean to trivialize the problem you see , as it is indeed quite dire on other fronts .
But this particular story is just an example of a dinosaur industry thrashing about in a series of increasingly violent death throws .
Nothing more , nothing less .
This sign of desperation should give you hope , friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd relax, at least in this case.
I don't really see how downloader lawsuits have much to do with individual freedoms.
You could make the case that the limitless extension of copyright terms erodes the public domain, but making the leap from that to destruction of civil liberties is a bit of a stretch.
Let's be honest here, movie piracy isn't a fundamental right of man.
It exists because in an information age, the cost of information can become trivially low, unless it is artificially raised.
I do not mean to trivialize the problem you see, as it is indeed quite dire on other fronts.
But this particular story is just an example of a dinosaur industry thrashing about in a series of increasingly violent death throws.
Nothing more, nothing less.
This sign of desperation should give you hope, friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681388</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269960780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet you still could not name more than 1 good movie.</p><p>As copyright is now forever none of this material would ever become part of our common cultural heritage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet you still could not name more than 1 good movie.As copyright is now forever none of this material would ever become part of our common cultural heritage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet you still could not name more than 1 good movie.As copyright is now forever none of this material would ever become part of our common cultural heritage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</id>
	<title>WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1269954540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base. This isn't going to win them any friends and is even less likely to increase their profits. It was stupid when they were suing dozens of people - but stepping this lunacy up to 50,000 lawsuits looks more like a death wish than "monetizing the alternate channel".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base .
This is n't going to win them any friends and is even less likely to increase their profits .
It was stupid when they were suing dozens of people - but stepping this lunacy up to 50,000 lawsuits looks more like a death wish than " monetizing the alternate channel " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
This isn't going to win them any friends and is even less likely to increase their profits.
It was stupid when they were suing dozens of people - but stepping this lunacy up to 50,000 lawsuits looks more like a death wish than "monetizing the alternate channel".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31696454</id>
	<title>Misnamed or Trailer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270048200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is the person downloading supposed to know if it the movie they thought is was, or if it was a trailer, until they have downloaded it and seen it? "No Your Honor, I thought it was Avatar the trailer I was downloading" or "Avatar the mini-documentary". "And of course I deleted it straight away when I realised it was the wrong thing". "I was misled by those horrible pirates".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is the person downloading supposed to know if it the movie they thought is was , or if it was a trailer , until they have downloaded it and seen it ?
" No Your Honor , I thought it was Avatar the trailer I was downloading " or " Avatar the mini-documentary " .
" And of course I deleted it straight away when I realised it was the wrong thing " .
" I was misled by those horrible pirates " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is the person downloading supposed to know if it the movie they thought is was, or if it was a trailer, until they have downloaded it and seen it?
"No Your Honor, I thought it was Avatar the trailer I was downloading" or "Avatar the mini-documentary".
"And of course I deleted it straight away when I realised it was the wrong thing".
"I was misled by those horrible pirates".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688006</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>50,000 trials*12 jurrors=600,000.</p><p>Are there 600,000 people eligible for jury duty in DC?</p><p>Of course, since this is filed in Washington DC, Does that mean each defendant will have to travel to DC to fight it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>50,000 trials * 12 jurrors = 600,000.Are there 600,000 people eligible for jury duty in DC ? Of course , since this is filed in Washington DC , Does that mean each defendant will have to travel to DC to fight it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50,000 trials*12 jurrors=600,000.Are there 600,000 people eligible for jury duty in DC?Of course, since this is filed in Washington DC, Does that mean each defendant will have to travel to DC to fight it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691204</id>
	<title>Re:An invasion of privacy??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270064760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're broadcasting your IP for others to use it, so it's not wiretapping or anything since you're giving everyone your IP willingly, whether it be another pirate or the MPAA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're broadcasting your IP for others to use it , so it 's not wiretapping or anything since you 're giving everyone your IP willingly , whether it be another pirate or the MPAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're broadcasting your IP for others to use it, so it's not wiretapping or anything since you're giving everyone your IP willingly, whether it be another pirate or the MPAA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683526</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269976440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are police officers that arrest bank robbers also 'corporiate welfare?' after all, the whole business of hiring police officers and running jails is a money loser, right?</p><p>I think there's something to your argument. look how much better the people were in post-katrina new orleans - they got free tvs, beer, and shoes from walmart. much better than the system that needs propping up of having walls and alarms in stores, guards, convictions, and the like.</p><p>only on planet slashdot would such idiocy be considered to be 'insightful.'</p><p>morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are police officers that arrest bank robbers also 'corporiate welfare ?
' after all , the whole business of hiring police officers and running jails is a money loser , right ? I think there 's something to your argument .
look how much better the people were in post-katrina new orleans - they got free tvs , beer , and shoes from walmart .
much better than the system that needs propping up of having walls and alarms in stores , guards , convictions , and the like.only on planet slashdot would such idiocy be considered to be 'insightful .
'morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are police officers that arrest bank robbers also 'corporiate welfare?
' after all, the whole business of hiring police officers and running jails is a money loser, right?I think there's something to your argument.
look how much better the people were in post-katrina new orleans - they got free tvs, beer, and shoes from walmart.
much better than the system that needs propping up of having walls and alarms in stores, guards, convictions, and the like.only on planet slashdot would such idiocy be considered to be 'insightful.
'morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681280</id>
	<title>so what if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...we all got on bit torrent and downloaded the titles...just because...could that not, as an act of revolt force the strategy to fail?</p><p>While IANAL, I would assume that there is some requirement to sue "all known" infringers (you can't just decide to sue one person and not the others arbitrarily).  And since suing "everybody" would bring down the system, it would leave the only remaining option of not allowing the suits against anybody.</p><p>Ironically, it sounds like democracy in action.  People voting with their actions.</p><p>But, clearly I am not a lawyer...so maybe it is possible to selectively prosecute...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...we all got on bit torrent and downloaded the titles...just because...could that not , as an act of revolt force the strategy to fail ? While IANAL , I would assume that there is some requirement to sue " all known " infringers ( you ca n't just decide to sue one person and not the others arbitrarily ) .
And since suing " everybody " would bring down the system , it would leave the only remaining option of not allowing the suits against anybody.Ironically , it sounds like democracy in action .
People voting with their actions.But , clearly I am not a lawyer...so maybe it is possible to selectively prosecute.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we all got on bit torrent and downloaded the titles...just because...could that not, as an act of revolt force the strategy to fail?While IANAL, I would assume that there is some requirement to sue "all known" infringers (you can't just decide to sue one person and not the others arbitrarily).
And since suing "everybody" would bring down the system, it would leave the only remaining option of not allowing the suits against anybody.Ironically, it sounds like democracy in action.
People voting with their actions.But, clearly I am not a lawyer...so maybe it is possible to selectively prosecute...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680416</id>
	<title>Re:"Sue fucking everyone"</title>
	<author>Aphex Junkie</author>
	<datestamp>1269955980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encryption only fixes third-party snooping/throttling.<br>Malicious peers can use encryption too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encryption only fixes third-party snooping/throttling.Malicious peers can use encryption too : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encryption only fixes third-party snooping/throttling.Malicious peers can use encryption too :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680146</id>
	<title>Lawsuits as revenue stream?</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1269954960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when are lawsuits intended as a revenue stream?  I thought they were supposed to be reparations for real damages incurred with a side of punitive hand slapping.</p><p>I'm all for shutting down pirates, and sending the message that expensive to produce media isn't free.  But specifically "monetizing" the lawsuits, in the hope of getting rich off pirates?  That just reeks of evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when are lawsuits intended as a revenue stream ?
I thought they were supposed to be reparations for real damages incurred with a side of punitive hand slapping.I 'm all for shutting down pirates , and sending the message that expensive to produce media is n't free .
But specifically " monetizing " the lawsuits , in the hope of getting rich off pirates ?
That just reeks of evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when are lawsuits intended as a revenue stream?
I thought they were supposed to be reparations for real damages incurred with a side of punitive hand slapping.I'm all for shutting down pirates, and sending the message that expensive to produce media isn't free.
But specifically "monetizing" the lawsuits, in the hope of getting rich off pirates?
That just reeks of evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681732</id>
	<title>Here's the $ they are going after</title>
	<author>partofthepuzzle</author>
	<datestamp>1269962640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I copied this directly from the U.S. Copyright Group web site (http://www.savecinema.org):</p><p>"Solution: at no cost to our clients, the Us Copyright Group will:</p><p>Identify illegal donwloaders by ISP address</p><p>Subpoena identifying contact information</p><p>Send a cease &amp; desist letter to demand payment of damages</p><p>Obtain settlement of approximately $500 - $1,000 per infringer &amp; promise to cease future illegal downloading</p><p>Process settlements &amp; provide records to the client</p><p>Disburse client&rsquo;s portion of the damages"</p><p>----<br>Hmmmm....</p><p>- "donwloaders": they either can't spell, don't use a spellchecker or more likely, this site was put very hastily, just in time for the news cycle. Many of the links are dead.</p><p>- They are pursuing damages on a "per infringer" basis. This is dramatically different from the RIAA's tactic of going after a small number of cases and seeking huge damages based on each pirated song. And it explains why they are suing so many people.</p><p>While it might be fun to think about clogging the courts with thousands of jury trials, the most likely outcome is that unless they are convinced that they have a very good chance of prevailing, the vast majority of plaintiffs will choose to settle, esp. if it's close to $500, rather than face the time, stress &amp; expense of going through a trial that may wind up causing them a LOT more if they lose.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I detest what these sad excuses for human beings are doing but if their evidence is very detailed and tight, they have a very good chance of accomplishing their goals of making a lot of money for themselves and the assholes they represent. And don't hope for any common sense or relief from the present administration. Obama is 100\% behind ACTA and you can be sure that he'll support this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I copied this directly from the U.S. Copyright Group web site ( http : //www.savecinema.org ) : " Solution : at no cost to our clients , the Us Copyright Group will : Identify illegal donwloaders by ISP addressSubpoena identifying contact informationSend a cease &amp; desist letter to demand payment of damagesObtain settlement of approximately $ 500 - $ 1,000 per infringer &amp; promise to cease future illegal downloadingProcess settlements &amp; provide records to the clientDisburse client    s portion of the damages " ----Hmmmm....- " donwloaders " : they either ca n't spell , do n't use a spellchecker or more likely , this site was put very hastily , just in time for the news cycle .
Many of the links are dead.- They are pursuing damages on a " per infringer " basis .
This is dramatically different from the RIAA 's tactic of going after a small number of cases and seeking huge damages based on each pirated song .
And it explains why they are suing so many people.While it might be fun to think about clogging the courts with thousands of jury trials , the most likely outcome is that unless they are convinced that they have a very good chance of prevailing , the vast majority of plaintiffs will choose to settle , esp .
if it 's close to $ 500 , rather than face the time , stress &amp; expense of going through a trial that may wind up causing them a LOT more if they lose.Do n't get me wrong , I detest what these sad excuses for human beings are doing but if their evidence is very detailed and tight , they have a very good chance of accomplishing their goals of making a lot of money for themselves and the assholes they represent .
And do n't hope for any common sense or relief from the present administration .
Obama is 100 \ % behind ACTA and you can be sure that he 'll support this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I copied this directly from the U.S. Copyright Group web site (http://www.savecinema.org):"Solution: at no cost to our clients, the Us Copyright Group will:Identify illegal donwloaders by ISP addressSubpoena identifying contact informationSend a cease &amp; desist letter to demand payment of damagesObtain settlement of approximately $500 - $1,000 per infringer &amp; promise to cease future illegal downloadingProcess settlements &amp; provide records to the clientDisburse client’s portion of the damages"----Hmmmm....- "donwloaders": they either can't spell, don't use a spellchecker or more likely, this site was put very hastily, just in time for the news cycle.
Many of the links are dead.- They are pursuing damages on a "per infringer" basis.
This is dramatically different from the RIAA's tactic of going after a small number of cases and seeking huge damages based on each pirated song.
And it explains why they are suing so many people.While it might be fun to think about clogging the courts with thousands of jury trials, the most likely outcome is that unless they are convinced that they have a very good chance of prevailing, the vast majority of plaintiffs will choose to settle, esp.
if it's close to $500, rather than face the time, stress &amp; expense of going through a trial that may wind up causing them a LOT more if they lose.Don't get me wrong, I detest what these sad excuses for human beings are doing but if their evidence is very detailed and tight, they have a very good chance of accomplishing their goals of making a lot of money for themselves and the assholes they represent.
And don't hope for any common sense or relief from the present administration.
Obama is 100\% behind ACTA and you can be sure that he'll support this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681408</id>
	<title>Can you get punitive damages if you sue everybody?</title>
	<author>tebee</author>
	<datestamp>1269960900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not in the US or a lawyer but I wonder, if you sue everybody who has infringed your copyright   can you still get punitive damages from them?
<br> <br>
I thought the way  punitive damages worked was by saying there this case is one of x but is the only one that has been brought to court therefore your damages can be multiplied by x.
<br> <br>
If you can still get x times your actual damages from each of x people then it would seem to be a very good revenue stream indeed.
<br>
But if you can only get your actual damages from each case then you are not going to be making any money from this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not in the US or a lawyer but I wonder , if you sue everybody who has infringed your copyright can you still get punitive damages from them ?
I thought the way punitive damages worked was by saying there this case is one of x but is the only one that has been brought to court therefore your damages can be multiplied by x . If you can still get x times your actual damages from each of x people then it would seem to be a very good revenue stream indeed .
But if you can only get your actual damages from each case then you are not going to be making any money from this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not in the US or a lawyer but I wonder, if you sue everybody who has infringed your copyright   can you still get punitive damages from them?
I thought the way  punitive damages worked was by saying there this case is one of x but is the only one that has been brought to court therefore your damages can be multiplied by x.
 
If you can still get x times your actual damages from each of x people then it would seem to be a very good revenue stream indeed.
But if you can only get your actual damages from each case then you are not going to be making any money from this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686106</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270043100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I was forced to settle, I would pay in pennies. Hell I would enjoy watching them count it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was forced to settle , I would pay in pennies .
Hell I would enjoy watching them count it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was forced to settle, I would pay in pennies.
Hell I would enjoy watching them count it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680130</id>
	<title>Oh man...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269954900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://reporter.blogs.com/files/complaint-boll-ag-\_far-cry\_.pdf</p><p>I hope the judges recognize that whoever downloaded Uwe Boll's movies has suffered enough already.  Have these lawyers no shame?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //reporter.blogs.com/files/complaint-boll-ag- \ _far-cry \ _.pdfI hope the judges recognize that whoever downloaded Uwe Boll 's movies has suffered enough already .
Have these lawyers no shame ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://reporter.blogs.com/files/complaint-boll-ag-\_far-cry\_.pdfI hope the judges recognize that whoever downloaded Uwe Boll's movies has suffered enough already.
Have these lawyers no shame?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683942</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your tinfoil head is not too tight. I've noticed the same thing. It seems to be happening in all the developed countries in one form or another. And the populace is too ignorant to even care, never mind stand up to it.</p><p>Maybe we should start handing out some tinfoil heads and flyers to wake them up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your tinfoil head is not too tight .
I 've noticed the same thing .
It seems to be happening in all the developed countries in one form or another .
And the populace is too ignorant to even care , never mind stand up to it.Maybe we should start handing out some tinfoil heads and flyers to wake them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your tinfoil head is not too tight.
I've noticed the same thing.
It seems to be happening in all the developed countries in one form or another.
And the populace is too ignorant to even care, never mind stand up to it.Maybe we should start handing out some tinfoil heads and flyers to wake them up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684726</id>
	<title>Unlawful actions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270030860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do these lawyers determine that the download is breaching copyright laws? They have to download it first, so they are breaking.<br>And also downloading something via p2p doesn't mean breaking the law, there are many legitimate downloads available. How one can be sued for downloading something that he didn't know was illegal before downloading. When you go onto torrent websites they don't advertise/label torrents as 'illegal'. You can't tell until you complete downloading it.<br>I think someone should regulate these firms as they splash money for court trials just to bully internet users, who will get scared and comply with their unlawful requests without a fight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do these lawyers determine that the download is breaching copyright laws ?
They have to download it first , so they are breaking.And also downloading something via p2p does n't mean breaking the law , there are many legitimate downloads available .
How one can be sued for downloading something that he did n't know was illegal before downloading .
When you go onto torrent websites they do n't advertise/label torrents as 'illegal' .
You ca n't tell until you complete downloading it.I think someone should regulate these firms as they splash money for court trials just to bully internet users , who will get scared and comply with their unlawful requests without a fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do these lawyers determine that the download is breaching copyright laws?
They have to download it first, so they are breaking.And also downloading something via p2p doesn't mean breaking the law, there are many legitimate downloads available.
How one can be sued for downloading something that he didn't know was illegal before downloading.
When you go onto torrent websites they don't advertise/label torrents as 'illegal'.
You can't tell until you complete downloading it.I think someone should regulate these firms as they splash money for court trials just to bully internet users, who will get scared and comply with their unlawful requests without a fight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682964</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>rattaroaz</author>
	<datestamp>1269971280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not so sure.  It sounds like the law group is suckering the MPAA into lawsuits to make money for them, the US Copyright Group.  THAT seems more obvious to me.  No matter what happens here, the lawyers win.  It is not so clear to me that the MPAA will truly be a winner here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not so sure .
It sounds like the law group is suckering the MPAA into lawsuits to make money for them , the US Copyright Group .
THAT seems more obvious to me .
No matter what happens here , the lawyers win .
It is not so clear to me that the MPAA will truly be a winner here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not so sure.
It sounds like the law group is suckering the MPAA into lawsuits to make money for them, the US Copyright Group.
THAT seems more obvious to me.
No matter what happens here, the lawyers win.
It is not so clear to me that the MPAA will truly be a winner here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682610</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>rsilvergun</author>
	<datestamp>1269967980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>almost none of them can afford to bring it to court. When they know who they're suing their drop any cases against people who can fight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>almost none of them can afford to bring it to court .
When they know who they 're suing their drop any cases against people who can fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>almost none of them can afford to bring it to court.
When they know who they're suing their drop any cases against people who can fight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31695700</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>sixsixtysix</author>
	<datestamp>1270041720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what is even worse is that the commercials during the original airing should be all that was needed for these series to make their money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what is even worse is that the commercials during the original airing should be all that was needed for these series to make their money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is even worse is that the commercials during the original airing should be all that was needed for these series to make their money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681474</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OTOH, it would be incredibly interesting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... even funny<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if most of the 50,000 said "fuck off big evil corporation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm lawsuit proof via Title 11<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... bring it on and see what you get".  Hint: there's no crime under Title 11 unless there is a conviction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , it would be incredibly interesting ... even funny ... if most of the 50,000 said " fuck off big evil corporation ... I 'm lawsuit proof via Title 11 ... bring it on and see what you get " .
Hint : there 's no crime under Title 11 unless there is a conviction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, it would be incredibly interesting ... even funny ... if most of the 50,000 said "fuck off big evil corporation ... I'm lawsuit proof via Title 11 ... bring it on and see what you get".
Hint: there's no crime under Title 11 unless there is a conviction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686958</id>
	<title>It's all about the filing fees</title>
	<author>BackcountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1270047540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This won&rsquo;t go forward, and here&rsquo;s why: filing fees.

I am a law clerk to a judge in another district, and we used to get a ton of cases where Cablevision would sue individuals for using illegal cable boxes.  Essentially, the police would raid an illegal cable box manufacturer.  Cablevision would subpoena all the sales info from the manufacturer, and then use the credit card payment info to track down and sue anyone who bought a cable box (who wasn&rsquo;t smart enough to use a prepaid credit card).   There would be hundreds of defendants all brought under a single case, many of whom defaulted or settled for a couple grand.

Given the amount of court resources used, and the fact that the liability of each defendant was unrelated (the evidence proving the actions of one defendant have nothing to do with any others), the court ordered that the cases were unrelated and had to be filed separately, meaning one defendant per case.  The effect of this ruling was that Cablevision had to pay the $350 filing fee for each defendant.  Given the collection rate, it wasn&rsquo;t worth it, and the suits stopped.

I imagine the same thing will happen here.  There is no way the plaintiff is paying $7M in filing fees.  As I haven&rsquo;t read the complaint, so I don&rsquo;t know for certain, but I am willing to bet these suits were brought as one (or a few).  I doubt the judge or judges handling this case will just sit and let this proceed as one action.  They&rsquo;ll want their filing fees, all $7M worth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This won    t go forward , and here    s why : filing fees .
I am a law clerk to a judge in another district , and we used to get a ton of cases where Cablevision would sue individuals for using illegal cable boxes .
Essentially , the police would raid an illegal cable box manufacturer .
Cablevision would subpoena all the sales info from the manufacturer , and then use the credit card payment info to track down and sue anyone who bought a cable box ( who wasn    t smart enough to use a prepaid credit card ) .
There would be hundreds of defendants all brought under a single case , many of whom defaulted or settled for a couple grand .
Given the amount of court resources used , and the fact that the liability of each defendant was unrelated ( the evidence proving the actions of one defendant have nothing to do with any others ) , the court ordered that the cases were unrelated and had to be filed separately , meaning one defendant per case .
The effect of this ruling was that Cablevision had to pay the $ 350 filing fee for each defendant .
Given the collection rate , it wasn    t worth it , and the suits stopped .
I imagine the same thing will happen here .
There is no way the plaintiff is paying $ 7M in filing fees .
As I haven    t read the complaint , so I don    t know for certain , but I am willing to bet these suits were brought as one ( or a few ) .
I doubt the judge or judges handling this case will just sit and let this proceed as one action .
They    ll want their filing fees , all $ 7M worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This won’t go forward, and here’s why: filing fees.
I am a law clerk to a judge in another district, and we used to get a ton of cases where Cablevision would sue individuals for using illegal cable boxes.
Essentially, the police would raid an illegal cable box manufacturer.
Cablevision would subpoena all the sales info from the manufacturer, and then use the credit card payment info to track down and sue anyone who bought a cable box (who wasn’t smart enough to use a prepaid credit card).
There would be hundreds of defendants all brought under a single case, many of whom defaulted or settled for a couple grand.
Given the amount of court resources used, and the fact that the liability of each defendant was unrelated (the evidence proving the actions of one defendant have nothing to do with any others), the court ordered that the cases were unrelated and had to be filed separately, meaning one defendant per case.
The effect of this ruling was that Cablevision had to pay the $350 filing fee for each defendant.
Given the collection rate, it wasn’t worth it, and the suits stopped.
I imagine the same thing will happen here.
There is no way the plaintiff is paying $7M in filing fees.
As I haven’t read the complaint, so I don’t know for certain, but I am willing to bet these suits were brought as one (or a few).
I doubt the judge or judges handling this case will just sit and let this proceed as one action.
They’ll want their filing fees, all $7M worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681072</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1269959340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what if I subscribe to cable, pay my BBC TV licence - but then I download something showing on those channels, because it's simply more convenient than having to worry about watching it at a particular time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if I subscribe to cable , pay my BBC TV licence - but then I download something showing on those channels , because it 's simply more convenient than having to worry about watching it at a particular time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if I subscribe to cable, pay my BBC TV licence - but then I download something showing on those channels, because it's simply more convenient than having to worry about watching it at a particular time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685020</id>
	<title>spreadsheet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270033680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"then checks against a spreadsheet"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... very odd business innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" then checks against a spreadsheet " ... very odd business innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"then checks against a spreadsheet" ... very odd business innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685198</id>
	<title>What happens if you refuse to pay?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1270035720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leave your door open, have everyone steal your stuff, empty your bank account etc. Nothing to pay the fines. Do they imprison you?<br> <br>In the UK, that's like being given free room and board with satellite TV and three hot meals a day, access to free gym equipment, and free educational materials.<br> <br>The only problem is that you have to keep infringing to live the high life of jail. Hilarious!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave your door open , have everyone steal your stuff , empty your bank account etc .
Nothing to pay the fines .
Do they imprison you ?
In the UK , that 's like being given free room and board with satellite TV and three hot meals a day , access to free gym equipment , and free educational materials .
The only problem is that you have to keep infringing to live the high life of jail .
Hilarious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave your door open, have everyone steal your stuff, empty your bank account etc.
Nothing to pay the fines.
Do they imprison you?
In the UK, that's like being given free room and board with satellite TV and three hot meals a day, access to free gym equipment, and free educational materials.
The only problem is that you have to keep infringing to live the high life of jail.
Hilarious!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682552</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269967500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conversely, if you decline to settle, it doesn't make much sense for the MPAA to pursue the case, since odds are you don't have $100k, and if you insist on a jury trial, the odds are that you also don't have enough assets to seize to even cover the MPAA's legal expenses in the case.</p><p>On the other hand, if you <i>do</i> have enough assets to be worth the MPAA's time, maybe you should just buy the fucking movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conversely , if you decline to settle , it does n't make much sense for the MPAA to pursue the case , since odds are you do n't have $ 100k , and if you insist on a jury trial , the odds are that you also do n't have enough assets to seize to even cover the MPAA 's legal expenses in the case.On the other hand , if you do have enough assets to be worth the MPAA 's time , maybe you should just buy the fucking movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conversely, if you decline to settle, it doesn't make much sense for the MPAA to pursue the case, since odds are you don't have $100k, and if you insist on a jury trial, the odds are that you also don't have enough assets to seize to even cover the MPAA's legal expenses in the case.On the other hand, if you do have enough assets to be worth the MPAA's time, maybe you should just buy the fucking movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681708</id>
	<title>They misrepresent how BitTorrent works...</title>
	<author>Modern Demagogue</author>
	<datestamp>1269962520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, as lawyers often do, the plaintiff's counsel factually misrepresent BitTorrent technology and process in their claims to their favor. Any decent lawyer would get these suits thrown out on its face.

In their pre-amble, they claim that due to the nature of BitTorrent, anyone who is a member of a swarm after the monitoring agent has accessed the swarm is necessarily distributing some part of the file, and therefore guilty of distribution of a copyrighted work.

However, this is not how the technology works. To participate in a swarm, you do not actually have to have the file available, nor must you have downloaded it from someone else in an illegal fashion. You do not HAVE to upload anything, or even download anything infringing to participate in a swarm.

As always, unless a 3rd party specifically downloads data from you that is copyrighted material one cannot demonstrate copyright infringement.

Additionally, without some form of physically captured copyrighted materially downloaded from a peer, I would love to see them prove jurisdiction.

Them requesting a list of seeds from a tracker, does not constitute your IP committing an act of copyright infringement in the District of Columbia, and I would like to see them demonstrate the routing information showing that whatever you did, necessarily passed through their, particularly if you are in the North East or Northern California.

They may succeed in monetizing this flow, but only because most lawyers would be too clueless to defend themselves properly &mdash; it bothers me that one can get away with making such materially false representations about the way that a technology works to a court, in order to get judgements on one's side. They either don't understand, or are lying, and given the amount of technology used by the monitoring service, I'm betting someone somewhere has advised them more accurately how the technology works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , as lawyers often do , the plaintiff 's counsel factually misrepresent BitTorrent technology and process in their claims to their favor .
Any decent lawyer would get these suits thrown out on its face .
In their pre-amble , they claim that due to the nature of BitTorrent , anyone who is a member of a swarm after the monitoring agent has accessed the swarm is necessarily distributing some part of the file , and therefore guilty of distribution of a copyrighted work .
However , this is not how the technology works .
To participate in a swarm , you do not actually have to have the file available , nor must you have downloaded it from someone else in an illegal fashion .
You do not HAVE to upload anything , or even download anything infringing to participate in a swarm .
As always , unless a 3rd party specifically downloads data from you that is copyrighted material one can not demonstrate copyright infringement .
Additionally , without some form of physically captured copyrighted materially downloaded from a peer , I would love to see them prove jurisdiction .
Them requesting a list of seeds from a tracker , does not constitute your IP committing an act of copyright infringement in the District of Columbia , and I would like to see them demonstrate the routing information showing that whatever you did , necessarily passed through their , particularly if you are in the North East or Northern California .
They may succeed in monetizing this flow , but only because most lawyers would be too clueless to defend themselves properly    it bothers me that one can get away with making such materially false representations about the way that a technology works to a court , in order to get judgements on one 's side .
They either do n't understand , or are lying , and given the amount of technology used by the monitoring service , I 'm betting someone somewhere has advised them more accurately how the technology works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, as lawyers often do, the plaintiff's counsel factually misrepresent BitTorrent technology and process in their claims to their favor.
Any decent lawyer would get these suits thrown out on its face.
In their pre-amble, they claim that due to the nature of BitTorrent, anyone who is a member of a swarm after the monitoring agent has accessed the swarm is necessarily distributing some part of the file, and therefore guilty of distribution of a copyrighted work.
However, this is not how the technology works.
To participate in a swarm, you do not actually have to have the file available, nor must you have downloaded it from someone else in an illegal fashion.
You do not HAVE to upload anything, or even download anything infringing to participate in a swarm.
As always, unless a 3rd party specifically downloads data from you that is copyrighted material one cannot demonstrate copyright infringement.
Additionally, without some form of physically captured copyrighted materially downloaded from a peer, I would love to see them prove jurisdiction.
Them requesting a list of seeds from a tracker, does not constitute your IP committing an act of copyright infringement in the District of Columbia, and I would like to see them demonstrate the routing information showing that whatever you did, necessarily passed through their, particularly if you are in the North East or Northern California.
They may succeed in monetizing this flow, but only because most lawyers would be too clueless to defend themselves properly — it bothers me that one can get away with making such materially false representations about the way that a technology works to a court, in order to get judgements on one's side.
They either don't understand, or are lying, and given the amount of technology used by the monitoring service, I'm betting someone somewhere has advised them more accurately how the technology works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685968</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270042380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah that worked great for the RIAA.  I stopped 'infringing' when they went ape-shit.  Because of their tactics I have stopped buying or even taking any interest in music.  My view is that eventually they'll piss enough people off that they'll burn down their own ivory tower.  A new, more adaptable music industry will rise from the ashes and continue in their place.  That's evolution - adapt or die out and let the market replace you.</p><p>And by 'infringing' I mean sampling a huge selection of music which I would have never been exposed to in a conventional marketplace, finding a few new bands who I really enjoyed enough to buy multiple CD's from, and deleting the plethora of mediocre garbage that's available.</p><p>Who decided that posting copyrighted material online in P2P networks is illegal?  I have the right to carry an MP3 with me anywhere in the world.  It'd be nice to access that from anywhere in the world without taking up valuable storage space on my computer.  Why is it my fault if someone who doesn't have the rights to download it does.  I have paid out hundreds of hundred dollar bills.  Does that mean I am encouraging counterfeiting? Any one of those people I made money available to could be using it to create illegal copies. It's a ridiculous argument to say I'm responsible for what someone else does.  There's no reason that legitimate rights holders should be held accountable for illegal activity because they make content available for p2p sharing.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah that worked great for the RIAA .
I stopped 'infringing ' when they went ape-shit .
Because of their tactics I have stopped buying or even taking any interest in music .
My view is that eventually they 'll piss enough people off that they 'll burn down their own ivory tower .
A new , more adaptable music industry will rise from the ashes and continue in their place .
That 's evolution - adapt or die out and let the market replace you.And by 'infringing ' I mean sampling a huge selection of music which I would have never been exposed to in a conventional marketplace , finding a few new bands who I really enjoyed enough to buy multiple CD 's from , and deleting the plethora of mediocre garbage that 's available.Who decided that posting copyrighted material online in P2P networks is illegal ?
I have the right to carry an MP3 with me anywhere in the world .
It 'd be nice to access that from anywhere in the world without taking up valuable storage space on my computer .
Why is it my fault if someone who does n't have the rights to download it does .
I have paid out hundreds of hundred dollar bills .
Does that mean I am encouraging counterfeiting ?
Any one of those people I made money available to could be using it to create illegal copies .
It 's a ridiculous argument to say I 'm responsible for what someone else does .
There 's no reason that legitimate rights holders should be held accountable for illegal activity because they make content available for p2p sharing .
         </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah that worked great for the RIAA.
I stopped 'infringing' when they went ape-shit.
Because of their tactics I have stopped buying or even taking any interest in music.
My view is that eventually they'll piss enough people off that they'll burn down their own ivory tower.
A new, more adaptable music industry will rise from the ashes and continue in their place.
That's evolution - adapt or die out and let the market replace you.And by 'infringing' I mean sampling a huge selection of music which I would have never been exposed to in a conventional marketplace, finding a few new bands who I really enjoyed enough to buy multiple CD's from, and deleting the plethora of mediocre garbage that's available.Who decided that posting copyrighted material online in P2P networks is illegal?
I have the right to carry an MP3 with me anywhere in the world.
It'd be nice to access that from anywhere in the world without taking up valuable storage space on my computer.
Why is it my fault if someone who doesn't have the rights to download it does.
I have paid out hundreds of hundred dollar bills.
Does that mean I am encouraging counterfeiting?
Any one of those people I made money available to could be using it to create illegal copies.
It's a ridiculous argument to say I'm responsible for what someone else does.
There's no reason that legitimate rights holders should be held accountable for illegal activity because they make content available for p2p sharing.
         </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680570</id>
	<title>Re:"Sue fucking everyone"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269956700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a fool if you think the built in encryption does anything to protect you against litigation. It is designed solely to prevent throttling on your connection. Anyone connected to the tracker can see the full IP list of all people downloading the torrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a fool if you think the built in encryption does anything to protect you against litigation .
It is designed solely to prevent throttling on your connection .
Anyone connected to the tracker can see the full IP list of all people downloading the torrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a fool if you think the built in encryption does anything to protect you against litigation.
It is designed solely to prevent throttling on your connection.
Anyone connected to the tracker can see the full IP list of all people downloading the torrent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687200</id>
	<title>No notice to customers; evidence "proprietary"</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1270048620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first reaction when I learned of this last night was that it must be a twisted April Fools joke. But I went on PACER &amp; actually found the documents in one of the suits. <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/03/achteneunte-v-does-1-2094-suit-filed.html" title="blogspot.com">Here</a> [blogspot.com] 's my blog post, which links to the complaint, ex parte discovery order, and ex parte declaration. <br> <br>Incredibly, the Court's order:<br> <br>-makes no provision for the customers to be notified; <br>-relies on a representation that the plaintiff has "proprietary" evidence which shows the infringement; <br>-required no evidence or detailed allegation as to why jurisdiction and venue could be placed in that district; and <br>-allows 2094 defendants to be joined in 1 case, although there is no basis for doing so under the federal rules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first reaction when I learned of this last night was that it must be a twisted April Fools joke .
But I went on PACER &amp; actually found the documents in one of the suits .
Here [ blogspot.com ] 's my blog post , which links to the complaint , ex parte discovery order , and ex parte declaration .
Incredibly , the Court 's order : -makes no provision for the customers to be notified ; -relies on a representation that the plaintiff has " proprietary " evidence which shows the infringement ; -required no evidence or detailed allegation as to why jurisdiction and venue could be placed in that district ; and -allows 2094 defendants to be joined in 1 case , although there is no basis for doing so under the federal rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first reaction when I learned of this last night was that it must be a twisted April Fools joke.
But I went on PACER &amp; actually found the documents in one of the suits.
Here [blogspot.com] 's my blog post, which links to the complaint, ex parte discovery order, and ex parte declaration.
Incredibly, the Court's order: -makes no provision for the customers to be notified; -relies on a representation that the plaintiff has "proprietary" evidence which shows the infringement; -required no evidence or detailed allegation as to why jurisdiction and venue could be placed in that district; and -allows 2094 defendants to be joined in 1 case, although there is no basis for doing so under the federal rules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682902</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1269970800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, downloading can get you in trouble too... because if the uploader isn't legally accountable for any material they transmit to you, then you share equal responsibility with the uploader for any content you copy from them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , downloading can get you in trouble too... because if the uploader is n't legally accountable for any material they transmit to you , then you share equal responsibility with the uploader for any content you copy from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, downloading can get you in trouble too... because if the uploader isn't legally accountable for any material they transmit to you, then you share equal responsibility with the uploader for any content you copy from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686204</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>mdsharpe</author>
	<datestamp>1270043820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A fine rant sir. My thoughts entirely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A fine rant sir .
My thoughts entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fine rant sir.
My thoughts entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688614</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>gront</author>
	<datestamp>1270053900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously no mods are Dana Carvey fans.<p>

Anyway, my point is, people have been bitching about "they sky is falling and things are unparalleledly shitty o noes!" for as long as people have been capable of bitching.  Ug the caveman most likely looked around and thought that bipedal locomotion was a giant step downhill (ha!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously no mods are Dana Carvey fans .
Anyway , my point is , people have been bitching about " they sky is falling and things are unparalleledly shitty o noes !
" for as long as people have been capable of bitching .
Ug the caveman most likely looked around and thought that bipedal locomotion was a giant step downhill ( ha !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously no mods are Dana Carvey fans.
Anyway, my point is, people have been bitching about "they sky is falling and things are unparalleledly shitty o noes!
" for as long as people have been capable of bitching.
Ug the caveman most likely looked around and thought that bipedal locomotion was a giant step downhill (ha!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684438</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>zzyzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1270028100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think your hat is perfectly adjusted. I'm French and I make the exact same observations from my point of view. Why are the sensible people not doing anything about this ? Mostly because they are not informed. Information about subjects like copyright is not seen on TV or national newspapers. I don't know about the US but in France the big media are operated either by the government or by friends of the president. Needless to say, the way new laws about "piracy" or censorship are explained is not 100\% objective. When I talk about this around me, people cannot believe it and are usually outraged. Secondly people feel not directly threatened. They believe only mafia lords and pedophiles are at risk. Thirdly all the people who realize what is happening feel helpless, alone against the "system", and wonder why nobody does anything, without doing anything themselves. Maybe we should think about it.</p><p>Fascism is an hydra whose heads must be cut once in a while<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your hat is perfectly adjusted .
I 'm French and I make the exact same observations from my point of view .
Why are the sensible people not doing anything about this ?
Mostly because they are not informed .
Information about subjects like copyright is not seen on TV or national newspapers .
I do n't know about the US but in France the big media are operated either by the government or by friends of the president .
Needless to say , the way new laws about " piracy " or censorship are explained is not 100 \ % objective .
When I talk about this around me , people can not believe it and are usually outraged .
Secondly people feel not directly threatened .
They believe only mafia lords and pedophiles are at risk .
Thirdly all the people who realize what is happening feel helpless , alone against the " system " , and wonder why nobody does anything , without doing anything themselves .
Maybe we should think about it.Fascism is an hydra whose heads must be cut once in a while .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your hat is perfectly adjusted.
I'm French and I make the exact same observations from my point of view.
Why are the sensible people not doing anything about this ?
Mostly because they are not informed.
Information about subjects like copyright is not seen on TV or national newspapers.
I don't know about the US but in France the big media are operated either by the government or by friends of the president.
Needless to say, the way new laws about "piracy" or censorship are explained is not 100\% objective.
When I talk about this around me, people cannot believe it and are usually outraged.
Secondly people feel not directly threatened.
They believe only mafia lords and pedophiles are at risk.
Thirdly all the people who realize what is happening feel helpless, alone against the "system", and wonder why nobody does anything, without doing anything themselves.
Maybe we should think about it.Fascism is an hydra whose heads must be cut once in a while ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683276</id>
	<title>Re:"Sue fucking everyone"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269973800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup. Seed 99\% of the movie? Incomplete copy. Oh noes, I update my tracker through TOR and use encryption between clients. Run an open WiFi AP for extra plausible deniability. Good luck proving an exact copy was pirated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Seed 99 \ % of the movie ?
Incomplete copy .
Oh noes , I update my tracker through TOR and use encryption between clients .
Run an open WiFi AP for extra plausible deniability .
Good luck proving an exact copy was pirated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Seed 99\% of the movie?
Incomplete copy.
Oh noes, I update my tracker through TOR and use encryption between clients.
Run an open WiFi AP for extra plausible deniability.
Good luck proving an exact copy was pirated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686762</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bill them for the court's time?</title>
	<author>keithjr</author>
	<datestamp>1270046580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the overwhelming majority of defendants will simply settle out-of-court, it's unlikely there'll be a whole lot of time wasted in court.  That's how it works.  Most people can't possibly afford to fight a case, especially if they lose.  So filing the lawsuit itself is usually enough to ensure revenue, via a crooked protection racket.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the overwhelming majority of defendants will simply settle out-of-court , it 's unlikely there 'll be a whole lot of time wasted in court .
That 's how it works .
Most people ca n't possibly afford to fight a case , especially if they lose .
So filing the lawsuit itself is usually enough to ensure revenue , via a crooked protection racket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the overwhelming majority of defendants will simply settle out-of-court, it's unlikely there'll be a whole lot of time wasted in court.
That's how it works.
Most people can't possibly afford to fight a case, especially if they lose.
So filing the lawsuit itself is usually enough to ensure revenue, via a crooked protection racket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680958</id>
	<title>Thanks!</title>
	<author>shermo</author>
	<datestamp>1269958740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I hear good things about a movie or I really like a song on the radio, I consider breaking my 'don't give any money to the MPAA/RIAA' policy. Fortunately they keep doing shit like this and I'm recommited to only giving my entertainment dollars to independents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I hear good things about a movie or I really like a song on the radio , I consider breaking my 'do n't give any money to the MPAA/RIAA ' policy .
Fortunately they keep doing shit like this and I 'm recommited to only giving my entertainment dollars to independents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I hear good things about a movie or I really like a song on the radio, I consider breaking my 'don't give any money to the MPAA/RIAA' policy.
Fortunately they keep doing shit like this and I'm recommited to only giving my entertainment dollars to independents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680118</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>jadin</author>
	<datestamp>1269954840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.</p></div><p>I don't mean to disagree with your post, but I want to ask : Are 'pirates' who most likely never purchase or rent said movies, still considered "customers"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.I do n't mean to disagree with your post , but I want to ask : Are 'pirates ' who most likely never purchase or rent said movies , still considered " customers " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.I don't mean to disagree with your post, but I want to ask : Are 'pirates' who most likely never purchase or rent said movies, still considered "customers"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680718</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1269957480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a wonderful thing. Amazing non the less. The proceedings will take years. That many people in a court room at once is never going to have order. This will send an important message. It doesn't matter what the laws are unless most people agree to abide by them. The courts will see a huge increase in trials. The MPAA survives only because people settle. I doubt they will be able to get a larger percentage to settle then the MPAA did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a wonderful thing .
Amazing non the less .
The proceedings will take years .
That many people in a court room at once is never going to have order .
This will send an important message .
It does n't matter what the laws are unless most people agree to abide by them .
The courts will see a huge increase in trials .
The MPAA survives only because people settle .
I doubt they will be able to get a larger percentage to settle then the MPAA did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a wonderful thing.
Amazing non the less.
The proceedings will take years.
That many people in a court room at once is never going to have order.
This will send an important message.
It doesn't matter what the laws are unless most people agree to abide by them.
The courts will see a huge increase in trials.
The MPAA survives only because people settle.
I doubt they will be able to get a larger percentage to settle then the MPAA did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685962</id>
	<title>This makes me think of...</title>
	<author>da\_guy2</author>
	<datestamp>1270042320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a city trying to increase their tax pool by setting up cameras to catch people j-walking then mailing them tickets on mass. I don't think the citizens of that city would be happy, yet somehow I think were just gonna take it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:S</htmltext>
<tokenext>a city trying to increase their tax pool by setting up cameras to catch people j-walking then mailing them tickets on mass .
I do n't think the citizens of that city would be happy , yet somehow I think were just gon na take it : S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a city trying to increase their tax pool by setting up cameras to catch people j-walking then mailing them tickets on mass.
I don't think the citizens of that city would be happy, yet somehow I think were just gonna take it :S</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31679990</id>
	<title>They Suck</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269954300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>These types of lawyers give other types of lawyers an even worse name. <br> <br>
And before you sue me for that statement I'm sure that there is some sort of 'fair use' or 'truth' defense, so phfffft!</htmltext>
<tokenext>These types of lawyers give other types of lawyers an even worse name .
And before you sue me for that statement I 'm sure that there is some sort of 'fair use ' or 'truth ' defense , so phfffft !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These types of lawyers give other types of lawyers an even worse name.
And before you sue me for that statement I'm sure that there is some sort of 'fair use' or 'truth' defense, so phfffft!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128</id>
	<title>"Sue fucking everyone"</title>
	<author>VocationalZero</author>
	<datestamp>1269954900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good thing enabling encryption only requires checking a single box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing enabling encryption only requires checking a single box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing enabling encryption only requires checking a single box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680760</id>
	<title>Astroturf</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1269957660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes before this is revealed to be the legal equivalent of astro-turf (i.e., funded by a major studio or by the MPAA) ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes before this is revealed to be the legal equivalent of astro-turf ( i.e. , funded by a major studio or by the MPAA ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes before this is revealed to be the legal equivalent of astro-turf (i.e., funded by a major studio or by the MPAA) ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691358</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270065420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;ever diminishing rights of citizens of the world<br>Yeah, I know.  Didn't the Founding Fathers themselves write into the Constitustion the inalienable right to free movies and music...oh wait...darn...</p><p>People like you make me laugh.  And I use the word "people" loosely here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ever diminishing rights of citizens of the worldYeah , I know .
Did n't the Founding Fathers themselves write into the Constitustion the inalienable right to free movies and music...oh wait...darn...People like you make me laugh .
And I use the word " people " loosely here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;ever diminishing rights of citizens of the worldYeah, I know.
Didn't the Founding Fathers themselves write into the Constitustion the inalienable right to free movies and music...oh wait...darn...People like you make me laugh.
And I use the word "people" loosely here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681952</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1269964020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sucks if you didn't actually do it. I suppose we'll have to wait to hear if the false positive rate is as high for this as previous initiatives have been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sucks if you did n't actually do it .
I suppose we 'll have to wait to hear if the false positive rate is as high for this as previous initiatives have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sucks if you didn't actually do it.
I suppose we'll have to wait to hear if the false positive rate is as high for this as previous initiatives have been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683228</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bill them for the court's time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269973560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA/MPAA in full control of the paycheques of the courts and judges involved in all the litigation of all these people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....?</p><p>What an *excellent* idea!</p><p>-The Entertainment Industry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA/MPAA in full control of the paycheques of the courts and judges involved in all the litigation of all these people .... ? What an * excellent * idea ! -The Entertainment Industry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA/MPAA in full control of the paycheques of the courts and judges involved in all the litigation of all these people ....?What an *excellent* idea!-The Entertainment Industry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681784</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>blitziod</author>
	<datestamp>1269963000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok this is slashdot..i am a little pissed here...where is the technical talk? I mean how hard would this new tech be to render useless? Say i was wanting to download a movie and do so in a way that would keep prying eyes from being able to tell who i am? would I need to use some sort of encryption and maybe a proxie server? Say a proxie in a jurisdiction not friendly to the US courts or simply outside their jursidiction?</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok this is slashdot..i am a little pissed here...where is the technical talk ?
I mean how hard would this new tech be to render useless ?
Say i was wanting to download a movie and do so in a way that would keep prying eyes from being able to tell who i am ?
would I need to use some sort of encryption and maybe a proxie server ?
Say a proxie in a jurisdiction not friendly to the US courts or simply outside their jursidiction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok this is slashdot..i am a little pissed here...where is the technical talk?
I mean how hard would this new tech be to render useless?
Say i was wanting to download a movie and do so in a way that would keep prying eyes from being able to tell who i am?
would I need to use some sort of encryption and maybe a proxie server?
Say a proxie in a jurisdiction not friendly to the US courts or simply outside their jursidiction?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680360</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recording a song from the radio or tv does not have the same quality that you could possibly find on the internet.  Given, some of the encoding done out on the wild wild internet is very questionable, it is usually not difficult to find a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.flac or a un-reencoded 256kbit/s mp3.  Radio and tv broadcasting audio uses compression - on top of highly compressed (mixing of) audio - leads to a horrible sounding song.</p><p>However - if you're not discriminating, yes it's exactly the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording a song from the radio or tv does not have the same quality that you could possibly find on the internet .
Given , some of the encoding done out on the wild wild internet is very questionable , it is usually not difficult to find a .flac or a un-reencoded 256kbit/s mp3 .
Radio and tv broadcasting audio uses compression - on top of highly compressed ( mixing of ) audio - leads to a horrible sounding song.However - if you 're not discriminating , yes it 's exactly the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording a song from the radio or tv does not have the same quality that you could possibly find on the internet.
Given, some of the encoding done out on the wild wild internet is very questionable, it is usually not difficult to find a .flac or a un-reencoded 256kbit/s mp3.
Radio and tv broadcasting audio uses compression - on top of highly compressed (mixing of) audio - leads to a horrible sounding song.However - if you're not discriminating, yes it's exactly the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681522</id>
	<title>OK, so the big question is....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will PeerBlock/PeerGuardian still work? If not, what counter measures does one take?
Also, does this apply to the USA only?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will PeerBlock/PeerGuardian still work ?
If not , what counter measures does one take ?
Also , does this apply to the USA only ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will PeerBlock/PeerGuardian still work?
If not, what counter measures does one take?
Also, does this apply to the USA only?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31690108</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270060320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If copyright law had what most of us think are reasonable time limits (20 years), McGyver would be in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If copyright law had what most of us think are reasonable time limits ( 20 years ) , McGyver would be in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If copyright law had what most of us think are reasonable time limits (20 years), McGyver would be in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683982</id>
	<title>Morons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can sue til they are blue in the face, it wont stop anyone from pirating.<br>Its like the drug war, they keep filing prisons and throwing people in jail, clearly its not working, there are more, better drugs out there than ever. We need to stop repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Decriminalize and regulate all drugs (legalize weed, regulate less than alcohol), help addicts get clean. Same with piracy, get us away from the creepy guy or the corner selling dope, hes got annoying flash banners for camwhores anyway. Id gladly pay, say $15-20 a month, to be on a legit, MPAA approved tracker that lets me download the best quality movies, music and shows from a trusted uploader. I think most people feel the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can sue til they are blue in the face , it wont stop anyone from pirating.Its like the drug war , they keep filing prisons and throwing people in jail , clearly its not working , there are more , better drugs out there than ever .
We need to stop repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result .
Decriminalize and regulate all drugs ( legalize weed , regulate less than alcohol ) , help addicts get clean .
Same with piracy , get us away from the creepy guy or the corner selling dope , hes got annoying flash banners for camwhores anyway .
Id gladly pay , say $ 15-20 a month , to be on a legit , MPAA approved tracker that lets me download the best quality movies , music and shows from a trusted uploader .
I think most people feel the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can sue til they are blue in the face, it wont stop anyone from pirating.Its like the drug war, they keep filing prisons and throwing people in jail, clearly its not working, there are more, better drugs out there than ever.
We need to stop repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
Decriminalize and regulate all drugs (legalize weed, regulate less than alcohol), help addicts get clean.
Same with piracy, get us away from the creepy guy or the corner selling dope, hes got annoying flash banners for camwhores anyway.
Id gladly pay, say $15-20 a month, to be on a legit, MPAA approved tracker that lets me download the best quality movies, music and shows from a trusted uploader.
I think most people feel the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680478</id>
	<title>Where is the evidence?</title>
	<author>Mojo66</author>
	<datestamp>1269956220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't it be enough for the defendant to deny the possession of the media in question? I hardly expect the police to execute tens of thousands of search warrants, therefore the most important part is missing: the evidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't it be enough for the defendant to deny the possession of the media in question ?
I hardly expect the police to execute tens of thousands of search warrants , therefore the most important part is missing : the evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't it be enough for the defendant to deny the possession of the media in question?
I hardly expect the police to execute tens of thousands of search warrants, therefore the most important part is missing: the evidence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680694</id>
	<title>An invasion of privacy??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't this proprietary software package being used to track downloads be construed as a wire tap ergo inadmissible in a court of law?<br>Or is this AC being a silly little AC again?</p><p>With love</p><p>The Anonymous Coward</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't this proprietary software package being used to track downloads be construed as a wire tap ergo inadmissible in a court of law ? Or is this AC being a silly little AC again ? With loveThe Anonymous Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't this proprietary software package being used to track downloads be construed as a wire tap ergo inadmissible in a court of law?Or is this AC being a silly little AC again?With loveThe Anonymous Coward</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048</id>
	<title>"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269954540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the only way to keep a business model working is to "open up the floodgates to massive litigation" then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat.</p><p>Personally, I think the basic reason we built the amazing companies in the "entertainment industry" is that distribution used to be difficult, and it required a lot of capital to set up channels to get media to consumers.  This is no longer true; &amp; the other reason - funding the creation of great media - obviously does not create enough value to justify the business that many of these companies continue to sue to protect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the only way to keep a business model working is to " open up the floodgates to massive litigation " then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat.Personally , I think the basic reason we built the amazing companies in the " entertainment industry " is that distribution used to be difficult , and it required a lot of capital to set up channels to get media to consumers .
This is no longer true ; &amp; the other reason - funding the creation of great media - obviously does not create enough value to justify the business that many of these companies continue to sue to protect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the only way to keep a business model working is to "open up the floodgates to massive litigation" then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat.Personally, I think the basic reason we built the amazing companies in the "entertainment industry" is that distribution used to be difficult, and it required a lot of capital to set up channels to get media to consumers.
This is no longer true; &amp; the other reason - funding the creation of great media - obviously does not create enough value to justify the business that many of these companies continue to sue to protect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684000</id>
	<title>At least they have started selling music online</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1270067280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real solution is for the studios to offer their ENTIRE CATALOGS online for sell for download.   On the same day as the dvd release, for every release.  and to price them aggressively for a long while..  Not streaming; not everyone has the bandwidth for that and it can skip, you can't rewind right and it eats up your k/b limits and it's worse then a rental, and you can't use it on the plane or on your PMP later.    Not with DRM,  again, if it's not as good and flexible as a DVD, it's not actually a good deal.  and not through 1 or 3 shitty vendors, through as many resellers as they can find.    Of course there would still be pirates, but
$5-8 for a clean digital fast download copy that you can keep for years and play
anywhere you have a screen will be &gt; p2p for a lot of people.  They will never do it of course, either it will be the drm or $20 a download or shitty selection or delayed releases.
<p>Pleas forgive spelling errors I just woke up from a coma</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real solution is for the studios to offer their ENTIRE CATALOGS online for sell for download .
On the same day as the dvd release , for every release .
and to price them aggressively for a long while.. Not streaming ; not everyone has the bandwidth for that and it can skip , you ca n't rewind right and it eats up your k/b limits and it 's worse then a rental , and you ca n't use it on the plane or on your PMP later .
Not with DRM , again , if it 's not as good and flexible as a DVD , it 's not actually a good deal .
and not through 1 or 3 shitty vendors , through as many resellers as they can find .
Of course there would still be pirates , but $ 5-8 for a clean digital fast download copy that you can keep for years and play anywhere you have a screen will be &gt; p2p for a lot of people .
They will never do it of course , either it will be the drm or $ 20 a download or shitty selection or delayed releases .
Pleas forgive spelling errors I just woke up from a coma</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real solution is for the studios to offer their ENTIRE CATALOGS online for sell for download.
On the same day as the dvd release, for every release.
and to price them aggressively for a long while..  Not streaming; not everyone has the bandwidth for that and it can skip, you can't rewind right and it eats up your k/b limits and it's worse then a rental, and you can't use it on the plane or on your PMP later.
Not with DRM,  again, if it's not as good and flexible as a DVD, it's not actually a good deal.
and not through 1 or 3 shitty vendors, through as many resellers as they can find.
Of course there would still be pirates, but
$5-8 for a clean digital fast download copy that you can keep for years and play
anywhere you have a screen will be &gt; p2p for a lot of people.
They will never do it of course, either it will be the drm or $20 a download or shitty selection or delayed releases.
Pleas forgive spelling errors I just woke up from a coma</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684378</id>
	<title>PWnard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270027680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call, fax and write. Tell them off.</p><p>MPAA<br>New York (Anti-Piracy Office)<br>200 White Plains Road 1st Floor<br>Tarrytown, NY 10591<br>(914) 333-8892 (main)<br>(914) 333-7541 (fax)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call , fax and write .
Tell them off.MPAANew York ( Anti-Piracy Office ) 200 White Plains Road 1st FloorTarrytown , NY 10591 ( 914 ) 333-8892 ( main ) ( 914 ) 333-7541 ( fax )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call, fax and write.
Tell them off.MPAANew York (Anti-Piracy Office)200 White Plains Road 1st FloorTarrytown, NY 10591(914) 333-8892 (main)(914) 333-7541 (fax)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31693108</id>
	<title>ipv6</title>
	<author>kyhwana</author>
	<datestamp>1270028700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, I wonder if they track ipv6 IPs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , I wonder if they track ipv6 IPs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, I wonder if they track ipv6 IPs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31697046</id>
	<title>Re:Scarcity and Information</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1270053240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I suggest that, instead, artists give music away for free (or for Whuffie, real or imaginary), and sell the primary scarce thing they have left to sell: performance.</p></div><p>But then how will an artist be able to sit on his ass all day and still get paid for the few hours of work he did years ago?</p><p>In Soviet Union, the artists got paid for the actual work they did. Record a song - get paid. Do a live performance - get paid. Your recorded song sells a lot of copies - money goes to the State. Want more money - do some more actual work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest that , instead , artists give music away for free ( or for Whuffie , real or imaginary ) , and sell the primary scarce thing they have left to sell : performance.But then how will an artist be able to sit on his ass all day and still get paid for the few hours of work he did years ago ? In Soviet Union , the artists got paid for the actual work they did .
Record a song - get paid .
Do a live performance - get paid .
Your recorded song sells a lot of copies - money goes to the State .
Want more money - do some more actual work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest that, instead, artists give music away for free (or for Whuffie, real or imaginary), and sell the primary scarce thing they have left to sell: performance.But then how will an artist be able to sit on his ass all day and still get paid for the few hours of work he did years ago?In Soviet Union, the artists got paid for the actual work they did.
Record a song - get paid.
Do a live performance - get paid.
Your recorded song sells a lot of copies - money goes to the State.
Want more money - do some more actual work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680794</id>
	<title>Analogy</title>
	<author>kpainter</author>
	<datestamp>1269957900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this sort of like putting a meter on a sewer pipe and counting the turds as they go by?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this sort of like putting a meter on a sewer pipe and counting the turds as they go by ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this sort of like putting a meter on a sewer pipe and counting the turds as they go by?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681306</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pay for broadcasted content.</p><p>You don't pay for internet downloads.</p><p>You pay for broadcasted content either directly (cable subscription) or indirectly (via the advertising that comes with the shows/songs). Either way, the IP owners receive money from the entities doing the broadcasting.</p><p>They don't receive money from the internet, which puts quite a dent into their business plans.</p><p>As much as we like to compare torrents to VCRs, the fact is that they are very different when it comes to the way money runs through the system, which is the only thing that matters to the *IAAs and the like. Please remember that this discussion doesn't involve a lot of artists, it involves a lot of suits instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pay for broadcasted content.You do n't pay for internet downloads.You pay for broadcasted content either directly ( cable subscription ) or indirectly ( via the advertising that comes with the shows/songs ) .
Either way , the IP owners receive money from the entities doing the broadcasting.They do n't receive money from the internet , which puts quite a dent into their business plans.As much as we like to compare torrents to VCRs , the fact is that they are very different when it comes to the way money runs through the system , which is the only thing that matters to the * IAAs and the like .
Please remember that this discussion does n't involve a lot of artists , it involves a lot of suits instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pay for broadcasted content.You don't pay for internet downloads.You pay for broadcasted content either directly (cable subscription) or indirectly (via the advertising that comes with the shows/songs).
Either way, the IP owners receive money from the entities doing the broadcasting.They don't receive money from the internet, which puts quite a dent into their business plans.As much as we like to compare torrents to VCRs, the fact is that they are very different when it comes to the way money runs through the system, which is the only thing that matters to the *IAAs and the like.
Please remember that this discussion doesn't involve a lot of artists, it involves a lot of suits instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31679978</id>
	<title>Good thing</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1269954240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I know the usual piracy-crowd here on slashdot will mod me down, I'm happy they will do this. Widespread piracy <i>is</i> causing problems. There are already good equivalents so you don't need to resolve to piracy. I'd like to have some good alternative games, and when developers can again take a change and risk in their games, instead of the shit mainstream games. Piracy causes them not to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I know the usual piracy-crowd here on slashdot will mod me down , I 'm happy they will do this .
Widespread piracy is causing problems .
There are already good equivalents so you do n't need to resolve to piracy .
I 'd like to have some good alternative games , and when developers can again take a change and risk in their games , instead of the shit mainstream games .
Piracy causes them not to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I know the usual piracy-crowd here on slashdot will mod me down, I'm happy they will do this.
Widespread piracy is causing problems.
There are already good equivalents so you don't need to resolve to piracy.
I'd like to have some good alternative games, and when developers can again take a change and risk in their games, instead of the shit mainstream games.
Piracy causes them not to do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684010</id>
	<title>Time for some real anonymization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270067400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I2P for the win!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I2P for the win !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I2P for the win!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680210</id>
	<title>Re:They Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thieves always want to steal and then say give some justification.</p><p>Doesnt mean stealing is right - just means the thief has found some plausible loophole.</p><p>How long do you plan to keep stealing someone else's property ?? I thought copyrights, patents and trademarks had value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thieves always want to steal and then say give some justification.Doesnt mean stealing is right - just means the thief has found some plausible loophole.How long do you plan to keep stealing someone else 's property ? ?
I thought copyrights , patents and trademarks had value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thieves always want to steal and then say give some justification.Doesnt mean stealing is right - just means the thief has found some plausible loophole.How long do you plan to keep stealing someone else's property ??
I thought copyrights, patents and trademarks had value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31679990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681454</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if I  have a program that downloads youtube music videos as MP3s.<br>Is that legal ?</p><p>Well there are myriads that can do that, and I can get my whole music colelction that<br>way in no time at all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>G</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I have a program that downloads youtube music videos as MP3s.Is that legal ? Well there are myriads that can do that , and I can get my whole music colelction thatway in no time at all ...G</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I  have a program that downloads youtube music videos as MP3s.Is that legal ?Well there are myriads that can do that, and I can get my whole music colelction thatway in no time at all ...G</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680906</id>
	<title>Check against a SPREADSHEET?</title>
	<author>mlawrence</author>
	<datestamp>1269958440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't worry - these guys don't sound like they know much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't worry - these guys do n't sound like they know much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't worry - these guys don't sound like they know much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31698874</id>
	<title>user7777</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270122000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>amusing*<br>i wish i could use wildcards only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;<br>enough of me. take care all, be good and be safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>amusing * i wish i could use wildcards only : &gt; enough of me .
take care all , be good and be safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>amusing*i wish i could use wildcards only :&gt;enough of me.
take care all, be good and be safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31689966</id>
	<title>Re:An invasion of privacy??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270059960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are not wire tapping anything. when you do P2P you are willfully broadcasting the list of files you are downloading. It is there for anyone to see.</p><p>Looks like I replied my own question<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>With love</p><p>The Anonymous Coward</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not wire tapping anything .
when you do P2P you are willfully broadcasting the list of files you are downloading .
It is there for anyone to see.Looks like I replied my own question : ) With loveThe Anonymous Coward</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are not wire tapping anything.
when you do P2P you are willfully broadcasting the list of files you are downloading.
It is there for anyone to see.Looks like I replied my own question :)With loveThe Anonymous Coward</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683592</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1269977160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if the 50,000 could work together to ensure that as many trials as possible overlap...  Since the firm has a finite number of lawyers I'd imagine a good number of lawsuits would be dismissed when the plaintiff didn't show up.  Or just ensure they all go to tedious trials and bank on the law firm not having the resources to fight a 50,000 front war.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the 50,000 could work together to ensure that as many trials as possible overlap... Since the firm has a finite number of lawyers I 'd imagine a good number of lawsuits would be dismissed when the plaintiff did n't show up .
Or just ensure they all go to tedious trials and bank on the law firm not having the resources to fight a 50,000 front war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the 50,000 could work together to ensure that as many trials as possible overlap...  Since the firm has a finite number of lawyers I'd imagine a good number of lawsuits would be dismissed when the plaintiff didn't show up.
Or just ensure they all go to tedious trials and bank on the law firm not having the resources to fight a 50,000 front war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681190</id>
	<title>Re:"Sue fucking everyone"</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1269959940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering about this too. A friend kept getting copyright notices from his ISP saying they were going to cancel his service. He thought maybe his computer was infected with something. Turned out he was running <a href="http://www.onion-router.net/" title="onion-router.net" rel="nofollow">TOR</a> [onion-router.net] and someone terminating at his connection was running a bit torrent client making it appear as if he was.</p><p>So I wonder, how many of these people were doing something similar thinking they were helping the oppressed with free speech or government agents protect the country only to be bitten by someone attempting to hide their "illegal" activities and if running TOR would be a valid excuse?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering about this too .
A friend kept getting copyright notices from his ISP saying they were going to cancel his service .
He thought maybe his computer was infected with something .
Turned out he was running TOR [ onion-router.net ] and someone terminating at his connection was running a bit torrent client making it appear as if he was.So I wonder , how many of these people were doing something similar thinking they were helping the oppressed with free speech or government agents protect the country only to be bitten by someone attempting to hide their " illegal " activities and if running TOR would be a valid excuse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering about this too.
A friend kept getting copyright notices from his ISP saying they were going to cancel his service.
He thought maybe his computer was infected with something.
Turned out he was running TOR [onion-router.net] and someone terminating at his connection was running a bit torrent client making it appear as if he was.So I wonder, how many of these people were doing something similar thinking they were helping the oppressed with free speech or government agents protect the country only to be bitten by someone attempting to hide their "illegal" activities and if running TOR would be a valid excuse?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684626</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270029960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I buy 2-3 DVDs a week.  I also download movies.  I also buy movies I've downloaded, and download movies I've bought.</p><p>Your logic fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I buy 2-3 DVDs a week .
I also download movies .
I also buy movies I 've downloaded , and download movies I 've bought.Your logic fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I buy 2-3 DVDs a week.
I also download movies.
I also buy movies I've downloaded, and download movies I've bought.Your logic fails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682280</id>
	<title>Good!</title>
	<author>Coward Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269966000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope this is just the beginning. May they flood the courts with tens of millions of lawsuits. That's the only thing that will finally get the law changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this is just the beginning .
May they flood the courts with tens of millions of lawsuits .
That 's the only thing that will finally get the law changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this is just the beginning.
May they flood the courts with tens of millions of lawsuits.
That's the only thing that will finally get the law changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682908</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1269970800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And would you claim that prosecutors filing RICO claims against organized crime are just "propping up" businesses that failed to pay their protection money?  There's nothing wrong with government helping business by eliminating hazardous illegal activity.
<br> <br>
I'm not sure if I'm willing to argue it, but it seems like the crux of our argument should be that these activities shouldn't be actionable in the first place because society benefits as a whole, and not that it's somehow evil to use the courts to enforce legal liability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And would you claim that prosecutors filing RICO claims against organized crime are just " propping up " businesses that failed to pay their protection money ?
There 's nothing wrong with government helping business by eliminating hazardous illegal activity .
I 'm not sure if I 'm willing to argue it , but it seems like the crux of our argument should be that these activities should n't be actionable in the first place because society benefits as a whole , and not that it 's somehow evil to use the courts to enforce legal liability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And would you claim that prosecutors filing RICO claims against organized crime are just "propping up" businesses that failed to pay their protection money?
There's nothing wrong with government helping business by eliminating hazardous illegal activity.
I'm not sure if I'm willing to argue it, but it seems like the crux of our argument should be that these activities shouldn't be actionable in the first place because society benefits as a whole, and not that it's somehow evil to use the courts to enforce legal liability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680516</id>
	<title>Re:They Suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269956400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...except no one is "stealing" anything.</p><p>That is just lying on your part as an attempt to create a bit of melodrama.</p><p>Although even if we accept that idea that you want us all to swallow that<br>BT downloads are the same as shoplifting, you are still left with the<br>problem of grossly disproportionate "punishments" and an end result that<br>looks like Sharia Law more than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...except no one is " stealing " anything.That is just lying on your part as an attempt to create a bit of melodrama.Although even if we accept that idea that you want us all to swallow thatBT downloads are the same as shoplifting , you are still left with theproblem of grossly disproportionate " punishments " and an end result thatlooks like Sharia Law more than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...except no one is "stealing" anything.That is just lying on your part as an attempt to create a bit of melodrama.Although even if we accept that idea that you want us all to swallow thatBT downloads are the same as shoplifting, you are still left with theproblem of grossly disproportionate "punishments" and an end result thatlooks like Sharia Law more than anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680732</id>
	<title>Re:"Sue fucking everyone"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it possible for a Bittorrent tracker to make IPs appear in the swarm that aren't actually representing any actual clients?<br>Is there a way for the justice system to verify that the data the lawyers are presenting was gathered in an actual investigation, rather than just made up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it possible for a Bittorrent tracker to make IPs appear in the swarm that are n't actually representing any actual clients ? Is there a way for the justice system to verify that the data the lawyers are presenting was gathered in an actual investigation , rather than just made up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it possible for a Bittorrent tracker to make IPs appear in the swarm that aren't actually representing any actual clients?Is there a way for the justice system to verify that the data the lawyers are presenting was gathered in an actual investigation, rather than just made up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681488</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1269961380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly?  I buy dozens of movies every year.  However, I do download stuff to preview movies that look "ok" but I'd never pay for without seeing (and would never pay to see).  I've bought many movies that way, as well as seasons of tv shows.  So from me, movie companies make a lot of money from my occasional downloading - because if I never got to see it for free, I'd never have seen it at all and wouldn't have enjoyed it and purchased it on dvd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly ?
I buy dozens of movies every year .
However , I do download stuff to preview movies that look " ok " but I 'd never pay for without seeing ( and would never pay to see ) .
I 've bought many movies that way , as well as seasons of tv shows .
So from me , movie companies make a lot of money from my occasional downloading - because if I never got to see it for free , I 'd never have seen it at all and would n't have enjoyed it and purchased it on dvd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly?
I buy dozens of movies every year.
However, I do download stuff to preview movies that look "ok" but I'd never pay for without seeing (and would never pay to see).
I've bought many movies that way, as well as seasons of tv shows.
So from me, movie companies make a lot of money from my occasional downloading - because if I never got to see it for free, I'd never have seen it at all and wouldn't have enjoyed it and purchased it on dvd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681948</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is companies are paid by the networks or stations broadcasting their movies or songs, you dont have to to pay to upload them to the internet.</p><p>Its still bull shit that theyre suing kids who dont want to pay 10$ to see a mediocre movie, but your point isn't valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is companies are paid by the networks or stations broadcasting their movies or songs , you dont have to to pay to upload them to the internet.Its still bull shit that theyre suing kids who dont want to pay 10 $ to see a mediocre movie , but your point is n't valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is companies are paid by the networks or stations broadcasting their movies or songs, you dont have to to pay to upload them to the internet.Its still bull shit that theyre suing kids who dont want to pay 10$ to see a mediocre movie, but your point isn't valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680742</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269957600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is very likely they don't consider pirates their customer base.  And frankly, I don't think they actually have to worry about a boycott of the MPAA.  People may hate the MPAA, but they still like the people who make the movies. Seriously, even you, this might make you upset, but I'll bet you'll keep watching movies.<br> <br>
It's <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/2/19/" title="penny-arcade.com">kind of an evil cycle, though</a> [penny-arcade.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is very likely they do n't consider pirates their customer base .
And frankly , I do n't think they actually have to worry about a boycott of the MPAA .
People may hate the MPAA , but they still like the people who make the movies .
Seriously , even you , this might make you upset , but I 'll bet you 'll keep watching movies .
It 's kind of an evil cycle , though [ penny-arcade.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is very likely they don't consider pirates their customer base.
And frankly, I don't think they actually have to worry about a boycott of the MPAA.
People may hate the MPAA, but they still like the people who make the movies.
Seriously, even you, this might make you upset, but I'll bet you'll keep watching movies.
It's kind of an evil cycle, though [penny-arcade.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681002</id>
	<title>And the race continues...</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1269958980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Looks to me like the proxy server business is about to get a big bump. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks to me like the proxy server business is about to get a big bump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Looks to me like the proxy server business is about to get a big bump. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680436</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1269956040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The multiple comments saying that the pirates weren't going to buy or pay to see these movies anyway - this doesn't make any sense, either. If they don't cost anything (the information was "free") and they're not a source of income then why should the studios bother with them? What they're really trying to do is to set an example - and they'll accomplish that very well with this level of attack. I don't think they realize what example they're setting, though - and what it'll mean for their companies going forward. In the business world being known for the number of lawsuits you file against people is the kiss of death. Nobody wants to do business with a company that might turn around and sue them next.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The multiple comments saying that the pirates were n't going to buy or pay to see these movies anyway - this does n't make any sense , either .
If they do n't cost anything ( the information was " free " ) and they 're not a source of income then why should the studios bother with them ?
What they 're really trying to do is to set an example - and they 'll accomplish that very well with this level of attack .
I do n't think they realize what example they 're setting , though - and what it 'll mean for their companies going forward .
In the business world being known for the number of lawsuits you file against people is the kiss of death .
Nobody wants to do business with a company that might turn around and sue them next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The multiple comments saying that the pirates weren't going to buy or pay to see these movies anyway - this doesn't make any sense, either.
If they don't cost anything (the information was "free") and they're not a source of income then why should the studios bother with them?
What they're really trying to do is to set an example - and they'll accomplish that very well with this level of attack.
I don't think they realize what example they're setting, though - and what it'll mean for their companies going forward.
In the business world being known for the number of lawsuits you file against people is the kiss of death.
Nobody wants to do business with a company that might turn around and sue them next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681752</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269962820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people I know who download don't buy any movies, ever. That includes plenty of folks making six figures. Your anecdote vs. my anecdote.</p><p>If you've got the money to buy the biggest DVD collections around, you probably can afford a few bucks for Netflix to sample things legally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people I know who download do n't buy any movies , ever .
That includes plenty of folks making six figures .
Your anecdote vs. my anecdote.If you 've got the money to buy the biggest DVD collections around , you probably can afford a few bucks for Netflix to sample things legally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people I know who download don't buy any movies, ever.
That includes plenty of folks making six figures.
Your anecdote vs. my anecdote.If you've got the money to buy the biggest DVD collections around, you probably can afford a few bucks for Netflix to sample things legally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687996</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just you. Everything is getting worse and the world is devolving into a sci-fi dystopia, and history shows that it will take a few centuries of abject poverty before the masses rise up and slaughter the oligarchs (and it's only going to be harder and slower with robot workers and armies in the future). Trying to effect change through the official channels is generally futile, so all you can do in your lifetime is stay under the radar. Kind of a shitty time to be alive in that respect.</p><p>I'm young too and I agree that having nothing good to look forward to is very demotivating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just you .
Everything is getting worse and the world is devolving into a sci-fi dystopia , and history shows that it will take a few centuries of abject poverty before the masses rise up and slaughter the oligarchs ( and it 's only going to be harder and slower with robot workers and armies in the future ) .
Trying to effect change through the official channels is generally futile , so all you can do in your lifetime is stay under the radar .
Kind of a shitty time to be alive in that respect.I 'm young too and I agree that having nothing good to look forward to is very demotivating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just you.
Everything is getting worse and the world is devolving into a sci-fi dystopia, and history shows that it will take a few centuries of abject poverty before the masses rise up and slaughter the oligarchs (and it's only going to be harder and slower with robot workers and armies in the future).
Trying to effect change through the official channels is generally futile, so all you can do in your lifetime is stay under the radar.
Kind of a shitty time to be alive in that respect.I'm young too and I agree that having nothing good to look forward to is very demotivating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686468</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270045320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real WTF is that the right-wing "militias" will organize and revolt before "we" do.  Sad, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real WTF is that the right-wing " militias " will organize and revolt before " we " do .
Sad , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real WTF is that the right-wing "militias" will organize and revolt before "we" do.
Sad, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31693642</id>
	<title>What about people who own the movies already</title>
	<author>cleadus2001</author>
	<datestamp>1270031040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This makes me mad. I have already purchased a movie and now i want it on my ipod to watch at work. So i just download from torrents to import into my ipod. Why would i go and buy it again from itunes when i already own it. this doesn't make any since. I now they are starting to make digital copies on some movies you buy but not all.  This is just one of those case's where the Rich want to me Richer and they want to take from the poor man is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes me mad .
I have already purchased a movie and now i want it on my ipod to watch at work .
So i just download from torrents to import into my ipod .
Why would i go and buy it again from itunes when i already own it .
this does n't make any since .
I now they are starting to make digital copies on some movies you buy but not all .
This is just one of those case 's where the Rich want to me Richer and they want to take from the poor man is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes me mad.
I have already purchased a movie and now i want it on my ipod to watch at work.
So i just download from torrents to import into my ipod.
Why would i go and buy it again from itunes when i already own it.
this doesn't make any since.
I now they are starting to make digital copies on some movies you buy but not all.
This is just one of those case's where the Rich want to me Richer and they want to take from the poor man is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685724</id>
	<title>Kids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And my wife wonders why I think twice about bringing any more kids into the world... aren't there enough ALREADY?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And my wife wonders why I think twice about bringing any more kids into the world... are n't there enough ALREADY ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And my wife wonders why I think twice about bringing any more kids into the world... aren't there enough ALREADY?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682254</id>
	<title>Re:futile..!</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1269965820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just reading the summary is misleading.. They gathered the information, but only managed to get names and addresses from one ISP, a total of 71 people who they offered "settlements" to.. Hopefully, just because of the expense and the fact that they would piss off their customers, the other ISP's will continue to protect their customers.. I would love to know the name of the one ISP that caved into these morons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just reading the summary is misleading.. They gathered the information , but only managed to get names and addresses from one ISP , a total of 71 people who they offered " settlements " to.. Hopefully , just because of the expense and the fact that they would piss off their customers , the other ISP 's will continue to protect their customers.. I would love to know the name of the one ISP that caved into these morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just reading the summary is misleading.. They gathered the information, but only managed to get names and addresses from one ISP, a total of 71 people who they offered "settlements" to.. Hopefully, just because of the expense and the fact that they would piss off their customers, the other ISP's will continue to protect their customers.. I would love to know the name of the one ISP that caved into these morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680830</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269958080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is no longer true; &amp; the other reason - funding the creation of great media - obviously does not create enough value to justify the business that many of these companies continue to sue to protect.</i> </p><p>Which is another way of saying the downloader is systematically destroying a part of our common cultural heritage.</p><p>2008 was particularly rich in films with impeccable geek cred. The Dark Knight. Iron Man. Wall-E. Production budgets $200 million each. Distribution costs - far from negligible if you want the full theatrical experience.</p><p>Pixar has the option of shifting production wholly to safe and profitable family-oriented sequels to Toy Story, Cars, and Monsters, Inc.</p><p>Nothing more the like of Ratatouille, The Incredibles, Wall-E or Up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is no longer true ; &amp; the other reason - funding the creation of great media - obviously does not create enough value to justify the business that many of these companies continue to sue to protect .
Which is another way of saying the downloader is systematically destroying a part of our common cultural heritage.2008 was particularly rich in films with impeccable geek cred .
The Dark Knight .
Iron Man .
Wall-E. Production budgets $ 200 million each .
Distribution costs - far from negligible if you want the full theatrical experience.Pixar has the option of shifting production wholly to safe and profitable family-oriented sequels to Toy Story , Cars , and Monsters , Inc.Nothing more the like of Ratatouille , The Incredibles , Wall-E or Up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is no longer true; &amp; the other reason - funding the creation of great media - obviously does not create enough value to justify the business that many of these companies continue to sue to protect.
Which is another way of saying the downloader is systematically destroying a part of our common cultural heritage.2008 was particularly rich in films with impeccable geek cred.
The Dark Knight.
Iron Man.
Wall-E. Production budgets $200 million each.
Distribution costs - far from negligible if you want the full theatrical experience.Pixar has the option of shifting production wholly to safe and profitable family-oriented sequels to Toy Story, Cars, and Monsters, Inc.Nothing more the like of Ratatouille, The Incredibles, Wall-E or Up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681672</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269962340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.</i></p><p>The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying.</p><p>I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.</p></div><p>For the lawyers - the objective is to make money.  They identify people who are infringing, sue them, then hope that to settle.  It creates a nice income stream for the enterprising law firm and has the added bonus of a deterrent effect on copyright infringement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying.I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.For the lawyers - the objective is to make money .
They identify people who are infringing , sue them , then hope that to settle .
It creates a nice income stream for the enterprising law firm and has the added bonus of a deterrent effect on copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying.I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.For the lawyers - the objective is to make money.
They identify people who are infringing, sue them, then hope that to settle.
It creates a nice income stream for the enterprising law firm and has the added bonus of a deterrent effect on copyright infringement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684424</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1270028040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, that might be their objectives, it will have no beneficial effect for them. Really, the movie companies are fighting a battle of economics. Movie companies need to innovate their way to success, not litigate their way to failure. And it's already happening, with 3D movies. I haven't gone to the movies in years, until 3D came out. It's these types of innovations that they have to make to keep people returning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that might be their objectives , it will have no beneficial effect for them .
Really , the movie companies are fighting a battle of economics .
Movie companies need to innovate their way to success , not litigate their way to failure .
And it 's already happening , with 3D movies .
I have n't gone to the movies in years , until 3D came out .
It 's these types of innovations that they have to make to keep people returning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that might be their objectives, it will have no beneficial effect for them.
Really, the movie companies are fighting a battle of economics.
Movie companies need to innovate their way to success, not litigate their way to failure.
And it's already happening, with 3D movies.
I haven't gone to the movies in years, until 3D came out.
It's these types of innovations that they have to make to keep people returning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687596</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270050060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pirates will adapt. Internet has been a convenient method for transporting a lot of data. If the **AA sues everyone and their cat for using bittorrent or other P2P networks, the pirates will dump internet and revert to offline copying. A 1Tb USB drive is helluva lot of bandwith.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pirates will adapt .
Internet has been a convenient method for transporting a lot of data .
If the * * AA sues everyone and their cat for using bittorrent or other P2P networks , the pirates will dump internet and revert to offline copying .
A 1Tb USB drive is helluva lot of bandwith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pirates will adapt.
Internet has been a convenient method for transporting a lot of data.
If the **AA sues everyone and their cat for using bittorrent or other P2P networks, the pirates will dump internet and revert to offline copying.
A 1Tb USB drive is helluva lot of bandwith.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681162</id>
	<title>BS Attempt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this attempt is that in order to nab downloaders they have to be online downloading or sharing in a torrent themselves, hence infringing their own law.  Even then torrents are downloaded in hundreds of pieces from multiple sources so just knowing that someone is downloading is not enough to know if they completed the file.  Without a completed file they have done no infringing on any copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this attempt is that in order to nab downloaders they have to be online downloading or sharing in a torrent themselves , hence infringing their own law .
Even then torrents are downloaded in hundreds of pieces from multiple sources so just knowing that someone is downloading is not enough to know if they completed the file .
Without a completed file they have done no infringing on any copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this attempt is that in order to nab downloaders they have to be online downloading or sharing in a torrent themselves, hence infringing their own law.
Even then torrents are downloaded in hundreds of pieces from multiple sources so just knowing that someone is downloading is not enough to know if they completed the file.
Without a completed file they have done no infringing on any copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680174</id>
	<title>Downloading tickets</title>
	<author>lazorz</author>
	<datestamp>1269955080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next logical step is for this to evolve into a sort of a speeding ticket system. You get caught - pay a nominal fee and get X points on your name. Get caught enough times and they sue big time, till then you just keep paying nominal fees.</p><p>Not sure how I feel about it, but it sure as hell sounds more reasonable than suing 8-5 $35k/year crowd, kids with $5/hr dish-washing jobs and stay-at-home moms for millions of dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next logical step is for this to evolve into a sort of a speeding ticket system .
You get caught - pay a nominal fee and get X points on your name .
Get caught enough times and they sue big time , till then you just keep paying nominal fees.Not sure how I feel about it , but it sure as hell sounds more reasonable than suing 8-5 $ 35k/year crowd , kids with $ 5/hr dish-washing jobs and stay-at-home moms for millions of dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next logical step is for this to evolve into a sort of a speeding ticket system.
You get caught - pay a nominal fee and get X points on your name.
Get caught enough times and they sue big time, till then you just keep paying nominal fees.Not sure how I feel about it, but it sure as hell sounds more reasonable than suing 8-5 $35k/year crowd, kids with $5/hr dish-washing jobs and stay-at-home moms for millions of dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681704</id>
	<title>I'm not worried quite yet.</title>
	<author>billsayswow</author>
	<datestamp>1269962520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least, for now, they're targeting people who downloaded some shitty movies. Anyone who wasted their time on Far Cry's movie deserves to get sued.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least , for now , they 're targeting people who downloaded some shitty movies .
Anyone who wasted their time on Far Cry 's movie deserves to get sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least, for now, they're targeting people who downloaded some shitty movies.
Anyone who wasted their time on Far Cry's movie deserves to get sued.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31696964</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks!</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1270052700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...or I really like a song on the radio...</p></div><p>Buy a tape deck. You'll be able to have that song and not pay the MAFIAA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...or I really like a song on the radio...Buy a tape deck .
You 'll be able to have that song and not pay the MAFIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...or I really like a song on the radio...Buy a tape deck.
You'll be able to have that song and not pay the MAFIAA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681582</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>guyminuslife</author>
	<datestamp>1269961860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You ever seen one of those FBI warnings? (I haven't in a while, I haven't watched an honest-to-goodness DVD in a while). They say something along the lines that "this content is only for private use" or some such. Whatever your opinion on IP and piracy might be, it's pretty clear that storing a broadcast on your DVR is private use, uploading* it onto the Internet is very public.</p><p>*Nobody goes after downloaders. They go after uploaders. Which, with P2P software, happen to be the same people as the uploaders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ever seen one of those FBI warnings ?
( I have n't in a while , I have n't watched an honest-to-goodness DVD in a while ) .
They say something along the lines that " this content is only for private use " or some such .
Whatever your opinion on IP and piracy might be , it 's pretty clear that storing a broadcast on your DVR is private use , uploading * it onto the Internet is very public .
* Nobody goes after downloaders .
They go after uploaders .
Which , with P2P software , happen to be the same people as the uploaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You ever seen one of those FBI warnings?
(I haven't in a while, I haven't watched an honest-to-goodness DVD in a while).
They say something along the lines that "this content is only for private use" or some such.
Whatever your opinion on IP and piracy might be, it's pretty clear that storing a broadcast on your DVR is private use, uploading* it onto the Internet is very public.
*Nobody goes after downloaders.
They go after uploaders.
Which, with P2P software, happen to be the same people as the uploaders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683892</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1270066080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, "rational freethinkers" fulminating over f-this and f-that "positive environment for future children"?</p><p>You should do stand-up.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Seriously, AC has a point that the pie just won't stretch any bigger. And it seems to hold true for everything not the least of which are space and resources.</p><p>Corporate types and their political lackeys don't want to deal with these now very scary hard limits, so they try to create fake / soft scarcity models that allow them to even more zealously find ways to rip-off and punish 'unimportant' people (those of us who cannot push back through their corrupt underbelly). Its called creating economic growth through punishment, both domestic and abroad, which is the economic system this country turned to when the cold war was over. It allows the powers that be to turn the suppression of what scares them into a money-making business, so long as they can scare the rest of us at least enough so we don't speak out against their life-mangling scams.</p><p>And though they were mainly introduced to it through AOL and the reserved world of academia, the realization of what the Internet really is eventually sank in... And it scares them! Pretexts for attacking the Internet are very much in demand these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , " rational freethinkers " fulminating over f-this and f-that " positive environment for future children " ? You should do stand-up .
: - ) Seriously , AC has a point that the pie just wo n't stretch any bigger .
And it seems to hold true for everything not the least of which are space and resources.Corporate types and their political lackeys do n't want to deal with these now very scary hard limits , so they try to create fake / soft scarcity models that allow them to even more zealously find ways to rip-off and punish 'unimportant ' people ( those of us who can not push back through their corrupt underbelly ) .
Its called creating economic growth through punishment , both domestic and abroad , which is the economic system this country turned to when the cold war was over .
It allows the powers that be to turn the suppression of what scares them into a money-making business , so long as they can scare the rest of us at least enough so we do n't speak out against their life-mangling scams.And though they were mainly introduced to it through AOL and the reserved world of academia , the realization of what the Internet really is eventually sank in... And it scares them !
Pretexts for attacking the Internet are very much in demand these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, "rational freethinkers" fulminating over f-this and f-that "positive environment for future children"?You should do stand-up.
:-)Seriously, AC has a point that the pie just won't stretch any bigger.
And it seems to hold true for everything not the least of which are space and resources.Corporate types and their political lackeys don't want to deal with these now very scary hard limits, so they try to create fake / soft scarcity models that allow them to even more zealously find ways to rip-off and punish 'unimportant' people (those of us who cannot push back through their corrupt underbelly).
Its called creating economic growth through punishment, both domestic and abroad, which is the economic system this country turned to when the cold war was over.
It allows the powers that be to turn the suppression of what scares them into a money-making business, so long as they can scare the rest of us at least enough so we don't speak out against their life-mangling scams.And though they were mainly introduced to it through AOL and the reserved world of academia, the realization of what the Internet really is eventually sank in... And it scares them!
Pretexts for attacking the Internet are very much in demand these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
A while back, a colleague and I had a discussion about unauthorized downloading, and I quipped something to the effect that I would avoid infringement penalties by buying the content and then ripping it.  He, OTOH, asked why.  Why would I pay for something I could legally record from broadcast for free.
</p><p>
There's an interesting double standard here:
</p><ul>
<li>Recording a song or a movie from the radio or tv is not only legal, but explicitly so (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the audio home recording act makes this legal).</li>
<li>OTOH, downloading it from a non-broadcast source (i.e. the internet), is supposedly copyright infringement, with steep statutory fines.</li>
</ul><p>
In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price.  But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?  That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they've done for years with tape players and vcrs?
</p><p>
The VCR didn't kill tv and movies.  Nor did the tape player kill rock and roll.  If you can't make a living as an artist in the era of mp3's and youtube, well, you couldn't have made a living back then, either.  Stop blaming the Internet for your own failure.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back , a colleague and I had a discussion about unauthorized downloading , and I quipped something to the effect that I would avoid infringement penalties by buying the content and then ripping it .
He , OTOH , asked why .
Why would I pay for something I could legally record from broadcast for free .
There 's an interesting double standard here : Recording a song or a movie from the radio or tv is not only legal , but explicitly so ( IANAL , but I 'm pretty sure the audio home recording act makes this legal ) .
OTOH , downloading it from a non-broadcast source ( i.e .
the internet ) , is supposedly copyright infringement , with steep statutory fines .
In both cases you 've acquired the same content , in the same form , for the same price .
But now we 're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet , a crime has been committed ?
That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they 've done for years with tape players and vcrs ?
The VCR did n't kill tv and movies .
Nor did the tape player kill rock and roll .
If you ca n't make a living as an artist in the era of mp3 's and youtube , well , you could n't have made a living back then , either .
Stop blaming the Internet for your own failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A while back, a colleague and I had a discussion about unauthorized downloading, and I quipped something to the effect that I would avoid infringement penalties by buying the content and then ripping it.
He, OTOH, asked why.
Why would I pay for something I could legally record from broadcast for free.
There's an interesting double standard here:

Recording a song or a movie from the radio or tv is not only legal, but explicitly so (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the audio home recording act makes this legal).
OTOH, downloading it from a non-broadcast source (i.e.
the internet), is supposedly copyright infringement, with steep statutory fines.
In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price.
But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?
That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they've done for years with tape players and vcrs?
The VCR didn't kill tv and movies.
Nor did the tape player kill rock and roll.
If you can't make a living as an artist in the era of mp3's and youtube, well, you couldn't have made a living back then, either.
Stop blaming the Internet for your own failure.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31705350</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>sac13</author>
	<datestamp>1270213980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's the classic corporate-welfare strategy: you failed in the market, so get the government to force people to pay you.</p></div><p>Sounds like the big insurance company strategy... Destroy the efficiency of health care to the point that people can no longer afford it on their own, drive your prices up until people stop buying it and no longer have "health care" and then get a law passed requiring everyone to buy your broken product...</p><p>The big guys just love our 2 party system... Less hands to grease...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the classic corporate-welfare strategy : you failed in the market , so get the government to force people to pay you.Sounds like the big insurance company strategy... Destroy the efficiency of health care to the point that people can no longer afford it on their own , drive your prices up until people stop buying it and no longer have " health care " and then get a law passed requiring everyone to buy your broken product...The big guys just love our 2 party system... Less hands to grease.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the classic corporate-welfare strategy: you failed in the market, so get the government to force people to pay you.Sounds like the big insurance company strategy... Destroy the efficiency of health care to the point that people can no longer afford it on their own, drive your prices up until people stop buying it and no longer have "health care" and then get a law passed requiring everyone to buy your broken product...The big guys just love our 2 party system... Less hands to grease...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681368</id>
	<title>This is why I gave up downloading movies...</title>
	<author>Zakabog</author>
	<datestamp>1269960720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I gave up downloading movies, I now resort to buying all of my movies on blu-ray.</p><p>Sure, most of them fell off the back of a truck, but the fines are much less harsh than getting sued by the movie industry...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I gave up downloading movies , I now resort to buying all of my movies on blu-ray.Sure , most of them fell off the back of a truck , but the fines are much less harsh than getting sued by the movie industry.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I gave up downloading movies, I now resort to buying all of my movies on blu-ray.Sure, most of them fell off the back of a truck, but the fines are much less harsh than getting sued by the movie industry...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680954</id>
	<title>Re:"Sue fucking everyone"</title>
	<author>RoboRay</author>
	<datestamp>1269958740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the legal copyright holder is seeding the file, then it is in fact a legal distribution and not an infringement at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the legal copyright holder is seeding the file , then it is in fact a legal distribution and not an infringement at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the legal copyright holder is seeding the file, then it is in fact a legal distribution and not an infringement at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685588</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bill them for the court's time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270039260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they should pay income tax on all of the payouts they get - are court payouts exempt from such taxes normally?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should pay income tax on all of the payouts they get - are court payouts exempt from such taxes normally ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should pay income tax on all of the payouts they get - are court payouts exempt from such taxes normally?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31698774</id>
	<title>user7777</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270119960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear fellow Slashbot,</p><p>No offence, without `free information; you probably wouldn't type a single word in your beloved native language, since<br>as we all should be aware of the irrevocably truth that ALL OUR knowledge/WISDOM etc is based on free information.<br>information that was provided TO YOU ALONE for your CONVENIENCE by a society/system that allows information to travel<br>unhindered and most of all pretty much unchecked thru all the channels we as human perceive. hence, even the fundamental<br>construct of knowledge itself; which is passed on by generations to following generations is/has been freely obtainable<br>and must be uncensored (if it wasn't for the true pioneers of 'OPEN SOURCE' in a more metaphorical sense) noone on this planet<br>would know how to produce/use a single WATT, or any form of energy, nor would anyone be able to solve an equation, code/write a c++/python/tcl/whatever string of code, use UNIX/BSD, create bitnet relay, use ARPANET,<br>use a computer (which was build by k zuse etc..) to post here, spell the word FOOL, xfer your pirated material, or use copyright material which is by what standard? 90-130 years protected and then later used by WALT DISNEY to make their OWN profit (namely brothers grimm material) since the copyright on the grimm material isn't intact anymore. or for what it's worth, copyright might have been invented just to suit ppl when they can benefit of etc. what i'm saying is that without FREE INFORMATION, we most likely<br>wouldn't be sitting here trolling about copyright issues.</p><p>i could go on as to why a plane was created, why our planet/universe is more or less explored, why time is relative ETC<br>why we have knowledge based on empiric facts. why we sing the songs we sing, why we know of our ancestors and so forth..</p><p>to address the issue about information flow control, this merely reflects my personal view of things (as the above stated as well), when we start to invest in information thieves and start to judge what's right or wrong / valid or false, we can't just limit it too poor 14 year old innocent and ignorant children and their mothers sitting at home seeking some entertainment in dlding a product. we should then, and BY ALL MEANS, start to look into everything, GLOBALLY, to see if there and everywhere is something odd going on. we'd have to look in each transmission, in each packet, in each transaction, in each discussion, in each<br>document, and by the way, give credit to each inventor, creator, and pay a dime to even the DEAD, and hey wait! perhaps we<br>should start and pay god for everything he gave to US little creatures.</p><p>your humble slashdot nub</p><p>post scriptum, i just did knock that out, without any research, funded knowledge and even without checking spelling.<br>i additionally consider myself to be quite uneducated, but i strive to be wise and decent. although i'm a billion<br>miles away from being the perfect human.</p><p>and i've not even did pay a dime for latin.</p><p>this comes from the heart of europe and from a more or less reflected personality. cheers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear fellow Slashbot,No offence , without ` free information ; you probably would n't type a single word in your beloved native language , sinceas we all should be aware of the irrevocably truth that ALL OUR knowledge/WISDOM etc is based on free information.information that was provided TO YOU ALONE for your CONVENIENCE by a society/system that allows information to travelunhindered and most of all pretty much unchecked thru all the channels we as human perceive .
hence , even the fundamentalconstruct of knowledge itself ; which is passed on by generations to following generations is/has been freely obtainableand must be uncensored ( if it was n't for the true pioneers of 'OPEN SOURCE ' in a more metaphorical sense ) noone on this planetwould know how to produce/use a single WATT , or any form of energy , nor would anyone be able to solve an equation , code/write a c + + /python/tcl/whatever string of code , use UNIX/BSD , create bitnet relay , use ARPANET,use a computer ( which was build by k zuse etc.. ) to post here , spell the word FOOL , xfer your pirated material , or use copyright material which is by what standard ?
90-130 years protected and then later used by WALT DISNEY to make their OWN profit ( namely brothers grimm material ) since the copyright on the grimm material is n't intact anymore .
or for what it 's worth , copyright might have been invented just to suit ppl when they can benefit of etc .
what i 'm saying is that without FREE INFORMATION , we most likelywould n't be sitting here trolling about copyright issues.i could go on as to why a plane was created , why our planet/universe is more or less explored , why time is relative ETCwhy we have knowledge based on empiric facts .
why we sing the songs we sing , why we know of our ancestors and so forth..to address the issue about information flow control , this merely reflects my personal view of things ( as the above stated as well ) , when we start to invest in information thieves and start to judge what 's right or wrong / valid or false , we ca n't just limit it too poor 14 year old innocent and ignorant children and their mothers sitting at home seeking some entertainment in dlding a product .
we should then , and BY ALL MEANS , start to look into everything , GLOBALLY , to see if there and everywhere is something odd going on .
we 'd have to look in each transmission , in each packet , in each transaction , in each discussion , in eachdocument , and by the way , give credit to each inventor , creator , and pay a dime to even the DEAD , and hey wait !
perhaps weshould start and pay god for everything he gave to US little creatures.your humble slashdot nubpost scriptum , i just did knock that out , without any research , funded knowledge and even without checking spelling.i additionally consider myself to be quite uneducated , but i strive to be wise and decent .
although i 'm a billionmiles away from being the perfect human.and i 've not even did pay a dime for latin.this comes from the heart of europe and from a more or less reflected personality .
cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear fellow Slashbot,No offence, without `free information; you probably wouldn't type a single word in your beloved native language, sinceas we all should be aware of the irrevocably truth that ALL OUR knowledge/WISDOM etc is based on free information.information that was provided TO YOU ALONE for your CONVENIENCE by a society/system that allows information to travelunhindered and most of all pretty much unchecked thru all the channels we as human perceive.
hence, even the fundamentalconstruct of knowledge itself; which is passed on by generations to following generations is/has been freely obtainableand must be uncensored (if it wasn't for the true pioneers of 'OPEN SOURCE' in a more metaphorical sense) noone on this planetwould know how to produce/use a single WATT, or any form of energy, nor would anyone be able to solve an equation, code/write a c++/python/tcl/whatever string of code, use UNIX/BSD, create bitnet relay, use ARPANET,use a computer (which was build by k zuse etc..) to post here, spell the word FOOL, xfer your pirated material, or use copyright material which is by what standard?
90-130 years protected and then later used by WALT DISNEY to make their OWN profit (namely brothers grimm material) since the copyright on the grimm material isn't intact anymore.
or for what it's worth, copyright might have been invented just to suit ppl when they can benefit of etc.
what i'm saying is that without FREE INFORMATION, we most likelywouldn't be sitting here trolling about copyright issues.i could go on as to why a plane was created, why our planet/universe is more or less explored, why time is relative ETCwhy we have knowledge based on empiric facts.
why we sing the songs we sing, why we know of our ancestors and so forth..to address the issue about information flow control, this merely reflects my personal view of things (as the above stated as well), when we start to invest in information thieves and start to judge what's right or wrong / valid or false, we can't just limit it too poor 14 year old innocent and ignorant children and their mothers sitting at home seeking some entertainment in dlding a product.
we should then, and BY ALL MEANS, start to look into everything, GLOBALLY, to see if there and everywhere is something odd going on.
we'd have to look in each transmission, in each packet, in each transaction, in each discussion, in eachdocument, and by the way, give credit to each inventor, creator, and pay a dime to even the DEAD, and hey wait!
perhaps weshould start and pay god for everything he gave to US little creatures.your humble slashdot nubpost scriptum, i just did knock that out, without any research, funded knowledge and even without checking spelling.i additionally consider myself to be quite uneducated, but i strive to be wise and decent.
although i'm a billionmiles away from being the perfect human.and i've not even did pay a dime for latin.this comes from the heart of europe and from a more or less reflected personality.
cheers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687336</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>the\_one(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1270049160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things aren't as bad as they seem. The media gives a very skewed vision of reality (and it's increasingly getting more so).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things are n't as bad as they seem .
The media gives a very skewed vision of reality ( and it 's increasingly getting more so ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things aren't as bad as they seem.
The media gives a very skewed vision of reality (and it's increasingly getting more so).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680714</id>
	<title>Open wireless access points are everywhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can they prove the person responsible for this and it is not some kid in the neighborhood. Seems they would need<br>1. the log from the stream source<br>2. Evidence that you have the pirated movie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can they prove the person responsible for this and it is not some kid in the neighborhood .
Seems they would need1 .
the log from the stream source2 .
Evidence that you have the pirated movie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can they prove the person responsible for this and it is not some kid in the neighborhood.
Seems they would need1.
the log from the stream source2.
Evidence that you have the pirated movie</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681196</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Thing 1</author>
	<datestamp>1269959940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I get a letter, I'll start my Postal Campaign.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I get a letter , I 'll start my Postal Campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I get a letter, I'll start my Postal Campaign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685312</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270036740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about everyone who has had their net hijacked by torrenting neighbors? Brace yourselves for the backlash from the technologically illiterate who dont know what a WPA password is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about everyone who has had their net hijacked by torrenting neighbors ?
Brace yourselves for the backlash from the technologically illiterate who dont know what a WPA password is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about everyone who has had their net hijacked by torrenting neighbors?
Brace yourselves for the backlash from the technologically illiterate who dont know what a WPA password is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680374</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1269955800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.</i> </p><p>The studio's customer base - by definition - buys theater tickets, DVD or Blu Ray disks. Rents from Blockbuster or Netflix. Subscribes to HBO and PPV. Watches add supported videos.</p><p>The paying customer dictates what sort of film can be produced and how much money can safely be borrowed to fund it. The downloader has no say in any of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base .
The studio 's customer base - by definition - buys theater tickets , DVD or Blu Ray disks .
Rents from Blockbuster or Netflix .
Subscribes to HBO and PPV .
Watches add supported videos.The paying customer dictates what sort of film can be produced and how much money can safely be borrowed to fund it .
The downloader has no say in any of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
The studio's customer base - by definition - buys theater tickets, DVD or Blu Ray disks.
Rents from Blockbuster or Netflix.
Subscribes to HBO and PPV.
Watches add supported videos.The paying customer dictates what sort of film can be produced and how much money can safely be borrowed to fund it.
The downloader has no say in any of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685076</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270034460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tBnhe8ciCw</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 5tBnhe8ciCw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tBnhe8ciCw</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370</id>
	<title>how?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1269955800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each of those soon to be 50,000 people is entitled to a jury trial. That's a LOT of resources tied up on this and for a long time. The logistics could get ugly. And this is supposedly just the test run that could open the floodgate?</p><p>The courts will have a choice. Either shred any semblance of justice, reject this litigative spam, or devote itself exclusively to these suits and hope they get to the last of them before the revolution comes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each of those soon to be 50,000 people is entitled to a jury trial .
That 's a LOT of resources tied up on this and for a long time .
The logistics could get ugly .
And this is supposedly just the test run that could open the floodgate ? The courts will have a choice .
Either shred any semblance of justice , reject this litigative spam , or devote itself exclusively to these suits and hope they get to the last of them before the revolution comes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each of those soon to be 50,000 people is entitled to a jury trial.
That's a LOT of resources tied up on this and for a long time.
The logistics could get ugly.
And this is supposedly just the test run that could open the floodgate?The courts will have a choice.
Either shred any semblance of justice, reject this litigative spam, or devote itself exclusively to these suits and hope they get to the last of them before the revolution comes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31690096</id>
	<title>two points</title>
	<author>maudin8</author>
	<datestamp>1270060320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. I should be able to get my money back if a movie sucks if they want to go this route.

2. If they magically did stop all file sharing, they wouldn't make a single extra dime. Then what would they say? As a side note, I quit buying music a long, long time ago. Way before torrents. Why? Because the music industry got greedy and whole albums sucked. So F them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
I should be able to get my money back if a movie sucks if they want to go this route .
2. If they magically did stop all file sharing , they would n't make a single extra dime .
Then what would they say ?
As a side note , I quit buying music a long , long time ago .
Way before torrents .
Why ? Because the music industry got greedy and whole albums sucked .
So F them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
I should be able to get my money back if a movie sucks if they want to go this route.
2. If they magically did stop all file sharing, they wouldn't make a single extra dime.
Then what would they say?
As a side note, I quit buying music a long, long time ago.
Way before torrents.
Why? Because the music industry got greedy and whole albums sucked.
So F them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681748</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>jmcvetta</author>
	<datestamp>1269962760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>suing the lazy leeches</p><p>Not everyone who believes file sharing is a legitimate &amp; socially beneficial activity, is lazy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>bellicose sense of entitlement</p></div><p>Bellicose?  Come now, we file sharers don't want to fight -- we want to share.  Duh.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>appropriate their hard earned property</p></div><p>Oh, I see:  you have misunderstood.  File sharers don't want to <i>take</i> anything from the movie companies.  They will still have their films, unharmed.  We just want to make a whole whole lot of copies.  Don't worry, we'll provide the disk space and network bandwidth.</p><p>Also, you may have been looking for the word 'prerogative', not 'property'.  Copyright holders are cheesed off because file sharers are infringing on the former's prerogative to control distribution of certain data. There's no actual <i>property</i> anywhere around here, afaik.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>suing the lazy leechesNot everyone who believes file sharing is a legitimate &amp; socially beneficial activity , is lazy.bellicose sense of entitlementBellicose ?
Come now , we file sharers do n't want to fight -- we want to share .
Duh.appropriate their hard earned propertyOh , I see : you have misunderstood .
File sharers do n't want to take anything from the movie companies .
They will still have their films , unharmed .
We just want to make a whole whole lot of copies .
Do n't worry , we 'll provide the disk space and network bandwidth.Also , you may have been looking for the word 'prerogative ' , not 'property' .
Copyright holders are cheesed off because file sharers are infringing on the former 's prerogative to control distribution of certain data .
There 's no actual property anywhere around here , afaik .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suing the lazy leechesNot everyone who believes file sharing is a legitimate &amp; socially beneficial activity, is lazy.bellicose sense of entitlementBellicose?
Come now, we file sharers don't want to fight -- we want to share.
Duh.appropriate their hard earned propertyOh, I see:  you have misunderstood.
File sharers don't want to take anything from the movie companies.
They will still have their films, unharmed.
We just want to make a whole whole lot of copies.
Don't worry, we'll provide the disk space and network bandwidth.Also, you may have been looking for the word 'prerogative', not 'property'.
Copyright holders are cheesed off because file sharers are infringing on the former's prerogative to control distribution of certain data.
There's no actual property anywhere around here, afaik.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681734</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>MidnightBrewer</author>
	<datestamp>1269962700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the media is so great that people are willing to pirate it, then the creators are justified in getting paid. Just because something can be pirated for free doesn't diminish its value. It's just going to be an ongoing, ugly battle between users and creators until a good balance can be struck, and some sort of DRM is probably going to have to be a part of that. Some people argue that digital distribution has relegated the distributors to the scrapheap of history. By the same token, you could say that fair use is also relegated to that same scrapheap, if for no other reason than the necessity to keep funding the media the consumers seem so desperate to consume. If a fair price could be set for a movie download and the distribution channels were truly that pervasive, then people would have no need to give their friends anything beyond a recommendation to download the movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the media is so great that people are willing to pirate it , then the creators are justified in getting paid .
Just because something can be pirated for free does n't diminish its value .
It 's just going to be an ongoing , ugly battle between users and creators until a good balance can be struck , and some sort of DRM is probably going to have to be a part of that .
Some people argue that digital distribution has relegated the distributors to the scrapheap of history .
By the same token , you could say that fair use is also relegated to that same scrapheap , if for no other reason than the necessity to keep funding the media the consumers seem so desperate to consume .
If a fair price could be set for a movie download and the distribution channels were truly that pervasive , then people would have no need to give their friends anything beyond a recommendation to download the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the media is so great that people are willing to pirate it, then the creators are justified in getting paid.
Just because something can be pirated for free doesn't diminish its value.
It's just going to be an ongoing, ugly battle between users and creators until a good balance can be struck, and some sort of DRM is probably going to have to be a part of that.
Some people argue that digital distribution has relegated the distributors to the scrapheap of history.
By the same token, you could say that fair use is also relegated to that same scrapheap, if for no other reason than the necessity to keep funding the media the consumers seem so desperate to consume.
If a fair price could be set for a movie download and the distribution channels were truly that pervasive, then people would have no need to give their friends anything beyond a recommendation to download the movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681556</id>
	<title>They should sue everyone for fair market value?</title>
	<author>anetk</author>
	<datestamp>1269961680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should sue everybody for a fair market value (just download anything using bittorrent and get billed later).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should sue everybody for a fair market value ( just download anything using bittorrent and get billed later ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should sue everybody for a fair market value (just download anything using bittorrent and get billed later).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681146</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is an unpopular opinion, but these people are breaking the law, and they shouldn't be surprised when they get caught and punished. NEWSFLASH: You can't just go around breaking laws you don't like and pretending that everything is okay and you're in the right. I hate speeding laws, but I don't complain about the horrible injustice of the system when I get a ticket.</p><p>These people have no right to be downloading (and, with BitTorrent, uploading - that's the issue here) these movies. If they don't agree with the prices / policies of the movie industry, then they should boycott the products completely, but the people who create these things deserve to be able to set the conditions in which they are used. People who would like to use them can accept or reject those conditions, but if they don't accept them, they shouldn't be able to still use the product!</p><p>The sense of entitlement is ridiculous. I don't like the MPAA's actions, but the fact that people seem to think they can take whatever they want without paying for it and then not be punished when they're caught is even worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is an unpopular opinion , but these people are breaking the law , and they should n't be surprised when they get caught and punished .
NEWSFLASH : You ca n't just go around breaking laws you do n't like and pretending that everything is okay and you 're in the right .
I hate speeding laws , but I do n't complain about the horrible injustice of the system when I get a ticket.These people have no right to be downloading ( and , with BitTorrent , uploading - that 's the issue here ) these movies .
If they do n't agree with the prices / policies of the movie industry , then they should boycott the products completely , but the people who create these things deserve to be able to set the conditions in which they are used .
People who would like to use them can accept or reject those conditions , but if they do n't accept them , they should n't be able to still use the product ! The sense of entitlement is ridiculous .
I do n't like the MPAA 's actions , but the fact that people seem to think they can take whatever they want without paying for it and then not be punished when they 're caught is even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is an unpopular opinion, but these people are breaking the law, and they shouldn't be surprised when they get caught and punished.
NEWSFLASH: You can't just go around breaking laws you don't like and pretending that everything is okay and you're in the right.
I hate speeding laws, but I don't complain about the horrible injustice of the system when I get a ticket.These people have no right to be downloading (and, with BitTorrent, uploading - that's the issue here) these movies.
If they don't agree with the prices / policies of the movie industry, then they should boycott the products completely, but the people who create these things deserve to be able to set the conditions in which they are used.
People who would like to use them can accept or reject those conditions, but if they don't accept them, they shouldn't be able to still use the product!The sense of entitlement is ridiculous.
I don't like the MPAA's actions, but the fact that people seem to think they can take whatever they want without paying for it and then not be punished when they're caught is even worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687554</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1270049940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only there were some legal way to sample..</p><p>Hey, I know!  Someone could start a business where they buy movies and then rent them out to customers for short periods of time.  The customers would get to try a movie for a small fee that is much less than buying.</p><p>You could probably even let people rent the 'flix over the 'net, and send them to your customers in the mail!</p><p>Alas, no such business exists (AFAIK)...</p><p>Thus, illegal downloads truly are a crime of necessity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only there were some legal way to sample..Hey , I know !
Someone could start a business where they buy movies and then rent them out to customers for short periods of time .
The customers would get to try a movie for a small fee that is much less than buying.You could probably even let people rent the 'flix over the 'net , and send them to your customers in the mail ! Alas , no such business exists ( AFAIK ) ...Thus , illegal downloads truly are a crime of necessity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only there were some legal way to sample..Hey, I know!
Someone could start a business where they buy movies and then rent them out to customers for short periods of time.
The customers would get to try a movie for a small fee that is much less than buying.You could probably even let people rent the 'flix over the 'net, and send them to your customers in the mail!Alas, no such business exists (AFAIK)...Thus, illegal downloads truly are a crime of necessity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682360</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269966540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Recording a song or a movie from the radio or tv is not only legal, but explicitly so (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the audio home recording act makes this legal).</p></div><p>The broadcaster has paid for a license to broadcast, though.</p><p>It should also be noted that, if you copy said recording and give it to someone else, you will definitely be infringing - and it was always true, in U.S. at least (e.g. Canada is different because of copyright levy on recording media).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>OTOH, downloading it from a non-broadcast source (i.e. the internet), is supposedly copyright infringement, with steep statutory fines</p></div><p>If the original copy is unauthorized to begin with, or if the uploader doesn't have a license to redistribute, then sure. Seems pretty straightforward to me.</p><p>Now, if you get the file from someone who has the license to upload it to you (or, in general, "to the Internet"), then you're perfectly in the clear.</p><p>A more interesting case would be of various streaming media services, such as Internet radio, but so far as I know, recording from that is not illegal per se. There may be technological protective measures in place to prevent it, though, and at that point breaking them (which you need to do in order to record) would run afoul DMCA anti-circumvention clauses. Now that thing is definitely evil, no question about it, and <em>that</em> should be killed ASAP and buried way deep. I don't see why DRM shouldn't be fair game for content producers to use, but it should also be fair game for consumers to break. The market will take care of the rest (and, as we know, a bigger gun is always cheaper than a better armor, so we already know what the outcome will be).</p><p>But I don't see any double standards about the rest of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording a song or a movie from the radio or tv is not only legal , but explicitly so ( IANAL , but I 'm pretty sure the audio home recording act makes this legal ) .The broadcaster has paid for a license to broadcast , though.It should also be noted that , if you copy said recording and give it to someone else , you will definitely be infringing - and it was always true , in U.S. at least ( e.g .
Canada is different because of copyright levy on recording media ) .OTOH , downloading it from a non-broadcast source ( i.e .
the internet ) , is supposedly copyright infringement , with steep statutory finesIf the original copy is unauthorized to begin with , or if the uploader does n't have a license to redistribute , then sure .
Seems pretty straightforward to me.Now , if you get the file from someone who has the license to upload it to you ( or , in general , " to the Internet " ) , then you 're perfectly in the clear.A more interesting case would be of various streaming media services , such as Internet radio , but so far as I know , recording from that is not illegal per se .
There may be technological protective measures in place to prevent it , though , and at that point breaking them ( which you need to do in order to record ) would run afoul DMCA anti-circumvention clauses .
Now that thing is definitely evil , no question about it , and that should be killed ASAP and buried way deep .
I do n't see why DRM should n't be fair game for content producers to use , but it should also be fair game for consumers to break .
The market will take care of the rest ( and , as we know , a bigger gun is always cheaper than a better armor , so we already know what the outcome will be ) .But I do n't see any double standards about the rest of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording a song or a movie from the radio or tv is not only legal, but explicitly so (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the audio home recording act makes this legal).The broadcaster has paid for a license to broadcast, though.It should also be noted that, if you copy said recording and give it to someone else, you will definitely be infringing - and it was always true, in U.S. at least (e.g.
Canada is different because of copyright levy on recording media).OTOH, downloading it from a non-broadcast source (i.e.
the internet), is supposedly copyright infringement, with steep statutory finesIf the original copy is unauthorized to begin with, or if the uploader doesn't have a license to redistribute, then sure.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.Now, if you get the file from someone who has the license to upload it to you (or, in general, "to the Internet"), then you're perfectly in the clear.A more interesting case would be of various streaming media services, such as Internet radio, but so far as I know, recording from that is not illegal per se.
There may be technological protective measures in place to prevent it, though, and at that point breaking them (which you need to do in order to record) would run afoul DMCA anti-circumvention clauses.
Now that thing is definitely evil, no question about it, and that should be killed ASAP and buried way deep.
I don't see why DRM shouldn't be fair game for content producers to use, but it should also be fair game for consumers to break.
The market will take care of the rest (and, as we know, a bigger gun is always cheaper than a better armor, so we already know what the outcome will be).But I don't see any double standards about the rest of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684520</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>moonbender</author>
	<datestamp>1270029060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incredibly interesting, even funny, not gonna happen. Maybe the downloaders should start a union. Or an insurance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incredibly interesting , even funny , not gon na happen .
Maybe the downloaders should start a union .
Or an insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incredibly interesting, even funny, not gonna happen.
Maybe the downloaders should start a union.
Or an insurance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681758</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1269962820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>you failed in the market, so get the government to force people to pay you</i>
<br> <br>
How is the government forcing people to pay them? The government can only force people who ripped them off, and got caught doing it, to pay court-ordered damages. The government isn't forcing people to rip off a movie any more than it forces people to hop over a fence to sneak into a concert without paying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you failed in the market , so get the government to force people to pay you How is the government forcing people to pay them ?
The government can only force people who ripped them off , and got caught doing it , to pay court-ordered damages .
The government is n't forcing people to rip off a movie any more than it forces people to hop over a fence to sneak into a concert without paying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you failed in the market, so get the government to force people to pay you
 
How is the government forcing people to pay them?
The government can only force people who ripped them off, and got caught doing it, to pay court-ordered damages.
The government isn't forcing people to rip off a movie any more than it forces people to hop over a fence to sneak into a concert without paying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685878</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Vectormatic</author>
	<datestamp>1270041720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sorry, but how the hell does Wall-E have some kind of magical geek cred which Cars doesnt? because the antropomophised cartoon characters are 'robots' instead of cars? (and since when cant a geek be car obsessed too? i really enjoyed cars, especially luigi!).</p><p>And honestly, when distributers start delivering DVDs without the stupid unskippable 'you wouldnt steal a car' crap tacked on, and without the unskippable trailers for their other tripe, i will start buying DVDs again. Once in a while i buy a disc (although i do tend to stay away from new release, especially new blu-rays are just ridiculously expensive), pop it in the player and inmediatly have my mood ruined because of all the crap the producer throws at me for buying their product. I repeat this cycle about twice a year, but lately less and less.</p><p>Offer me a product i want (without annoying shit attached), at a price i can live with, and i will buy it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry , but how the hell does Wall-E have some kind of magical geek cred which Cars doesnt ?
because the antropomophised cartoon characters are 'robots ' instead of cars ?
( and since when cant a geek be car obsessed too ?
i really enjoyed cars , especially luigi !
) .And honestly , when distributers start delivering DVDs without the stupid unskippable 'you wouldnt steal a car ' crap tacked on , and without the unskippable trailers for their other tripe , i will start buying DVDs again .
Once in a while i buy a disc ( although i do tend to stay away from new release , especially new blu-rays are just ridiculously expensive ) , pop it in the player and inmediatly have my mood ruined because of all the crap the producer throws at me for buying their product .
I repeat this cycle about twice a year , but lately less and less.Offer me a product i want ( without annoying shit attached ) , at a price i can live with , and i will buy it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry, but how the hell does Wall-E have some kind of magical geek cred which Cars doesnt?
because the antropomophised cartoon characters are 'robots' instead of cars?
(and since when cant a geek be car obsessed too?
i really enjoyed cars, especially luigi!
).And honestly, when distributers start delivering DVDs without the stupid unskippable 'you wouldnt steal a car' crap tacked on, and without the unskippable trailers for their other tripe, i will start buying DVDs again.
Once in a while i buy a disc (although i do tend to stay away from new release, especially new blu-rays are just ridiculously expensive), pop it in the player and inmediatly have my mood ruined because of all the crap the producer throws at me for buying their product.
I repeat this cycle about twice a year, but lately less and less.Offer me a product i want (without annoying shit attached), at a price i can live with, and i will buy it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684876</id>
	<title>Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270032300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lol, good thing I don't torrent movies. However, some computer games and programs are nice to have. Why don't we ever hear about lawsuits for games or programs? I think it's because the developers have a brain and know that good product bring in sales.</p><p>Avatar is just too awesome NOT to go and buy/see it, even if you torrented it.<br>Bad movies are not worth anything, and they blame lack of sales on piracy.</p><p>Hello???? Twitter?</p><p>"Just torrented the dragonball movie, yeah it sucked ass."</p><p>You just lost, ONE SALE! They can't judge "collateral damage".</p><p>everyone else now knows not to go and buy your shitty movies, but it's just the same without torrents, and they will never have enough logic to figure it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lol , good thing I do n't torrent movies .
However , some computer games and programs are nice to have .
Why do n't we ever hear about lawsuits for games or programs ?
I think it 's because the developers have a brain and know that good product bring in sales.Avatar is just too awesome NOT to go and buy/see it , even if you torrented it.Bad movies are not worth anything , and they blame lack of sales on piracy.Hello ? ? ? ?
Twitter ? " Just torrented the dragonball movie , yeah it sucked ass .
" You just lost , ONE SALE !
They ca n't judge " collateral damage " .everyone else now knows not to go and buy your shitty movies , but it 's just the same without torrents , and they will never have enough logic to figure it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lol, good thing I don't torrent movies.
However, some computer games and programs are nice to have.
Why don't we ever hear about lawsuits for games or programs?
I think it's because the developers have a brain and know that good product bring in sales.Avatar is just too awesome NOT to go and buy/see it, even if you torrented it.Bad movies are not worth anything, and they blame lack of sales on piracy.Hello????
Twitter?"Just torrented the dragonball movie, yeah it sucked ass.
"You just lost, ONE SALE!
They can't judge "collateral damage".everyone else now knows not to go and buy your shitty movies, but it's just the same without torrents, and they will never have enough logic to figure it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1269959700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base.  You have to *buy* something to be a customer.</p></div><p>The people I know who download the most are the ones with the biggest DVD collections. They sample by downloading, and buy what they like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base .
You have to * buy * something to be a customer.The people I know who download the most are the ones with the biggest DVD collections .
They sample by downloading , and buy what they like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base.
You have to *buy* something to be a customer.The people I know who download the most are the ones with the biggest DVD collections.
They sample by downloading, and buy what they like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680996</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>deisama</author>
	<datestamp>1269958980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not at all a double standard, because the tv companies paid the companies to let them broadcast the movie. And they paid them enough money that the movie companies decided it was worth the risk of vcr tapings. It's just basic accounting at that point.</p><p>No one on the internet is paying them for the rights to distribute their movies. If someone decided to pay a small fortune for the right to distribute a movie on a torrent site, than we'd be seeing an entirely different dynamic.</p><p>Also, while they use the term downloading, because well, everyone loves to fear monger. It's not ACTUALLY the downloading that gets you in trouble, its the uploading part. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but basically anything you get from a public source you are not legally liable for. It would be like if your local newspaper decided to include an entire Harry Potter book in their paper with out permission. You, the costomer, can't get in trouble for whats in the paper. Only the newspaper can be held responsible for what they print. (Obviously, this doesn't hold for anything that's illegal to simply possess, like say child pornography)</p><p>Whenever you use a torrent, you share a part of the file with other people. And the second you do that, guess what, you are officially distributing stolen content. You can play dumb on downloading and claim good faith, but there are no cases where its ok to give away someone elses work without their permission. Its part of the reason that the fees are so astronomical. Because back in the days before the internet, when you caught someone was distributing stolen content, it actually was just as bad as it sounded. Even the most pro-piracy of Slashdotters would be hard pressed to say that it would be morally acceptable to go around giving other people's stuff away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not at all a double standard , because the tv companies paid the companies to let them broadcast the movie .
And they paid them enough money that the movie companies decided it was worth the risk of vcr tapings .
It 's just basic accounting at that point.No one on the internet is paying them for the rights to distribute their movies .
If someone decided to pay a small fortune for the right to distribute a movie on a torrent site , than we 'd be seeing an entirely different dynamic.Also , while they use the term downloading , because well , everyone loves to fear monger .
It 's not ACTUALLY the downloading that gets you in trouble , its the uploading part .
I 'm a little fuzzy on the details , but basically anything you get from a public source you are not legally liable for .
It would be like if your local newspaper decided to include an entire Harry Potter book in their paper with out permission .
You , the costomer , ca n't get in trouble for whats in the paper .
Only the newspaper can be held responsible for what they print .
( Obviously , this does n't hold for anything that 's illegal to simply possess , like say child pornography ) Whenever you use a torrent , you share a part of the file with other people .
And the second you do that , guess what , you are officially distributing stolen content .
You can play dumb on downloading and claim good faith , but there are no cases where its ok to give away someone elses work without their permission .
Its part of the reason that the fees are so astronomical .
Because back in the days before the internet , when you caught someone was distributing stolen content , it actually was just as bad as it sounded .
Even the most pro-piracy of Slashdotters would be hard pressed to say that it would be morally acceptable to go around giving other people 's stuff away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not at all a double standard, because the tv companies paid the companies to let them broadcast the movie.
And they paid them enough money that the movie companies decided it was worth the risk of vcr tapings.
It's just basic accounting at that point.No one on the internet is paying them for the rights to distribute their movies.
If someone decided to pay a small fortune for the right to distribute a movie on a torrent site, than we'd be seeing an entirely different dynamic.Also, while they use the term downloading, because well, everyone loves to fear monger.
It's not ACTUALLY the downloading that gets you in trouble, its the uploading part.
I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but basically anything you get from a public source you are not legally liable for.
It would be like if your local newspaper decided to include an entire Harry Potter book in their paper with out permission.
You, the costomer, can't get in trouble for whats in the paper.
Only the newspaper can be held responsible for what they print.
(Obviously, this doesn't hold for anything that's illegal to simply possess, like say child pornography)Whenever you use a torrent, you share a part of the file with other people.
And the second you do that, guess what, you are officially distributing stolen content.
You can play dumb on downloading and claim good faith, but there are no cases where its ok to give away someone elses work without their permission.
Its part of the reason that the fees are so astronomical.
Because back in the days before the internet, when you caught someone was distributing stolen content, it actually was just as bad as it sounded.
Even the most pro-piracy of Slashdotters would be hard pressed to say that it would be morally acceptable to go around giving other people's stuff away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682712</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269968880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big difference here, is that with TV, someone has payed for the right to air the content, the providing income for the content owner. With the internet, this is typically not the case (unless you count the cost of a single DVD sale).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big difference here , is that with TV , someone has payed for the right to air the content , the providing income for the content owner .
With the internet , this is typically not the case ( unless you count the cost of a single DVD sale ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big difference here, is that with TV, someone has payed for the right to air the content, the providing income for the content owner.
With the internet, this is typically not the case (unless you count the cost of a single DVD sale).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681326</id>
	<title>Case study: Myself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I go to the cinema a couple times each month.  I also have a fairly decent home theatre setup, and about half a wall of shelves holding legitimately purchased DVDs.  I also have a media server with at least as many downloaded rips.</p><p>Why?</p><p>I happen to not live in DVD region 1.  And some Hollywood studios think we're less deserving to buy movies in this country or somesuch.  Or maybe they just think it's funny to make us wait.  It doesn't really matter why, I guess.  But it has ofttimes been months, even years after the region 1 release that they'll deign to take my money.</p><p>(That is to say nothing of the fact that they often make us wait until well after a movie is in the American cinema before allowing the local establishments to show it.  An equally odious practice, in my opinion.)</p><p>Well, if they're going to be asses and engage in shenanigans; so will I.  But when they offer me a way to legitimately be a customer; I will do that as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I go to the cinema a couple times each month .
I also have a fairly decent home theatre setup , and about half a wall of shelves holding legitimately purchased DVDs .
I also have a media server with at least as many downloaded rips.Why ? I happen to not live in DVD region 1 .
And some Hollywood studios think we 're less deserving to buy movies in this country or somesuch .
Or maybe they just think it 's funny to make us wait .
It does n't really matter why , I guess .
But it has ofttimes been months , even years after the region 1 release that they 'll deign to take my money .
( That is to say nothing of the fact that they often make us wait until well after a movie is in the American cinema before allowing the local establishments to show it .
An equally odious practice , in my opinion .
) Well , if they 're going to be asses and engage in shenanigans ; so will I. But when they offer me a way to legitimately be a customer ; I will do that as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I go to the cinema a couple times each month.
I also have a fairly decent home theatre setup, and about half a wall of shelves holding legitimately purchased DVDs.
I also have a media server with at least as many downloaded rips.Why?I happen to not live in DVD region 1.
And some Hollywood studios think we're less deserving to buy movies in this country or somesuch.
Or maybe they just think it's funny to make us wait.
It doesn't really matter why, I guess.
But it has ofttimes been months, even years after the region 1 release that they'll deign to take my money.
(That is to say nothing of the fact that they often make us wait until well after a movie is in the American cinema before allowing the local establishments to show it.
An equally odious practice, in my opinion.
)Well, if they're going to be asses and engage in shenanigans; so will I.  But when they offer me a way to legitimately be a customer; I will do that as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31695818</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>sixsixtysix</author>
	<datestamp>1270042500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>quality shouldn't ever be a factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>quality should n't ever be a factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quality shouldn't ever be a factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681992</id>
	<title>DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once a studio commits to DRM, it is a part of the package.  What they are doing (the studios) is taking a candy (game) and wrapping it up with a layer of used toilet paper (obtrusive DRM).  Word gets out about the used toilet paper packaging, and the studio heads are wondering why fewer people are buying their candy.  "The candy is great!" they scream.  (It probably is.  But, it doesn't matter, because YOU WRAPPED IT UP IN USED TOILET PAPER.)  The studios are free to "protect" their investments as they see fit -- however, at the same time, we are free to "NOT BUY IT" if we don't like the product, including the packaging/(non)delivery method.

That being said, there is an entire generation which has effectively ignored the DMCA, and the companies think that people will suddenly change their behavior to be more "moral" now that they've driven their desires into legislation.  We already went through this many years ago.  It was called prohibition back then.  Millions of people ignored it and alcohol still abounded.  Now, millions of people ignore the DMCA, and pirated software still abounds.  Not content, they are now working on ACTA, as well.  We already know how the story ends, but we unfortunately have to live through it until those in charge realise they've made a mistake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once a studio commits to DRM , it is a part of the package .
What they are doing ( the studios ) is taking a candy ( game ) and wrapping it up with a layer of used toilet paper ( obtrusive DRM ) .
Word gets out about the used toilet paper packaging , and the studio heads are wondering why fewer people are buying their candy .
" The candy is great !
" they scream .
( It probably is .
But , it does n't matter , because YOU WRAPPED IT UP IN USED TOILET PAPER .
) The studios are free to " protect " their investments as they see fit -- however , at the same time , we are free to " NOT BUY IT " if we do n't like the product , including the packaging/ ( non ) delivery method .
That being said , there is an entire generation which has effectively ignored the DMCA , and the companies think that people will suddenly change their behavior to be more " moral " now that they 've driven their desires into legislation .
We already went through this many years ago .
It was called prohibition back then .
Millions of people ignored it and alcohol still abounded .
Now , millions of people ignore the DMCA , and pirated software still abounds .
Not content , they are now working on ACTA , as well .
We already know how the story ends , but we unfortunately have to live through it until those in charge realise they 've made a mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once a studio commits to DRM, it is a part of the package.
What they are doing (the studios) is taking a candy (game) and wrapping it up with a layer of used toilet paper (obtrusive DRM).
Word gets out about the used toilet paper packaging, and the studio heads are wondering why fewer people are buying their candy.
"The candy is great!
" they scream.
(It probably is.
But, it doesn't matter, because YOU WRAPPED IT UP IN USED TOILET PAPER.
)  The studios are free to "protect" their investments as they see fit -- however, at the same time, we are free to "NOT BUY IT" if we don't like the product, including the packaging/(non)delivery method.
That being said, there is an entire generation which has effectively ignored the DMCA, and the companies think that people will suddenly change their behavior to be more "moral" now that they've driven their desires into legislation.
We already went through this many years ago.
It was called prohibition back then.
Millions of people ignored it and alcohol still abounded.
Now, millions of people ignore the DMCA, and pirated software still abounds.
Not content, they are now working on ACTA, as well.
We already know how the story ends, but we unfortunately have to live through it until those in charge realise they've made a mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683240</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bill them for the court's time?</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1269973560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who lose the case will pay for the courts time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who lose the case will pay for the courts time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who lose the case will pay for the courts time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682338</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269966360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if the morons would just release the movies on BitTorrent THEMSELVES and add in advertising, the vast majority of people would not bother to even remove the ads... they'd just watch them... especially if it was in with the 'extra content'.</p><p>how dumb are these schmucks???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if the morons would just release the movies on BitTorrent THEMSELVES and add in advertising , the vast majority of people would not bother to even remove the ads... they 'd just watch them... especially if it was in with the 'extra content'.how dumb are these schmucks ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if the morons would just release the movies on BitTorrent THEMSELVES and add in advertising, the vast majority of people would not bother to even remove the ads... they'd just watch them... especially if it was in with the 'extra content'.how dumb are these schmucks??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31697900</id>
	<title>just keep up</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1270063980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>follow the example of Spain , where downloading is not considered illegal as long as the download isn't used for profit</htmltext>
<tokenext>follow the example of Spain , where downloading is not considered illegal as long as the download is n't used for profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>follow the example of Spain , where downloading is not considered illegal as long as the download isn't used for profit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682620</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269968160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an idea, I want to watch a movie, a service they could provide. I'd be willing to pay X amount a month, say in the order of $12, to receive X amount of movies, say in the order of 6-12, streamed to whatever device I want in appropriate quality (smartphone to 1080p). It's almost as if I'd be paying them.... for a service, which they would then provide to me. Am I on to something here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea , I want to watch a movie , a service they could provide .
I 'd be willing to pay X amount a month , say in the order of $ 12 , to receive X amount of movies , say in the order of 6-12 , streamed to whatever device I want in appropriate quality ( smartphone to 1080p ) .
It 's almost as if I 'd be paying them.... for a service , which they would then provide to me .
Am I on to something here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea, I want to watch a movie, a service they could provide.
I'd be willing to pay X amount a month, say in the order of $12, to receive X amount of movies, say in the order of 6-12, streamed to whatever device I want in appropriate quality (smartphone to 1080p).
It's almost as if I'd be paying them.... for a service, which they would then provide to me.
Am I on to something here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688988</id>
	<title>Re:WTF are they thinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270055580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For MacGuyver box set, it appears they couldn't move them and now all the overstock sellers have them for $150-$200.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For MacGuyver box set , it appears they could n't move them and now all the overstock sellers have them for $ 150- $ 200 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For MacGuyver box set, it appears they couldn't move them and now all the overstock sellers have them for $150-$200.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680186</id>
	<title>Re:They Suck</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269955080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>These types of lawyers give other types of lawyers an even worse name. </i></p><p>Just like cops, bad the 99\% ruin it for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These types of lawyers give other types of lawyers an even worse name .
Just like cops , bad the 99 \ % ruin it for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These types of lawyers give other types of lawyers an even worse name.
Just like cops, bad the 99\% ruin it for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31679990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686966</id>
	<title>Here's what I don't understand</title>
	<author>adam.skinner</author>
	<datestamp>1270047540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless I'm the seed and there is only one peer, I do not give the entire file to anyone in the swarm.  I only give a piece that they request; in and of itself, the piece I have given them is a meaningless, useless set of 1s and 0s.    I give an IP address 1/10000th of a file, and somehow I've shared the file with them?</p><p>Bittorrent is inherently different from other P2P networks.  I don't give a file in it's entirety, or even majority, to anyone.  It's like a scavenger hunt, or a distributed jigsaw puzzle.  If I give someone a trigger and they use it to build a gun, did I give them a gun?</p><p>The bittorrent protocol itself should be sufficient means to protect anyone against litigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I 'm the seed and there is only one peer , I do not give the entire file to anyone in the swarm .
I only give a piece that they request ; in and of itself , the piece I have given them is a meaningless , useless set of 1s and 0s .
I give an IP address 1/10000th of a file , and somehow I 've shared the file with them ? Bittorrent is inherently different from other P2P networks .
I do n't give a file in it 's entirety , or even majority , to anyone .
It 's like a scavenger hunt , or a distributed jigsaw puzzle .
If I give someone a trigger and they use it to build a gun , did I give them a gun ? The bittorrent protocol itself should be sufficient means to protect anyone against litigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I'm the seed and there is only one peer, I do not give the entire file to anyone in the swarm.
I only give a piece that they request; in and of itself, the piece I have given them is a meaningless, useless set of 1s and 0s.
I give an IP address 1/10000th of a file, and somehow I've shared the file with them?Bittorrent is inherently different from other P2P networks.
I don't give a file in it's entirety, or even majority, to anyone.
It's like a scavenger hunt, or a distributed jigsaw puzzle.
If I give someone a trigger and they use it to build a gun, did I give them a gun?The bittorrent protocol itself should be sufficient means to protect anyone against litigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680422</id>
	<title>Re:"Sue fucking everyone"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh. That checkbox offers absolutely no protection from these sorts of lawsuits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh .
That checkbox offers absolutely no protection from these sorts of lawsuits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh.
That checkbox offers absolutely no protection from these sorts of lawsuits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685364</id>
	<title>I think...</title>
	<author>warGod3</author>
	<datestamp>1270037280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that the "revenue stream" is actually just lawyer-speak for "we are pissing in the wind and hoping that we hit something."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that the " revenue stream " is actually just lawyer-speak for " we are pissing in the wind and hoping that we hit something .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that the "revenue stream" is actually just lawyer-speak for "we are pissing in the wind and hoping that we hit something.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681990</id>
	<title>Time for a Pirate Party President?</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1269964260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's all tell them where to stick it by voting Pirate Party for all our elections. 50,000 people is a lot to piss off. If each had a couple friends that felt sympathetic or likewise threatened and all would vote Pirate then we could possibly at least show up on the charts. THAT should make the MPAA/RIAA crap their pants if the public could get mobilized to fight back.<br><br>Which state has the lowest population? Everyone move there and let's make a data haven. Only half kidding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's all tell them where to stick it by voting Pirate Party for all our elections .
50,000 people is a lot to piss off .
If each had a couple friends that felt sympathetic or likewise threatened and all would vote Pirate then we could possibly at least show up on the charts .
THAT should make the MPAA/RIAA crap their pants if the public could get mobilized to fight back.Which state has the lowest population ?
Everyone move there and let 's make a data haven .
Only half kidding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's all tell them where to stick it by voting Pirate Party for all our elections.
50,000 people is a lot to piss off.
If each had a couple friends that felt sympathetic or likewise threatened and all would vote Pirate then we could possibly at least show up on the charts.
THAT should make the MPAA/RIAA crap their pants if the public could get mobilized to fight back.Which state has the lowest population?
Everyone move there and let's make a data haven.
Only half kidding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683962</id>
	<title>UK rushing through law to disconnect filesharers</title>
	<author>Cato</author>
	<datestamp>1270066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In related news: The UK government is rushing through a law on filesharing in the last week of parliamentary business before the general election. It's bypassing the normal line by line debate in committees etc and will become law shortly after next Tuesday April 6th on current plans.</p><p>The proposed law will essentially enable the copyright holder to get warning letters sent to those who are believed to be illegally sharing files - these go to the broadband account holder, and if the incidents continue, they can be disconnected (or other unspecified "technical measures" may be taken). It doesn't matter if a family member or guest did the file sharing, or someone freeloading on your WiFi.</p><p>See <a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/disconnection/why-care" title="openrightsgroup.org">http://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/disconnection/why-care</a> [openrightsgroup.org] for more details and what to do about this.  There are only a few days left to try to stop or at least delay this.</p><p>If you live in the UK, write to your MP now - it only takes a few minutes via the link above, just put in your postcode.</p><p>If you have mod points, please consider modding this up so that more people will write to their MP (member of parliament), and if you agree, then blog/twitter/Facebook/etc about this issue.  Similar laws are being passed or planned in many other countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news : The UK government is rushing through a law on filesharing in the last week of parliamentary business before the general election .
It 's bypassing the normal line by line debate in committees etc and will become law shortly after next Tuesday April 6th on current plans.The proposed law will essentially enable the copyright holder to get warning letters sent to those who are believed to be illegally sharing files - these go to the broadband account holder , and if the incidents continue , they can be disconnected ( or other unspecified " technical measures " may be taken ) .
It does n't matter if a family member or guest did the file sharing , or someone freeloading on your WiFi.See http : //www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/disconnection/why-care [ openrightsgroup.org ] for more details and what to do about this .
There are only a few days left to try to stop or at least delay this.If you live in the UK , write to your MP now - it only takes a few minutes via the link above , just put in your postcode.If you have mod points , please consider modding this up so that more people will write to their MP ( member of parliament ) , and if you agree , then blog/twitter/Facebook/etc about this issue .
Similar laws are being passed or planned in many other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news: The UK government is rushing through a law on filesharing in the last week of parliamentary business before the general election.
It's bypassing the normal line by line debate in committees etc and will become law shortly after next Tuesday April 6th on current plans.The proposed law will essentially enable the copyright holder to get warning letters sent to those who are believed to be illegally sharing files - these go to the broadband account holder, and if the incidents continue, they can be disconnected (or other unspecified "technical measures" may be taken).
It doesn't matter if a family member or guest did the file sharing, or someone freeloading on your WiFi.See http://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/disconnection/why-care [openrightsgroup.org] for more details and what to do about this.
There are only a few days left to try to stop or at least delay this.If you live in the UK, write to your MP now - it only takes a few minutes via the link above, just put in your postcode.If you have mod points, please consider modding this up so that more people will write to their MP (member of parliament), and if you agree, then blog/twitter/Facebook/etc about this issue.
Similar laws are being passed or planned in many other countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685468</id>
	<title>Re:They Suck</title>
	<author>macbuzz01</author>
	<datestamp>1270038240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh? I can't understand what you are trying to say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
I ca n't understand what you are trying to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
I can't understand what you are trying to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682428</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269966840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if they didn't do it they are being offered a "good deal" to settle to a legal claim against them in comparison to what it would cost to fight it... who wouldn't take it? I mean except for those few people with the resources, principles, and evidence against them is non-existent, wrong, or at least "more likely than not" to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they did n't do it they are being offered a " good deal " to settle to a legal claim against them in comparison to what it would cost to fight it... who would n't take it ?
I mean except for those few people with the resources , principles , and evidence against them is non-existent , wrong , or at least " more likely than not " to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they didn't do it they are being offered a "good deal" to settle to a legal claim against them in comparison to what it would cost to fight it... who wouldn't take it?
I mean except for those few people with the resources, principles, and evidence against them is non-existent, wrong, or at least "more likely than not" to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680844</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269958080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price. But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?</p></div><p>See, here's your problem. You're expecting the law to make sense.  It doesn't; at least, not in any way that is consistent with reality.  The law was made at different times, with different intents, and sometimes is a compromise; thus it often lacks consistency, because on part was made to favor one side, and the other part to favor another side.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In both cases you 've acquired the same content , in the same form , for the same price .
But now we 're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet , a crime has been committed ? See , here 's your problem .
You 're expecting the law to make sense .
It does n't ; at least , not in any way that is consistent with reality .
The law was made at different times , with different intents , and sometimes is a compromise ; thus it often lacks consistency , because on part was made to favor one side , and the other part to favor another side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price.
But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?See, here's your problem.
You're expecting the law to make sense.
It doesn't; at least, not in any way that is consistent with reality.
The law was made at different times, with different intents, and sometimes is a compromise; thus it often lacks consistency, because on part was made to favor one side, and the other part to favor another side.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682058</id>
	<title>yay facts!</title>
	<author>synthesizerpatel</author>
	<datestamp>1269964680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory.. The only way bittorrent knows you're uploading is if you tell the cloud you are, or someone reports you are. Both of which could be fake.</p><p>The only way someone knows if you downloaded something \_for sure\_ is if you downloaded it directly from them.</p><p>I'm sure the subtlety of this technical aspect will be completely lost during any litigation.. but it's a fact.</p><p>COLD HARD DELICIOUS FACTS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory.. The only way bittorrent knows you 're uploading is if you tell the cloud you are , or someone reports you are .
Both of which could be fake.The only way someone knows if you downloaded something \ _for sure \ _ is if you downloaded it directly from them.I 'm sure the subtlety of this technical aspect will be completely lost during any litigation.. but it 's a fact.COLD HARD DELICIOUS FACTS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory.. The only way bittorrent knows you're uploading is if you tell the cloud you are, or someone reports you are.
Both of which could be fake.The only way someone knows if you downloaded something \_for sure\_ is if you downloaded it directly from them.I'm sure the subtlety of this technical aspect will be completely lost during any litigation.. but it's a fact.COLD HARD DELICIOUS FACTS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683034</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1269971820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
By your logic, the fee paid by the broadcaster compensated the creator for their work.  If they've already been compensated, what right do they have to be paid twice?  Shouldn't everyone be free to copy and share the work after that point?
</p><p>
The argument doesn't change for movies in theaters, either.  What is the difference between someone buying the DVD and watching a movie an unlimited number of times, and one who goes back to the theater again and again? (assuming the movie is still playing).
</p><p>
The difference is that in the latter case, the studio gets paid more for the same work than in the former.  Yet the enjoyment of the movie, the utility of another's work, remains unchanged.
</p><p>
Like my previous post, I think it boils down to the studios thinking that if you watch movies, listen to music, or read, you owe them whatever they want you to pay them.  There's no objective standard of value, and they'll bleed as much out of the public as they believe they can get away with.  They see nothing wrong with one person paying $17 to see it once, and another paying $17 to view it an unlimited number of times.  But should that person who paid $17 in the theater later download it from the internet, suddenly they're liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars.  In both cases, two people paid the same price for the same content, and yet one is illegal, and the other is not.  In both cases, the studio gets paid.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By your logic , the fee paid by the broadcaster compensated the creator for their work .
If they 've already been compensated , what right do they have to be paid twice ?
Should n't everyone be free to copy and share the work after that point ?
The argument does n't change for movies in theaters , either .
What is the difference between someone buying the DVD and watching a movie an unlimited number of times , and one who goes back to the theater again and again ?
( assuming the movie is still playing ) .
The difference is that in the latter case , the studio gets paid more for the same work than in the former .
Yet the enjoyment of the movie , the utility of another 's work , remains unchanged .
Like my previous post , I think it boils down to the studios thinking that if you watch movies , listen to music , or read , you owe them whatever they want you to pay them .
There 's no objective standard of value , and they 'll bleed as much out of the public as they believe they can get away with .
They see nothing wrong with one person paying $ 17 to see it once , and another paying $ 17 to view it an unlimited number of times .
But should that person who paid $ 17 in the theater later download it from the internet , suddenly they 're liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars .
In both cases , two people paid the same price for the same content , and yet one is illegal , and the other is not .
In both cases , the studio gets paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
By your logic, the fee paid by the broadcaster compensated the creator for their work.
If they've already been compensated, what right do they have to be paid twice?
Shouldn't everyone be free to copy and share the work after that point?
The argument doesn't change for movies in theaters, either.
What is the difference between someone buying the DVD and watching a movie an unlimited number of times, and one who goes back to the theater again and again?
(assuming the movie is still playing).
The difference is that in the latter case, the studio gets paid more for the same work than in the former.
Yet the enjoyment of the movie, the utility of another's work, remains unchanged.
Like my previous post, I think it boils down to the studios thinking that if you watch movies, listen to music, or read, you owe them whatever they want you to pay them.
There's no objective standard of value, and they'll bleed as much out of the public as they believe they can get away with.
They see nothing wrong with one person paying $17 to see it once, and another paying $17 to view it an unlimited number of times.
But should that person who paid $17 in the theater later download it from the internet, suddenly they're liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In both cases, two people paid the same price for the same content, and yet one is illegal, and the other is not.
In both cases, the studio gets paid.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686866</id>
	<title>Re:Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1270047060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So, when was it exactly in the USA that you had the right to clearly and unashamedly violate copyright on a massive scale</i>.</p><p>You do know, right, that the USA used to be one of the biggest copyright violators on the planet in the 19th Century ? That a whole publishing industry was created around pirated copies of works from Europe ? And that Hollywood is where it is to escape IPR prosecution from Edison in New York ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , when was it exactly in the USA that you had the right to clearly and unashamedly violate copyright on a massive scale.You do know , right , that the USA used to be one of the biggest copyright violators on the planet in the 19th Century ?
That a whole publishing industry was created around pirated copies of works from Europe ?
And that Hollywood is where it is to escape IPR prosecution from Edison in New York ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, when was it exactly in the USA that you had the right to clearly and unashamedly violate copyright on a massive scale.You do know, right, that the USA used to be one of the biggest copyright violators on the planet in the 19th Century ?
That a whole publishing industry was created around pirated copies of works from Europe ?
And that Hollywood is where it is to escape IPR prosecution from Edison in New York ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680522</id>
	<title>Re:"Sue fucking everyone"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269956400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad that doesn't help in the slightest.
<br> <br>
Your IP is still showing up in the swarm for whatever file they are monitoring. Plus, if the legal copyright holders seed to you, they KNOW what was inside the encrypted stream. The only way around this is through a proxy, and you have to trust the proxy not to give up your details if the authorities come a-knocking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad that does n't help in the slightest .
Your IP is still showing up in the swarm for whatever file they are monitoring .
Plus , if the legal copyright holders seed to you , they KNOW what was inside the encrypted stream .
The only way around this is through a proxy , and you have to trust the proxy not to give up your details if the authorities come a-knocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad that doesn't help in the slightest.
Your IP is still showing up in the swarm for whatever file they are monitoring.
Plus, if the legal copyright holders seed to you, they KNOW what was inside the encrypted stream.
The only way around this is through a proxy, and you have to trust the proxy not to give up your details if the authorities come a-knocking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686510</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>HolyMackerelBatman!</author>
	<datestamp>1270045500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price.  But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?  That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they've done for years with tape players and vcrs?
</p></div><p>There's a slight difference. When time-shifting (recording from TV or Radio), the broadcaster has already paid a royalty to broadcast the content, which is significantly higher than a mechanical royalty paid on a CD or DVD. When downloading, usually the original source (a DVD or CD) has only netted the publisher a mechanical royalty on one sale (or no royalty at all if it was leaked).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In both cases you 've acquired the same content , in the same form , for the same price .
But now we 're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet , a crime has been committed ?
That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they 've done for years with tape players and vcrs ?
There 's a slight difference .
When time-shifting ( recording from TV or Radio ) , the broadcaster has already paid a royalty to broadcast the content , which is significantly higher than a mechanical royalty paid on a CD or DVD .
When downloading , usually the original source ( a DVD or CD ) has only netted the publisher a mechanical royalty on one sale ( or no royalty at all if it was leaked ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price.
But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?
That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they've done for years with tape players and vcrs?
There's a slight difference.
When time-shifting (recording from TV or Radio), the broadcaster has already paid a royalty to broadcast the content, which is significantly higher than a mechanical royalty paid on a CD or DVD.
When downloading, usually the original source (a DVD or CD) has only netted the publisher a mechanical royalty on one sale (or no royalty at all if it was leaked).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31695194</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270039080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The important difference here is that the content broadcast on the tv and radio is controlled by the content owner, who is compensated through ad revenue.  Also, a lot less content is broadcast, because every song or movie or show is played all the way through.  So, though recording from tv or radio is legal, nowhere near the amount of content is being broadcast, so it would be impossible to be an effective pirate, especially without distributing, which was illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The important difference here is that the content broadcast on the tv and radio is controlled by the content owner , who is compensated through ad revenue .
Also , a lot less content is broadcast , because every song or movie or show is played all the way through .
So , though recording from tv or radio is legal , nowhere near the amount of content is being broadcast , so it would be impossible to be an effective pirate , especially without distributing , which was illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important difference here is that the content broadcast on the tv and radio is controlled by the content owner, who is compensated through ad revenue.
Also, a lot less content is broadcast, because every song or movie or show is played all the way through.
So, though recording from tv or radio is legal, nowhere near the amount of content is being broadcast, so it would be impossible to be an effective pirate, especially without distributing, which was illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682264</id>
	<title>Are they really...</title>
	<author>KillShill</author>
	<datestamp>1269965880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they really independents or are they MPAA's "indie" studios? You know, to prevent legitimate competition and keep their stranglehold tight.</p><p>Sort of like how MS has proxies that they use to achieve their goals without showing that they're involved?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they really independents or are they MPAA 's " indie " studios ?
You know , to prevent legitimate competition and keep their stranglehold tight.Sort of like how MS has proxies that they use to achieve their goals without showing that they 're involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they really independents or are they MPAA's "indie" studios?
You know, to prevent legitimate competition and keep their stranglehold tight.Sort of like how MS has proxies that they use to achieve their goals without showing that they're involved?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683112</id>
	<title>April Fool's Joke</title>
	<author>LonghornXtreme</author>
	<datestamp>1269972660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on. Who the hell would torrent the movies in TFA anyways?</p><p>My guess, this is one REALLY elaborate April Fool's joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on .
Who the hell would torrent the movies in TFA anyways ? My guess , this is one REALLY elaborate April Fool 's joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on.
Who the hell would torrent the movies in TFA anyways?My guess, this is one REALLY elaborate April Fool's joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046</id>
	<title>Degradation of Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it me, or is everything getting shittier everyday. It feels like more and more, articles, columns, and information leaks point to the ever diminishing rights of citizens of the world.  The United States is broke, and its overlords are continuing to spend more money.  The rest of the world is either pussyfooting under political correctness, stripping their citizens of any rights they once had, while other countries continue to grow their nuclear arsenals and further fuel the idiotic self-destructive nature that humankind cannot seem to shake. <br> <br>I am ranting, I know, but for mother fuck-fuckity-fucks sake how much longer are the rational, intelligent, and reasonable going to continue to stand for this? Are the aforementioned independent free-thinkers to disjointed, apathetic, and outnumbered to ever turn the tide? I feel this civilization is edging towards a serious crises, one much worse than we have ever seen. Be that crises a nuclear holocaust, or the silent denigration of of the common sense rights that a democratic mentality provides, the crises is coming, and we don't seem to be heading anywhere near the appropriate direction to turn the tides of destruction.<br> <br>
Perhaps my tinfoil hat is too tight, maybe I need to get some sunlight. I don't know. But it is hard as a relatively young individual to imagine a positive environment for future children. Each day that passes, more rights are stripped, more debt is incurred, more inflation rapes the dollar, more political seats are bargained, more people hate democracy, more people get lazy, more people become passive obedient workers, taking the big red, white, and blue dick right up the ass, while the bourgeoisie reap the benefits of a society that becomes more mentally jellified by mass-media induced mind-fucking every day. <br> <br>Sorry about that. Your regularly scheduled broadcasting will now continue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it me , or is everything getting shittier everyday .
It feels like more and more , articles , columns , and information leaks point to the ever diminishing rights of citizens of the world .
The United States is broke , and its overlords are continuing to spend more money .
The rest of the world is either pussyfooting under political correctness , stripping their citizens of any rights they once had , while other countries continue to grow their nuclear arsenals and further fuel the idiotic self-destructive nature that humankind can not seem to shake .
I am ranting , I know , but for mother fuck-fuckity-fucks sake how much longer are the rational , intelligent , and reasonable going to continue to stand for this ?
Are the aforementioned independent free-thinkers to disjointed , apathetic , and outnumbered to ever turn the tide ?
I feel this civilization is edging towards a serious crises , one much worse than we have ever seen .
Be that crises a nuclear holocaust , or the silent denigration of of the common sense rights that a democratic mentality provides , the crises is coming , and we do n't seem to be heading anywhere near the appropriate direction to turn the tides of destruction .
Perhaps my tinfoil hat is too tight , maybe I need to get some sunlight .
I do n't know .
But it is hard as a relatively young individual to imagine a positive environment for future children .
Each day that passes , more rights are stripped , more debt is incurred , more inflation rapes the dollar , more political seats are bargained , more people hate democracy , more people get lazy , more people become passive obedient workers , taking the big red , white , and blue dick right up the ass , while the bourgeoisie reap the benefits of a society that becomes more mentally jellified by mass-media induced mind-fucking every day .
Sorry about that .
Your regularly scheduled broadcasting will now continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it me, or is everything getting shittier everyday.
It feels like more and more, articles, columns, and information leaks point to the ever diminishing rights of citizens of the world.
The United States is broke, and its overlords are continuing to spend more money.
The rest of the world is either pussyfooting under political correctness, stripping their citizens of any rights they once had, while other countries continue to grow their nuclear arsenals and further fuel the idiotic self-destructive nature that humankind cannot seem to shake.
I am ranting, I know, but for mother fuck-fuckity-fucks sake how much longer are the rational, intelligent, and reasonable going to continue to stand for this?
Are the aforementioned independent free-thinkers to disjointed, apathetic, and outnumbered to ever turn the tide?
I feel this civilization is edging towards a serious crises, one much worse than we have ever seen.
Be that crises a nuclear holocaust, or the silent denigration of of the common sense rights that a democratic mentality provides, the crises is coming, and we don't seem to be heading anywhere near the appropriate direction to turn the tides of destruction.
Perhaps my tinfoil hat is too tight, maybe I need to get some sunlight.
I don't know.
But it is hard as a relatively young individual to imagine a positive environment for future children.
Each day that passes, more rights are stripped, more debt is incurred, more inflation rapes the dollar, more political seats are bargained, more people hate democracy, more people get lazy, more people become passive obedient workers, taking the big red, white, and blue dick right up the ass, while the bourgeoisie reap the benefits of a society that becomes more mentally jellified by mass-media induced mind-fucking every day.
Sorry about that.
Your regularly scheduled broadcasting will now continue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685248</id>
	<title>We're creating a revenue stream and monetizing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270036140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They lost me right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They lost me right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They lost me right there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681770</id>
	<title>Re:how?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1269962940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if we moved to a loser-pays system the courts would stop getting spammed with frivolous suits.</p><p>The EFF could probably step in no trouble and not run its bank account dry if it defends them and gets reimbursed by the egg-faced plaintiffs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if we moved to a loser-pays system the courts would stop getting spammed with frivolous suits.The EFF could probably step in no trouble and not run its bank account dry if it defends them and gets reimbursed by the egg-faced plaintiffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if we moved to a loser-pays system the courts would stop getting spammed with frivolous suits.The EFF could probably step in no trouble and not run its bank account dry if it defends them and gets reimbursed by the egg-faced plaintiffs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681534</id>
	<title>Long-time cash cow for German law firms</title>
	<author>mbg</author>
	<datestamp>1269961560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Entrepeneurial law firms in Germany seem to have perfected this business model over several years.

More background here from the good people at Heise: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&amp;prev=\_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;layout=1&amp;eotf=1&amp;u=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.heise.de\%2Fct-tv\%2Fartikel\%2FHintergrund-Abmahnen-statt-verkaufen-901244.html&amp;sl=de&amp;tl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&amp;prev=\_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;layout=1&amp;eotf=1&amp;u=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.heise.de\%2Fct-tv\%2Fartikel\%2FHintergrund-Abmahnen-statt-verkaufen-901244.html&amp;sl=de&amp;tl=en</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Entrepeneurial law firms in Germany seem to have perfected this business model over several years .
More background here from the good people at Heise : http : //translate.google.com/translate ? js = y&amp;prev = \ _t&amp;hl = en&amp;ie = UTF-8&amp;layout = 1&amp;eotf = 1&amp;u = http \ % 3A \ % 2F \ % 2Fwww.heise.de \ % 2Fct-tv \ % 2Fartikel \ % 2FHintergrund-Abmahnen-statt-verkaufen-901244.html&amp;sl = de&amp;tl = en [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entrepeneurial law firms in Germany seem to have perfected this business model over several years.
More background here from the good people at Heise: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&amp;prev=\_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;layout=1&amp;eotf=1&amp;u=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.heise.de\%2Fct-tv\%2Fartikel\%2FHintergrund-Abmahnen-statt-verkaufen-901244.html&amp;sl=de&amp;tl=en [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684366</id>
	<title>Alternative methods?</title>
	<author>HopefulIntern</author>
	<datestamp>1270027500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about those of us who don't use Bit Torrent? Say, a different way of pirating that does not involve uploading/sharing/distributing? Are we still ok?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about those of us who do n't use Bit Torrent ?
Say , a different way of pirating that does not involve uploading/sharing/distributing ?
Are we still ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about those of us who don't use Bit Torrent?
Say, a different way of pirating that does not involve uploading/sharing/distributing?
Are we still ok?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687692</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Flaming Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1270050420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price.  But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?
</p></div><p>There is a difference from the copyright owner's viewpoint. He's getting paid by the broadcasters.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
 That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they've done for years with tape players and vcrs?
</p></div><p>Can you really not see a difference between spending an hour to two hours to make a single copy with generation loss and sharing a 1:1 digital copy to 100 million people with practically no time spent at all?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In both cases you 've acquired the same content , in the same form , for the same price .
But now we 're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet , a crime has been committed ?
There is a difference from the copyright owner 's viewpoint .
He 's getting paid by the broadcasters .
That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they 've done for years with tape players and vcrs ?
Can you really not see a difference between spending an hour to two hours to make a single copy with generation loss and sharing a 1 : 1 digital copy to 100 million people with practically no time spent at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price.
But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed?
There is a difference from the copyright owner's viewpoint.
He's getting paid by the broadcasters.
That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they've done for years with tape players and vcrs?
Can you really not see a difference between spending an hour to two hours to make a single copy with generation loss and sharing a 1:1 digital copy to 100 million people with practically no time spent at all?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681634</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269962220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To those who advocate that pirates buy if they like:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; When the movie comes out the only way to tell how good it is to watch it in theatre or rent it.  If it's bad - you already spend your $$$ - better luck next time.</p><p>Considering that there are 0-1 movies worth watching in a year, internet sampling results in at huge loss of revenue to any mediocre movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To those who advocate that pirates buy if they like :     When the movie comes out the only way to tell how good it is to watch it in theatre or rent it .
If it 's bad - you already spend your $ $ $ - better luck next time.Considering that there are 0-1 movies worth watching in a year , internet sampling results in at huge loss of revenue to any mediocre movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To those who advocate that pirates buy if they like:
    When the movie comes out the only way to tell how good it is to watch it in theatre or rent it.
If it's bad - you already spend your $$$ - better luck next time.Considering that there are 0-1 movies worth watching in a year, internet sampling results in at huge loss of revenue to any mediocre movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686900</id>
	<title>Yadda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270047240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yadda yadda yadda. Vermin like this continue to infest the country because pussies like you yap on slashdot instead of exterminating them. you know where they are. you know who they are what are you waiting for</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yadda yadda yadda .
Vermin like this continue to infest the country because pussies like you yap on slashdot instead of exterminating them .
you know where they are .
you know who they are what are you waiting for</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yadda yadda yadda.
Vermin like this continue to infest the country because pussies like you yap on slashdot instead of exterminating them.
you know where they are.
you know who they are what are you waiting for</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1269956220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the classic corporate-welfare strategy: you failed in the market, so get the government to force people to pay you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the classic corporate-welfare strategy : you failed in the market , so get the government to force people to pay you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the classic corporate-welfare strategy: you failed in the market, so get the government to force people to pay you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683370</id>
	<title>just bill them</title>
	<author>greywire</author>
	<datestamp>1269974700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they just bill every infringer for the actual current cost of the item in question?  Rather than all the expense (not to mention bad publicity) of suing hundreds of thousands of people.  And if they don't pay, send them to collections.</p><p>I bet a lot of those people would probably just pay the $20 and be done with it, especially after hearing about all the lawsuits.  How many of those people probably actually don't know they shouldn't be downloading movies?  How many are kids and their parents would gladly pay the money and then ground their kids for a week.</p><p>Seriously, nobody is thinking about this in a reasonable, practical way.  Both sides are wrong.  The content owners are being dicks for suing everyone in sight, but the people downloading stuff are also being dicks because they don't have the right to just take stuff.</p><p>Everybody needs to stop being a dick and just settle this reasonably.</p><p>Yeah, right..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just bill every infringer for the actual current cost of the item in question ?
Rather than all the expense ( not to mention bad publicity ) of suing hundreds of thousands of people .
And if they do n't pay , send them to collections.I bet a lot of those people would probably just pay the $ 20 and be done with it , especially after hearing about all the lawsuits .
How many of those people probably actually do n't know they should n't be downloading movies ?
How many are kids and their parents would gladly pay the money and then ground their kids for a week.Seriously , nobody is thinking about this in a reasonable , practical way .
Both sides are wrong .
The content owners are being dicks for suing everyone in sight , but the people downloading stuff are also being dicks because they do n't have the right to just take stuff.Everybody needs to stop being a dick and just settle this reasonably.Yeah , right. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just bill every infringer for the actual current cost of the item in question?
Rather than all the expense (not to mention bad publicity) of suing hundreds of thousands of people.
And if they don't pay, send them to collections.I bet a lot of those people would probably just pay the $20 and be done with it, especially after hearing about all the lawsuits.
How many of those people probably actually don't know they shouldn't be downloading movies?
How many are kids and their parents would gladly pay the money and then ground their kids for a week.Seriously, nobody is thinking about this in a reasonable, practical way.
Both sides are wrong.
The content owners are being dicks for suing everyone in sight, but the people downloading stuff are also being dicks because they don't have the right to just take stuff.Everybody needs to stop being a dick and just settle this reasonably.Yeah, right..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680404</id>
	<title>Re:"massive litigation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Distribution isn't expensive.  Content creation is expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Distribution is n't expensive .
Content creation is expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Distribution isn't expensive.
Content creation is expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31695700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31695194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31697046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31695818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31689966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31692916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31696964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31705350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31690108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31679990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31679990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_2352256_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31690108
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31695700
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681144
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681752
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687554
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685246
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31697046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31695194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31695818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31696964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681474
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31705350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31679990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31689966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31679978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31682976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31688614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31692916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31683548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31686866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31685724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31681992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31687996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31691358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31684438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_2352256.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_2352256.31680586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
