<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_08_1548242</id>
	<title>Epix Provides "Free" HD Studio Content Via TV and Internet</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244480700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>It looks as though the movie studios are at least trying to learn from past failures and others' success with the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/06/movie-studios-launch-epix.ars">upcoming launch of Epix</a> (beta starts today), an HD television channel and accompanying online 720p service.  The good part about this service is, if you are lucky enough to have a television provider who decides to become a partner, you wont have to pay extra to get it.  The main downside, of course, is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe.  <i>"Like Hulu, the Epix movie service is a joint venture formed by the content owners; in this case, the service is powered by the movie studios Lions Gate, Paramount, and MGM. The Epix TV network will air movies that are in the "pay-TV" window &mdash; those weeks before a film appears on DVD in which it is available on pay-per-view or HBO, among others."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks as though the movie studios are at least trying to learn from past failures and others ' success with the upcoming launch of Epix ( beta starts today ) , an HD television channel and accompanying online 720p service .
The good part about this service is , if you are lucky enough to have a television provider who decides to become a partner , you wont have to pay extra to get it .
The main downside , of course , is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe .
" Like Hulu , the Epix movie service is a joint venture formed by the content owners ; in this case , the service is powered by the movie studios Lions Gate , Paramount , and MGM .
The Epix TV network will air movies that are in the " pay-TV " window    those weeks before a film appears on DVD in which it is available on pay-per-view or HBO , among others .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks as though the movie studios are at least trying to learn from past failures and others' success with the upcoming launch of Epix (beta starts today), an HD television channel and accompanying online 720p service.
The good part about this service is, if you are lucky enough to have a television provider who decides to become a partner, you wont have to pay extra to get it.
The main downside, of course, is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe.
"Like Hulu, the Epix movie service is a joint venture formed by the content owners; in this case, the service is powered by the movie studios Lions Gate, Paramount, and MGM.
The Epix TV network will air movies that are in the "pay-TV" window — those weeks before a film appears on DVD in which it is available on pay-per-view or HBO, among others.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254033</id>
	<title>Re:And when it dies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244490000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For right now its "Free Epix!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For right now its " Free Epix !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For right now its "Free Epix!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253815</id>
	<title>Not The Phone</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244489220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Protip:  This is unrelated to the Samsung Epix (i907) cellphone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Protip : This is unrelated to the Samsung Epix ( i907 ) cellphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protip:  This is unrelated to the Samsung Epix (i907) cellphone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253197</id>
	<title>Someone is about to get paid!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244486340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like <a href="http://www.epix.com/" title="epix.com" rel="nofollow">Epix</a> [epix.com] is about to be rich!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like Epix [ epix.com ] is about to be rich !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like Epix [epix.com] is about to be rich!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28256267</id>
	<title>space alien commercials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244454480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You haven't seen Hulu's commercials, have you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't seen Hulu 's commercials , have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't seen Hulu's commercials, have you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252923</id>
	<title>ESPN Now Has this Model...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe."</p><p>Yeah, that's what ESPN is doing now with ESPN 360.  The ISP subscribes or you are out of luck.  ESPN would actually make money off of me if they bothered to set up their own network infrastructure instead of charging local ISPs for the privilege.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe .
" Yeah , that 's what ESPN is doing now with ESPN 360 .
The ISP subscribes or you are out of luck .
ESPN would actually make money off of me if they bothered to set up their own network infrastructure instead of charging local ISPs for the privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe.
"Yeah, that's what ESPN is doing now with ESPN 360.
The ISP subscribes or you are out of luck.
ESPN would actually make money off of me if they bothered to set up their own network infrastructure instead of charging local ISPs for the privilege.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28255357</id>
	<title>Useless</title>
	<author>yawn9</author>
	<datestamp>1244451720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use DirecTV as my TV service.  Even if they add this channel (they wont because it competes with pay per view), they would use it as another reason to raise my bill.  I also wouldn't be able to use the online streaming, as a techie with other options is obviously not going to use satellite Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use DirecTV as my TV service .
Even if they add this channel ( they wont because it competes with pay per view ) , they would use it as another reason to raise my bill .
I also would n't be able to use the online streaming , as a techie with other options is obviously not going to use satellite Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use DirecTV as my TV service.
Even if they add this channel (they wont because it competes with pay per view), they would use it as another reason to raise my bill.
I also wouldn't be able to use the online streaming, as a techie with other options is obviously not going to use satellite Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28256611</id>
	<title>Woot!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244455680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally we can play Lunar Outpost again?</p><p>Oh... not that Epyx. Nevermind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally we can play Lunar Outpost again ? Oh... not that Epyx .
Nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally we can play Lunar Outpost again?Oh... not that Epyx.
Nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252951</id>
	<title>Learn from past mistakes?</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1244484960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think not. This is the content providers selling access to their cable arms. This is just another attempt to turn the internet into AOL.</p><p>If they had learned anything the films would be available to anyone with the cash in hand and would be in an unDRMed format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think not .
This is the content providers selling access to their cable arms .
This is just another attempt to turn the internet into AOL.If they had learned anything the films would be available to anyone with the cash in hand and would be in an unDRMed format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think not.
This is the content providers selling access to their cable arms.
This is just another attempt to turn the internet into AOL.If they had learned anything the films would be available to anyone with the cash in hand and would be in an unDRMed format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254091</id>
	<title>Re:No chance</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1244490300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's "free" but probably only with higher priced cable packages.  They're only saying that it will be included with a package, not that it's really free.  I'm sure it wouldn't come with basic cable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's " free " but probably only with higher priced cable packages .
They 're only saying that it will be included with a package , not that it 's really free .
I 'm sure it would n't come with basic cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's "free" but probably only with higher priced cable packages.
They're only saying that it will be included with a package, not that it's really free.
I'm sure it wouldn't come with basic cable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253309</id>
	<title>The new meaning of Free</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1244486820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this isn't a RMS-style rant.</p><p>Most of you gladly pay for your cable/satellite services.  You watch maybe 10\% of the stuff in a given package as sold by the providers. If, in some fairy tale, this service were actually to be bundled for the vast majority of you, it's hardly free.</p><p>Is this what 'free' has come to mean?  It is a dumb question, but I just don't see how it can be rationalized as free to the point that editors will just let it go.  OTOH, it could be a slashvertisement.</p><p>Still, I want to know.  Is this what 'free' means to most people when they think about entertainment media?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is n't a RMS-style rant.Most of you gladly pay for your cable/satellite services .
You watch maybe 10 \ % of the stuff in a given package as sold by the providers .
If , in some fairy tale , this service were actually to be bundled for the vast majority of you , it 's hardly free.Is this what 'free ' has come to mean ?
It is a dumb question , but I just do n't see how it can be rationalized as free to the point that editors will just let it go .
OTOH , it could be a slashvertisement.Still , I want to know .
Is this what 'free ' means to most people when they think about entertainment media ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this isn't a RMS-style rant.Most of you gladly pay for your cable/satellite services.
You watch maybe 10\% of the stuff in a given package as sold by the providers.
If, in some fairy tale, this service were actually to be bundled for the vast majority of you, it's hardly free.Is this what 'free' has come to mean?
It is a dumb question, but I just don't see how it can be rationalized as free to the point that editors will just let it go.
OTOH, it could be a slashvertisement.Still, I want to know.
Is this what 'free' means to most people when they think about entertainment media?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253227</id>
	<title>Could be nice in the begining.</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1244486520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This could be great at first if it works and gains ground, but I don't foresee this service staying free for a large period of time. I mean look at Hulu, It has not been around long at all and already they are considering changing the service from free to paid. Greed and capitalism of the entertainment industry keep anything from being free for too long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be great at first if it works and gains ground , but I do n't foresee this service staying free for a large period of time .
I mean look at Hulu , It has not been around long at all and already they are considering changing the service from free to paid .
Greed and capitalism of the entertainment industry keep anything from being free for too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be great at first if it works and gains ground, but I don't foresee this service staying free for a large period of time.
I mean look at Hulu, It has not been around long at all and already they are considering changing the service from free to paid.
Greed and capitalism of the entertainment industry keep anything from being free for too long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253203</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244486340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I can't say for sure, but my guess would be that they're looking at how much revenue they're losing to online torrents and asking themselves, "Is there any way we can get that business?"
</p><p>As for the alternatives, they don't care about cannibalizing DVD rentals, because they don't really make money from them.  They could license the same content to HBO, but then they basically have to take the cut of profits that HBO gives them.  Why not just start your own channel and keep all the profits for yourself?  They might hurt DVD sales, but they might believe that DVD sales are already on the way out.
</p><p>Ultimately they're faced with a problem.  Their old business model depended on having complete control over distribution, so if you wanted to see a movie just out in theaters, you had to rush to see in in theaters or else wait a year for it to come out on video.  If you wanted to see the movie during the time between theatrical release and video release, well... tough.  These days, if you really want to see a movie, you can often get it online before the theatrical release, most likely before it comes out on video, and certainly once it's been released to video.  The movie studio has to make it a little more pleasant and convenient for people to see the movies they want to see, when they want to see it, and how they want to see it, or risk having their current business model fall apart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I ca n't say for sure , but my guess would be that they 're looking at how much revenue they 're losing to online torrents and asking themselves , " Is there any way we can get that business ?
" As for the alternatives , they do n't care about cannibalizing DVD rentals , because they do n't really make money from them .
They could license the same content to HBO , but then they basically have to take the cut of profits that HBO gives them .
Why not just start your own channel and keep all the profits for yourself ?
They might hurt DVD sales , but they might believe that DVD sales are already on the way out .
Ultimately they 're faced with a problem .
Their old business model depended on having complete control over distribution , so if you wanted to see a movie just out in theaters , you had to rush to see in in theaters or else wait a year for it to come out on video .
If you wanted to see the movie during the time between theatrical release and video release , well... tough. These days , if you really want to see a movie , you can often get it online before the theatrical release , most likely before it comes out on video , and certainly once it 's been released to video .
The movie studio has to make it a little more pleasant and convenient for people to see the movies they want to see , when they want to see it , and how they want to see it , or risk having their current business model fall apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I can't say for sure, but my guess would be that they're looking at how much revenue they're losing to online torrents and asking themselves, "Is there any way we can get that business?
"
As for the alternatives, they don't care about cannibalizing DVD rentals, because they don't really make money from them.
They could license the same content to HBO, but then they basically have to take the cut of profits that HBO gives them.
Why not just start your own channel and keep all the profits for yourself?
They might hurt DVD sales, but they might believe that DVD sales are already on the way out.
Ultimately they're faced with a problem.
Their old business model depended on having complete control over distribution, so if you wanted to see a movie just out in theaters, you had to rush to see in in theaters or else wait a year for it to come out on video.
If you wanted to see the movie during the time between theatrical release and video release, well... tough.  These days, if you really want to see a movie, you can often get it online before the theatrical release, most likely before it comes out on video, and certainly once it's been released to video.
The movie studio has to make it a little more pleasant and convenient for people to see the movies they want to see, when they want to see it, and how they want to see it, or risk having their current business model fall apart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311</id>
	<title>binary in their HTML code</title>
	<author>bwindle2</author>
	<datestamp>1244486820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anybody else notice the binary block in their front page's HTML code (        01010111011001010010011101110010
        01100101001000000110111001101111
        00100000011100110111010001110010
        01100001011011100110011101100101
        01110010011100110010000001110100
        01101111001000000110110001101111
        01110110011001010000110100001010
        01011001011011110111010100100000
        01101011011011100110111101110111
        00100000011101000110100001100101
        00100000011100100111010101101100
        01100101011100110010110000100000
        01100001011011100110010000100000
        01110011011011110010000001100100
        011011110010000001001001)?

 It translates to

"We're no strangers to love
You know the rules, and so do I"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anybody else notice the binary block in their front page 's HTML code ( 01010111011001010010011101110010 01100101001000000110111001101111 00100000011100110111010001110010 01100001011011100110011101100101 01110010011100110010000001110100 01101111001000000110110001101111 01110110011001010000110100001010 01011001011011110111010100100000 01101011011011100110111101110111 00100000011101000110100001100101 00100000011100100111010101101100 01100101011100110010110000100000 01100001011011100110010000100000 01110011011011110010000001100100 011011110010000001001001 ) ?
It translates to " We 're no strangers to love You know the rules , and so do I "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anybody else notice the binary block in their front page's HTML code (        01010111011001010010011101110010
        01100101001000000110111001101111
        00100000011100110111010001110010
        01100001011011100110011101100101
        01110010011100110010000001110100
        01101111001000000110110001101111
        01110110011001010000110100001010
        01011001011011110111010100100000
        01101011011011100110111101110111
        00100000011101000110100001100101
        00100000011100100111010101101100
        01100101011100110010110000100000
        01100001011011100110010000100000
        01110011011011110010000001100100
        011011110010000001001001)?
It translates to

"We're no strangers to love
You know the rules, and so do I"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28260401</id>
	<title>Re:binary in their HTML code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows line ending? They failed to roll this slashdotter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows line ending ?
They failed to roll this slashdotter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows line ending?
They failed to roll this slashdotter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254745</id>
	<title>Re:binary in their HTML code</title>
	<author>bwindle2</author>
	<datestamp>1244493120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sales pitch? I Googled the translated phrase.. turns out I got Rick Rolled via binary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sales pitch ?
I Googled the translated phrase.. turns out I got Rick Rolled via binary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sales pitch?
I Googled the translated phrase.. turns out I got Rick Rolled via binary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253373</id>
	<title>Re:ESPN Now Has this Model...</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1244487300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you see how that would empower the telcos who own most of the network needed to do what you describe?</p><p>Remember that the telcos are trying to extend their monopoly into entertainment while POTS service slowly dies.  The entertainment conglomerates would rather maintain their own monopoly over the distribution of entertainment at the expense of the telcos.</p><p>Do you see how a-la-carte media distribution will probably never come to pass in the U.S.?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you see how that would empower the telcos who own most of the network needed to do what you describe ? Remember that the telcos are trying to extend their monopoly into entertainment while POTS service slowly dies .
The entertainment conglomerates would rather maintain their own monopoly over the distribution of entertainment at the expense of the telcos.Do you see how a-la-carte media distribution will probably never come to pass in the U.S. ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you see how that would empower the telcos who own most of the network needed to do what you describe?Remember that the telcos are trying to extend their monopoly into entertainment while POTS service slowly dies.
The entertainment conglomerates would rather maintain their own monopoly over the distribution of entertainment at the expense of the telcos.Do you see how a-la-carte media distribution will probably never come to pass in the U.S.?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254315</id>
	<title>Re:Just like Hulu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244491260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can watch all sorts of PBS documentaries on Hulu...please take your pseudo intellectual indignation elsewhere.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can watch all sorts of PBS documentaries on Hulu...please take your pseudo intellectual indignation elsewhere .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can watch all sorts of PBS documentaries on Hulu...please take your pseudo intellectual indignation elsewhere.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28258091</id>
	<title>Oblig Nightmare Ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244461260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rikomatic/1418564994/sizes/o/" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/rikomatic/1418564994/sizes/o/</a> [flickr.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.flickr.com/photos/rikomatic/1418564994/sizes/o/ [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rikomatic/1418564994/sizes/o/ [flickr.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254061</id>
	<title>if you can't subscribe...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1244490120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe."
</p><p>
So, about half the internet population heaves a sigh and says to themselves, "well, I guess I'll just have to go back to torrenting".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe .
" So , about half the internet population heaves a sigh and says to themselves , " well , I guess I 'll just have to go back to torrenting " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe.
"

So, about half the internet population heaves a sigh and says to themselves, "well, I guess I'll just have to go back to torrenting".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253089</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1244485620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this really a good idea?</p><p>Upsides:<br>No fees listed on cable bill<br>Can stream to computer or watch HD channel directly<br>No ads</p><p>Downsides:<br>Service is -not- free.  Only way to get it is for your Cable provider to subscribe and pass that cost on to every single subscriber, whether they want it or not, as part of their standard cable bill.</p><p>This could be a nice service, if you could sign up for it as an individual and it was reasonably priced.  I can't see how it could possibly be reasonably priced, though, since they are putting up movies that compete with rentals and PPV.  Unless, of course, it's only old crappy movies, and then it's crap you could watch anyhow, but with ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this really a good idea ? Upsides : No fees listed on cable billCan stream to computer or watch HD channel directlyNo adsDownsides : Service is -not- free .
Only way to get it is for your Cable provider to subscribe and pass that cost on to every single subscriber , whether they want it or not , as part of their standard cable bill.This could be a nice service , if you could sign up for it as an individual and it was reasonably priced .
I ca n't see how it could possibly be reasonably priced , though , since they are putting up movies that compete with rentals and PPV .
Unless , of course , it 's only old crappy movies , and then it 's crap you could watch anyhow , but with ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this really a good idea?Upsides:No fees listed on cable billCan stream to computer or watch HD channel directlyNo adsDownsides:Service is -not- free.
Only way to get it is for your Cable provider to subscribe and pass that cost on to every single subscriber, whether they want it or not, as part of their standard cable bill.This could be a nice service, if you could sign up for it as an individual and it was reasonably priced.
I can't see how it could possibly be reasonably priced, though, since they are putting up movies that compete with rentals and PPV.
Unless, of course, it's only old crappy movies, and then it's crap you could watch anyhow, but with ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253523</id>
	<title>Re:binary in their HTML code</title>
	<author>crossal</author>
	<datestamp>1244488080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Long Live Rick Astley</htmltext>
<tokenext>Long Live Rick Astley</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long Live Rick Astley</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252961</id>
	<title>Just like Hulu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244485020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They both rot your brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They both rot your brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They both rot your brains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254613</id>
	<title>Re:binary in their HTML code</title>
	<author>Killer Orca</author>
	<datestamp>1244492580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only person who doesn't browse by viewing pages' HTML?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only person who does n't browse by viewing pages ' HTML ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only person who doesn't browse by viewing pages' HTML?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253671</id>
	<title>Lionsgate</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1244488740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh great Lionsgate is involved. That means 99.9995\% of the content will be crap.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0001\% will be decent and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0004\% will do nicely in overseas markets when put on DVD.</p><p>A "Polished Turd" will stink up the basket no matter how many flowers you put in the basket with it....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh great Lionsgate is involved .
That means 99.9995 \ % of the content will be crap .
.0001 \ % will be decent and .0004 \ % will do nicely in overseas markets when put on DVD.A " Polished Turd " will stink up the basket no matter how many flowers you put in the basket with it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh great Lionsgate is involved.
That means 99.9995\% of the content will be crap.
.0001\% will be decent and .0004\% will do nicely in overseas markets when put on DVD.A "Polished Turd" will stink up the basket no matter how many flowers you put in the basket with it....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253059</id>
	<title>And when it dies</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1244485500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>we can all say, "Epix Fail!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>we can all say , " Epix Fail !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we can all say, "Epix Fail!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253661</id>
	<title>Like ESPN360?</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1244488620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is like <a href="http://www.espn360.com/" title="espn360.com">ESPN360</a> [espn360.com] like AT&amp;T ISP can show this, but not TWC's RoadRunner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is like ESPN360 [ espn360.com ] like AT&amp;T ISP can show this , but not TWC 's RoadRunner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is like ESPN360 [espn360.com] like AT&amp;T ISP can show this, but not TWC's RoadRunner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253597</id>
	<title>Re:binary in their HTML code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244488440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about it: there are numerous folks on places like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that would never DREAM of visiting a page like this under normal circumstances.</p><p>However, let one geek work out what that binary is and post it, and suddenly a large fraction of those folks will thunder over there to confirm it for themselves.</p><p>AAAAANNNNNND, those folks will be amused, and thus will be in a more receptive frame of mind to accept the sales pitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about it : there are numerous folks on places like / .
that would never DREAM of visiting a page like this under normal circumstances.However , let one geek work out what that binary is and post it , and suddenly a large fraction of those folks will thunder over there to confirm it for themselves.AAAAANNNNNND , those folks will be amused , and thus will be in a more receptive frame of mind to accept the sales pitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about it: there are numerous folks on places like /.
that would never DREAM of visiting a page like this under normal circumstances.However, let one geek work out what that binary is and post it, and suddenly a large fraction of those folks will thunder over there to confirm it for themselves.AAAAANNNNNND, those folks will be amused, and thus will be in a more receptive frame of mind to accept the sales pitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252895</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">Fantastic</a> [goatse.fr]</p><p>Fucking file sharing faggots should enjoy it, getting something for free. They will probably watch or record every second just because they can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fantastic [ goatse.fr ] Fucking file sharing faggots should enjoy it , getting something for free .
They will probably watch or record every second just because they can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fantastic [goatse.fr]Fucking file sharing faggots should enjoy it, getting something for free.
They will probably watch or record every second just because they can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252989</id>
	<title>No chance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244485140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Cable companies make money on pay-per-view. This product would provide the same movies for free to subscribers, and would probably cost cable companies themselves to offer it. Given that cable companies are in the business of making money, it would seem like they have every reason to avoid this.<br>2. The article says that Netflix isn't a viable outlet for the studios because it doesn't have many new releases.</p><p><i>"the real question is why the studios would launch their own distribution network instead of just offloading the films to partners already equipped to handle them? Rensing insists that the services are just too different. While Hulu does offer some films, it's focused almost exclusively on TV at the moment and is ad-supported. Netflix On Demand doesn't have access to the same super-recent hit titles."</i> [FTFA, no edits]</p><p>How is that a reason? The studios don't let Netflix stream the new movies. That's not a distribution system issue, it's a policy decision by these very studios. It's just sloppy reporting, I guess. It should just say "The studios don't want to use Netflix On Demand."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Cable companies make money on pay-per-view .
This product would provide the same movies for free to subscribers , and would probably cost cable companies themselves to offer it .
Given that cable companies are in the business of making money , it would seem like they have every reason to avoid this.2 .
The article says that Netflix is n't a viable outlet for the studios because it does n't have many new releases .
" the real question is why the studios would launch their own distribution network instead of just offloading the films to partners already equipped to handle them ?
Rensing insists that the services are just too different .
While Hulu does offer some films , it 's focused almost exclusively on TV at the moment and is ad-supported .
Netflix On Demand does n't have access to the same super-recent hit titles .
" [ FTFA , no edits ] How is that a reason ?
The studios do n't let Netflix stream the new movies .
That 's not a distribution system issue , it 's a policy decision by these very studios .
It 's just sloppy reporting , I guess .
It should just say " The studios do n't want to use Netflix On Demand .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Cable companies make money on pay-per-view.
This product would provide the same movies for free to subscribers, and would probably cost cable companies themselves to offer it.
Given that cable companies are in the business of making money, it would seem like they have every reason to avoid this.2.
The article says that Netflix isn't a viable outlet for the studios because it doesn't have many new releases.
"the real question is why the studios would launch their own distribution network instead of just offloading the films to partners already equipped to handle them?
Rensing insists that the services are just too different.
While Hulu does offer some films, it's focused almost exclusively on TV at the moment and is ad-supported.
Netflix On Demand doesn't have access to the same super-recent hit titles.
" [FTFA, no edits]How is that a reason?
The studios don't let Netflix stream the new movies.
That's not a distribution system issue, it's a policy decision by these very studios.
It's just sloppy reporting, I guess.
It should just say "The studios don't want to use Netflix On Demand.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28260713</id>
	<title>SO let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>SuperCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1244476260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New HD Movies!! Yay!!<br> <br>

Well, just the PPV for them but you know, online..<br> <br>

Oh..<br> <br>

Right before they go to DVD<br> <br>

Oh..<br> <br>

And only if your cable company subscribes to this..<br> <br>

Oh..<br> <br>

So if I already have cable with PPV, why do I need this again? Is it that the cable companies who do sign up wont have these available as regular PPV? I doubt it..<br> <br>

This is stupid in too many ways..<br> <br>

Aborting/Retry/Fail  (Y) to all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New HD Movies ! !
Yay ! ! Well , just the PPV for them but you know , online. . Oh. . Right before they go to DVD Oh. . And only if your cable company subscribes to this. . Oh. . So if I already have cable with PPV , why do I need this again ?
Is it that the cable companies who do sign up wont have these available as regular PPV ?
I doubt it. . This is stupid in too many ways. . Aborting/Retry/Fail ( Y ) to all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New HD Movies!!
Yay!! 

Well, just the PPV for them but you know, online.. 

Oh.. 

Right before they go to DVD 

Oh.. 

And only if your cable company subscribes to this.. 

Oh.. 

So if I already have cable with PPV, why do I need this again?
Is it that the cable companies who do sign up wont have these available as regular PPV?
I doubt it.. 

This is stupid in too many ways.. 

Aborting/Retry/Fail  (Y) to all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253569</id>
	<title>Re:binary in their HTML code</title>
	<author>KingPin27</author>
	<datestamp>1244488320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i think what they meant was

0111011101100101
0010000001100001
0111001001100101
0010000001110100
0110010101101000
0010000001100111
0110000101111001
0010000100001101
0000101001011010
0100111101001101
0100011101000110
0101010001010111</htmltext>
<tokenext>i think what they meant was 0111011101100101 0010000001100001 0111001001100101 0010000001110100 0110010101101000 0010000001100111 0110000101111001 0010000100001101 0000101001011010 0100111101001101 0100011101000110 0101010001010111</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think what they meant was

0111011101100101
0010000001100001
0111001001100101
0010000001110100
0110010101101000
0010000001100111
0110000101111001
0010000100001101
0000101001011010
0100111101001101
0100011101000110
0101010001010111</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252959</id>
	<title>Cable providers biting the hands that feed them?</title>
	<author>imajinarie</author>
	<datestamp>1244484960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, though. I can't imagine cable providers wanting to upset the likes of HBO, Showtime, Max, etc, by agreeing to an untested service that directly competes with those?  Have to wait and see, whenever they announce the partners.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , though .
I ca n't imagine cable providers wanting to upset the likes of HBO , Showtime , Max , etc , by agreeing to an untested service that directly competes with those ?
Have to wait and see , whenever they announce the partners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, though.
I can't imagine cable providers wanting to upset the likes of HBO, Showtime, Max, etc, by agreeing to an untested service that directly competes with those?
Have to wait and see, whenever they announce the partners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252935</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1244484900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would they do this?  This is going to compete against both pay-per-view/HBO and DVD sales/rentals, both of which bring in real revenue.  Are they really betting the ad revenue from Epix will offset that loss?  Or are they simply trying to attract attention without a business model?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would they do this ?
This is going to compete against both pay-per-view/HBO and DVD sales/rentals , both of which bring in real revenue .
Are they really betting the ad revenue from Epix will offset that loss ?
Or are they simply trying to attract attention without a business model ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would they do this?
This is going to compete against both pay-per-view/HBO and DVD sales/rentals, both of which bring in real revenue.
Are they really betting the ad revenue from Epix will offset that loss?
Or are they simply trying to attract attention without a business model?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253557</id>
	<title>International?</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1244488260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This won't be launched internationally. right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p</p><p>I mean, then they'd risk competing with piracy at large, and it seems like they prefer pissing people off instead to get their way in that area.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This wo n't be launched internationally .
right ? : -pI mean , then they 'd risk competing with piracy at large , and it seems like they prefer pissing people off instead to get their way in that area .
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This won't be launched internationally.
right? :-pI mean, then they'd risk competing with piracy at large, and it seems like they prefer pissing people off instead to get their way in that area.
:p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252949</id>
	<title>Question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So why should I aim for this and not... say, use an <i>alternate</i> means of watching films?<br> <br>Serious question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why should I aim for this and not... say , use an alternate means of watching films ?
Serious question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why should I aim for this and not... say, use an alternate means of watching films?
Serious question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252893</id>
	<title>Only for already subscribed users, not free.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see any good parts about this service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any good parts about this service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any good parts about this service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252901</id>
	<title>Sweet!</title>
	<author>imajinarie</author>
	<datestamp>1244484780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll set up my Boxee tonight to pick up these streams!  Which will probably work for about 1 1/2 days before being blocked!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll set up my Boxee tonight to pick up these streams !
Which will probably work for about 1 1/2 days before being blocked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll set up my Boxee tonight to pick up these streams!
Which will probably work for about 1 1/2 days before being blocked!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28260401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28256267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1548242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28260401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28256267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28254033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28253671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1548242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1548242.28252949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
