<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_20_1325216</id>
	<title>Doctorow Says Google &amp; Amazon Stifle Progress</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245507660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Google and Amazon are 'a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries' because they <a href="http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc\_id=178058&amp;print=yes">act as the intermediary between creators and audiences</a>, says Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow. He warns that the corporate giants will 'only fear competition from other established giants ... companies whose character as gatekeepers of video distribution and discovery won't be substantially different.' The solution, he says, is to use copyrights to lower the cost of entering the market. 'For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers, seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace, they're doomed to work for their gatekeepers,' he says."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Google and Amazon are 'a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries ' because they act as the intermediary between creators and audiences , says Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow .
He warns that the corporate giants will 'only fear competition from other established giants ... companies whose character as gatekeepers of video distribution and discovery wo n't be substantially different .
' The solution , he says , is to use copyrights to lower the cost of entering the market .
'For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers , seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace , they 're doomed to work for their gatekeepers, ' he says .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Google and Amazon are 'a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries' because they act as the intermediary between creators and audiences, says Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow.
He warns that the corporate giants will 'only fear competition from other established giants ... companies whose character as gatekeepers of video distribution and discovery won't be substantially different.
' The solution, he says, is to use copyrights to lower the cost of entering the market.
'For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers, seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace, they're doomed to work for their gatekeepers,' he says.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402375</id>
	<title>They ARE the Healthy Competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245517320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...they are fast becoming the intermediary between creators and audiences (and vice-versa), and that this poses a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries.</p></div><p>
He simply doesn't get it. Thankfully, he outlines just how little he gets it very early in his article but he wants more competition but fails to realize that Amazon and Google, <b>as intermediaries between creators and audiences</b>, ARE competition with big media companies. For too long, big media companies have sat back and been lazy as they've manipulated and controlled their industries with no real competition in sight. Now, companies like Amazon, Google, (and Apple with iTunes and others) are showing up and demonstrating that creators do not need big record labels (for example). They ARE the new competition and they are GOOD for the industry. Sure, some companies may end up going out of business (I'm looking at you big media!) because they have failed to adapt and evolve to the new technologies and meet consumer demand but that's natural. They will fail and the companies that remain will be better, healthier, and stronger. That's capitalism - meet demand or wither and die.<br> <br>
The only people who are endangered by companies like Google and Amazon are people working for big media - the competition - who are failing to adapt and evolve. Everyone else in "the creative industries" will benefit. Artists will have an easier time interacting with consumers and creators - the people who make a creative industry possible - will benefit.<br> <br>
I'm just glad he made it so clear so early on that he doesn't get it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...they are fast becoming the intermediary between creators and audiences ( and vice-versa ) , and that this poses a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries .
He simply does n't get it .
Thankfully , he outlines just how little he gets it very early in his article but he wants more competition but fails to realize that Amazon and Google , as intermediaries between creators and audiences , ARE competition with big media companies .
For too long , big media companies have sat back and been lazy as they 've manipulated and controlled their industries with no real competition in sight .
Now , companies like Amazon , Google , ( and Apple with iTunes and others ) are showing up and demonstrating that creators do not need big record labels ( for example ) .
They ARE the new competition and they are GOOD for the industry .
Sure , some companies may end up going out of business ( I 'm looking at you big media !
) because they have failed to adapt and evolve to the new technologies and meet consumer demand but that 's natural .
They will fail and the companies that remain will be better , healthier , and stronger .
That 's capitalism - meet demand or wither and die .
The only people who are endangered by companies like Google and Amazon are people working for big media - the competition - who are failing to adapt and evolve .
Everyone else in " the creative industries " will benefit .
Artists will have an easier time interacting with consumers and creators - the people who make a creative industry possible - will benefit .
I 'm just glad he made it so clear so early on that he does n't get it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...they are fast becoming the intermediary between creators and audiences (and vice-versa), and that this poses a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries.
He simply doesn't get it.
Thankfully, he outlines just how little he gets it very early in his article but he wants more competition but fails to realize that Amazon and Google, as intermediaries between creators and audiences, ARE competition with big media companies.
For too long, big media companies have sat back and been lazy as they've manipulated and controlled their industries with no real competition in sight.
Now, companies like Amazon, Google, (and Apple with iTunes and others) are showing up and demonstrating that creators do not need big record labels (for example).
They ARE the new competition and they are GOOD for the industry.
Sure, some companies may end up going out of business (I'm looking at you big media!
) because they have failed to adapt and evolve to the new technologies and meet consumer demand but that's natural.
They will fail and the companies that remain will be better, healthier, and stronger.
That's capitalism - meet demand or wither and die.
The only people who are endangered by companies like Google and Amazon are people working for big media - the competition - who are failing to adapt and evolve.
Everyone else in "the creative industries" will benefit.
Artists will have an easier time interacting with consumers and creators - the people who make a creative industry possible - will benefit.
I'm just glad he made it so clear so early on that he doesn't get it...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404059</id>
	<title>And Way Back in 2007...</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1245489840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Doctorow published his grocery list.  Slashdot trumped that up into a story as well</p><p>Taco -- Please, d00d, we're begging you.  Maybe he's great fun and always buys a round at the parties and conferences you both frequent, but the boy has jumped the shark.  Ya gotta learn to separate your work from your personal...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Doctorow published his grocery list .
Slashdot trumped that up into a story as wellTaco -- Please , d00d , we 're begging you .
Maybe he 's great fun and always buys a round at the parties and conferences you both frequent , but the boy has jumped the shark .
Ya got ta learn to separate your work from your personal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Doctorow published his grocery list.
Slashdot trumped that up into a story as wellTaco -- Please, d00d, we're begging you.
Maybe he's great fun and always buys a round at the parties and conferences you both frequent, but the boy has jumped the shark.
Ya gotta learn to separate your work from your personal...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404331</id>
	<title>Simpleton blabber</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245492600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This dense idiot makes the same mistake as other idiots who should not be allowed to utter the word "monopoly".</p><p>The reason they are GIANTS is because they as gatekeepers keep the gate wide open and serve their customers well. If they suddenly want to become "evil", others will step up to do the job THEY used to.</p><p>It saddens me to see that today most people are morons when it comes to basic economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This dense idiot makes the same mistake as other idiots who should not be allowed to utter the word " monopoly " .The reason they are GIANTS is because they as gatekeepers keep the gate wide open and serve their customers well .
If they suddenly want to become " evil " , others will step up to do the job THEY used to.It saddens me to see that today most people are morons when it comes to basic economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This dense idiot makes the same mistake as other idiots who should not be allowed to utter the word "monopoly".The reason they are GIANTS is because they as gatekeepers keep the gate wide open and serve their customers well.
If they suddenly want to become "evil", others will step up to do the job THEY used to.It saddens me to see that today most people are morons when it comes to basic economics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403395</id>
	<title>Amazon... isn't there already a boycott on?</title>
	<author>doom</author>
	<datestamp>1245526740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is the same Cory Doctorow that was never willing to respect the Amazon boycott, right?  As I remember it he was sticking Amazon affiliate links all over his site, long after slashdot had switched to bn.com.
</p><p>
And he's  <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/19/grant-morrison-book.html" title="boingboing.net">still doing it</a> [boingboing.net], isn't he?
</p><p>
Funny, he <i>sounds</i> like someone with a clue:</p><blockquote><div><p>That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer's market for creative works, control over the dominant distribution channel, and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made, distributed, appreciated, bought, and sold.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same Cory Doctorow that was never willing to respect the Amazon boycott , right ?
As I remember it he was sticking Amazon affiliate links all over his site , long after slashdot had switched to bn.com .
And he 's still doing it [ boingboing.net ] , is n't he ?
Funny , he sounds like someone with a clue : That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer 's market for creative works , control over the dominant distribution channel , and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made , distributed , appreciated , bought , and sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is the same Cory Doctorow that was never willing to respect the Amazon boycott, right?
As I remember it he was sticking Amazon affiliate links all over his site, long after slashdot had switched to bn.com.
And he's  still doing it [boingboing.net], isn't he?
Funny, he sounds like someone with a clue:That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer's market for creative works, control over the dominant distribution channel, and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made, distributed, appreciated, bought, and sold.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402023</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cory...</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1245514440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The pathetic thing about mr Doctorow's comment is that the media services provided by Amazon made it possible for the very first time in the history of the music business that a nobody could market it's modest album throughout the entire world without the intervention of the established music industry. Yes, amazon and the like are still middle men but this time the middle men only acts as the communications channel, without imposing any barriers to entry or even draconian distribution contracts thatm, for example, somehow automatically put the artists millions of dollars in debt, not to mention the Hollywood accountancy.

Let's see anyone do that with a geocities web site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The pathetic thing about mr Doctorow 's comment is that the media services provided by Amazon made it possible for the very first time in the history of the music business that a nobody could market it 's modest album throughout the entire world without the intervention of the established music industry .
Yes , amazon and the like are still middle men but this time the middle men only acts as the communications channel , without imposing any barriers to entry or even draconian distribution contracts thatm , for example , somehow automatically put the artists millions of dollars in debt , not to mention the Hollywood accountancy .
Let 's see anyone do that with a geocities web site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pathetic thing about mr Doctorow's comment is that the media services provided by Amazon made it possible for the very first time in the history of the music business that a nobody could market it's modest album throughout the entire world without the intervention of the established music industry.
Yes, amazon and the like are still middle men but this time the middle men only acts as the communications channel, without imposing any barriers to entry or even draconian distribution contracts thatm, for example, somehow automatically put the artists millions of dollars in debt, not to mention the Hollywood accountancy.
Let's see anyone do that with a geocities web site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402209</id>
	<title>Interesting thing - this is not only about music</title>
	<author>BigGerman</author>
	<datestamp>1245515940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. and similar.

This is also true about \_any\_ kind of creative work n the current situation. Consider creative works and "intellectual property" produced by coders. Same exact thing and same gatekeepers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. and similar .
This is also true about \ _any \ _ kind of creative work n the current situation .
Consider creative works and " intellectual property " produced by coders .
Same exact thing and same gatekeepers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. and similar.
This is also true about \_any\_ kind of creative work n the current situation.
Consider creative works and "intellectual property" produced by coders.
Same exact thing and same gatekeepers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403407</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cory...</title>
	<author>Rachel Lucid</author>
	<datestamp>1245526800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and no. There are a lot of webcomic creators (myself included) attempting to do this for better or worse.</p><p>Yes, intermediaries take a cut of our proceeds, but in exchange they provide a certain level of convenience - I can own a $300+ button-making machine and sell my own buttons as they're ordered online / at conventions, or I can focus on just making buttons for conventions (when I can make a reasonable estimate of how much I need at that time, hence can make a bunch at once on someone else's machine for just the cost of the buttons) and <a href="http://www.zazzle.com/lastres0rt*" title="zazzle.com">leave the online work to Zazzle, which does (in addition to buttons), several other items I can make and sell using the same images, with no upfront costs.</a> [zazzle.com]</p><p>At no time do I give up my copyrights to these images, so I can use them elsewhere, and if it doesn't work out, I haven't lost any money in the process.</p><p>Ideally, other POD systems or small-scale operations like Amazon's recent offerings make it EASIER for me to stand alone with marketing my work, by reducing the cost and issues with fulfillment.</p><p>A LOT of these creator-run operations don't have the time or money to run marketing research to decide if it's a good idea to make a hundred shirts, or X number of books (The cost per unit goes down as you order more, but at the same time, if it doesn't sell, it's just wasted product) so the solution requires a system that carries its own burden for the creator to reduce waste as much as possible.</p><p>We COULD do work without them... but then the game goes to the ones already big enough to handle their own fulfillment, or the ones foolish enough to invest lots of money in it before doing their homework. I'd rather have 'em than not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
There are a lot of webcomic creators ( myself included ) attempting to do this for better or worse.Yes , intermediaries take a cut of our proceeds , but in exchange they provide a certain level of convenience - I can own a $ 300 + button-making machine and sell my own buttons as they 're ordered online / at conventions , or I can focus on just making buttons for conventions ( when I can make a reasonable estimate of how much I need at that time , hence can make a bunch at once on someone else 's machine for just the cost of the buttons ) and leave the online work to Zazzle , which does ( in addition to buttons ) , several other items I can make and sell using the same images , with no upfront costs .
[ zazzle.com ] At no time do I give up my copyrights to these images , so I can use them elsewhere , and if it does n't work out , I have n't lost any money in the process.Ideally , other POD systems or small-scale operations like Amazon 's recent offerings make it EASIER for me to stand alone with marketing my work , by reducing the cost and issues with fulfillment.A LOT of these creator-run operations do n't have the time or money to run marketing research to decide if it 's a good idea to make a hundred shirts , or X number of books ( The cost per unit goes down as you order more , but at the same time , if it does n't sell , it 's just wasted product ) so the solution requires a system that carries its own burden for the creator to reduce waste as much as possible.We COULD do work without them... but then the game goes to the ones already big enough to handle their own fulfillment , or the ones foolish enough to invest lots of money in it before doing their homework .
I 'd rather have 'em than not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
There are a lot of webcomic creators (myself included) attempting to do this for better or worse.Yes, intermediaries take a cut of our proceeds, but in exchange they provide a certain level of convenience - I can own a $300+ button-making machine and sell my own buttons as they're ordered online / at conventions, or I can focus on just making buttons for conventions (when I can make a reasonable estimate of how much I need at that time, hence can make a bunch at once on someone else's machine for just the cost of the buttons) and leave the online work to Zazzle, which does (in addition to buttons), several other items I can make and sell using the same images, with no upfront costs.
[zazzle.com]At no time do I give up my copyrights to these images, so I can use them elsewhere, and if it doesn't work out, I haven't lost any money in the process.Ideally, other POD systems or small-scale operations like Amazon's recent offerings make it EASIER for me to stand alone with marketing my work, by reducing the cost and issues with fulfillment.A LOT of these creator-run operations don't have the time or money to run marketing research to decide if it's a good idea to make a hundred shirts, or X number of books (The cost per unit goes down as you order more, but at the same time, if it doesn't sell, it's just wasted product) so the solution requires a system that carries its own burden for the creator to reduce waste as much as possible.We COULD do work without them... but then the game goes to the ones already big enough to handle their own fulfillment, or the ones foolish enough to invest lots of money in it before doing their homework.
I'd rather have 'em than not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28412225</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245611700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically, the Reformation's emphasis on one's personal connection with God and direct interpretation of the bible has resulted in the current day Fundamentalist movement.  One of the reasons the Church did not want the bible translated into the vernacular was that, as a document, it is extraordinarily inconsistent and self contradictory.  It *needs* to be interpreted for what is doctrine, parables, eyewitness accounts (subject to human weaknesses), and semi-historical accounts.</p><p>Was the Church abusing that idea for the aggrandizement of the institution and the clergy?  Absolutely.  But if you want someone to blame for the the Fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, Creationism, etc., talk to Martin Luther, not the Pope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , the Reformation 's emphasis on one 's personal connection with God and direct interpretation of the bible has resulted in the current day Fundamentalist movement .
One of the reasons the Church did not want the bible translated into the vernacular was that , as a document , it is extraordinarily inconsistent and self contradictory .
It * needs * to be interpreted for what is doctrine , parables , eyewitness accounts ( subject to human weaknesses ) , and semi-historical accounts.Was the Church abusing that idea for the aggrandizement of the institution and the clergy ?
Absolutely. But if you want someone to blame for the the Fundamentalist interpretation of the bible , Creationism , etc. , talk to Martin Luther , not the Pope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, the Reformation's emphasis on one's personal connection with God and direct interpretation of the bible has resulted in the current day Fundamentalist movement.
One of the reasons the Church did not want the bible translated into the vernacular was that, as a document, it is extraordinarily inconsistent and self contradictory.
It *needs* to be interpreted for what is doctrine, parables, eyewitness accounts (subject to human weaknesses), and semi-historical accounts.Was the Church abusing that idea for the aggrandizement of the institution and the clergy?
Absolutely.  But if you want someone to blame for the the Fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, Creationism, etc., talk to Martin Luther, not the Pope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402045</id>
	<title>Culture PRE-DATES market, Cory!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245514680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original article is just an oh-so-typical piece of American thinking, wherein money and market are the ultimate movers of everything.</p><p>Of course, if your concept of culture stops at Coke, Pop Music and Hollywood, this may hold true. If it extends to encompass Homer, Beethoven, Boole, Sartre, or Australian aboriginal art, however, you'll have to admit there is no direct correspondence between cultural "value" and market "price". The CULTURAL value of Picasso is NOT the price of his painting as sold at the latest auction.</p><p>Culture will go on existing even after all the Googles, Amazons, Wall Streets and Doctorows have perished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original article is just an oh-so-typical piece of American thinking , wherein money and market are the ultimate movers of everything.Of course , if your concept of culture stops at Coke , Pop Music and Hollywood , this may hold true .
If it extends to encompass Homer , Beethoven , Boole , Sartre , or Australian aboriginal art , however , you 'll have to admit there is no direct correspondence between cultural " value " and market " price " .
The CULTURAL value of Picasso is NOT the price of his painting as sold at the latest auction.Culture will go on existing even after all the Googles , Amazons , Wall Streets and Doctorows have perished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original article is just an oh-so-typical piece of American thinking, wherein money and market are the ultimate movers of everything.Of course, if your concept of culture stops at Coke, Pop Music and Hollywood, this may hold true.
If it extends to encompass Homer, Beethoven, Boole, Sartre, or Australian aboriginal art, however, you'll have to admit there is no direct correspondence between cultural "value" and market "price".
The CULTURAL value of Picasso is NOT the price of his painting as sold at the latest auction.Culture will go on existing even after all the Googles, Amazons, Wall Streets and Doctorows have perished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403375</id>
	<title>ARE they now.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1245526560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does he also note down that google's adwords and adsense programs provided millions of individuals and small businesses with their breaks, because they were the first programs implemented by a major internet player to take small businesses, small webmasters and publishers seriously ?</p><p>before adwords and adsense, big players were treating small site owners and businesses like dirt. they didnt care zit about them, they were the pariah of the internet practically. you wouldnt get accepted into their advertising programs, you wouldnt advertise your site in their publishing organs and so on. we never existed. we were 'infeasible'.</p><p>google gave people a huge break with adsense and adwords. i myself saw a lot of small sites became noticeable publishers and startup, one man show businesses become small businesses with my own eyes. (im a web developer). same goes for amazon, they took small people seriously and provided various apis and syndication options right before anyone cared. a lot of people are making a living out of them now.</p><p>finally i would like to note that as someone who lived through the period and knows which corporations brought innovation and competition and which stifled it, i dont give a flying fuck about Cory Doctorow's opinions and woes. less Doctorows, the better in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does he also note down that google 's adwords and adsense programs provided millions of individuals and small businesses with their breaks , because they were the first programs implemented by a major internet player to take small businesses , small webmasters and publishers seriously ? before adwords and adsense , big players were treating small site owners and businesses like dirt .
they didnt care zit about them , they were the pariah of the internet practically .
you wouldnt get accepted into their advertising programs , you wouldnt advertise your site in their publishing organs and so on .
we never existed .
we were 'infeasible'.google gave people a huge break with adsense and adwords .
i myself saw a lot of small sites became noticeable publishers and startup , one man show businesses become small businesses with my own eyes .
( im a web developer ) .
same goes for amazon , they took small people seriously and provided various apis and syndication options right before anyone cared .
a lot of people are making a living out of them now.finally i would like to note that as someone who lived through the period and knows which corporations brought innovation and competition and which stifled it , i dont give a flying fuck about Cory Doctorow 's opinions and woes .
less Doctorows , the better in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does he also note down that google's adwords and adsense programs provided millions of individuals and small businesses with their breaks, because they were the first programs implemented by a major internet player to take small businesses, small webmasters and publishers seriously ?before adwords and adsense, big players were treating small site owners and businesses like dirt.
they didnt care zit about them, they were the pariah of the internet practically.
you wouldnt get accepted into their advertising programs, you wouldnt advertise your site in their publishing organs and so on.
we never existed.
we were 'infeasible'.google gave people a huge break with adsense and adwords.
i myself saw a lot of small sites became noticeable publishers and startup, one man show businesses become small businesses with my own eyes.
(im a web developer).
same goes for amazon, they took small people seriously and provided various apis and syndication options right before anyone cared.
a lot of people are making a living out of them now.finally i would like to note that as someone who lived through the period and knows which corporations brought innovation and competition and which stifled it, i dont give a flying fuck about Cory Doctorow's opinions and woes.
less Doctorows, the better in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401733</id>
	<title>As soon as</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245512160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as we get rid of all these "intermediaries" we're going to have this wonderful creative utopia where everyone will magically know exactly what it is that they want and will be able to find it in a millisecond. You know what? In this wonderful future world, sites like Boing Boing and Slashdot will have no reason to exist at all, so they may as well just close up shop now. After all, they're just intermediaries/gatekeepers who are stifling my creative abilities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as we get rid of all these " intermediaries " we 're going to have this wonderful creative utopia where everyone will magically know exactly what it is that they want and will be able to find it in a millisecond .
You know what ?
In this wonderful future world , sites like Boing Boing and Slashdot will have no reason to exist at all , so they may as well just close up shop now .
After all , they 're just intermediaries/gatekeepers who are stifling my creative abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as we get rid of all these "intermediaries" we're going to have this wonderful creative utopia where everyone will magically know exactly what it is that they want and will be able to find it in a millisecond.
You know what?
In this wonderful future world, sites like Boing Boing and Slashdot will have no reason to exist at all, so they may as well just close up shop now.
After all, they're just intermediaries/gatekeepers who are stifling my creative abilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402649</id>
	<title>As long as...</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245520620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as big content is simply trying to play shave-the-penny toll booth, and content creators are content to cede control of sales to others, others will find a way to make all the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as big content is simply trying to play shave-the-penny toll booth , and content creators are content to cede control of sales to others , others will find a way to make all the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as big content is simply trying to play shave-the-penny toll booth, and content creators are content to cede control of sales to others, others will find a way to make all the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404597</id>
	<title>Re:Move along...</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1245494820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google and Amazon do not, keep the gate, google in particular is only a search engine, *the Internet is the gate*, Google in particular has no intention of hiding niche websitesHoly Shatnercommas, Batman!</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google and Amazon do not , keep the gate , google in particular is only a search engine , * the Internet is the gate * , Google in particular has no intention of hiding niche websitesHoly Shatnercommas , Batman !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google and Amazon do not, keep the gate, google in particular is only a search engine, *the Internet is the gate*, Google in particular has no intention of hiding niche websitesHoly Shatnercommas, Batman!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402793</id>
	<title>Um, what about publishers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245521880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this <b>any</b> different than a publisher of games, books, music. etc?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different than a publisher of games , books , music .
etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different than a publisher of games, books, music.
etc?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407289</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1245515640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When [Luther] nailed his Theses to the church door, the Bible was not written in the vulgate</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, it was written in the Vulgate. the problem was that the vulgate hadn't been the vernacular for a thousand years, even in the areas where it had been spoken. Vulgate was the common Latin dialect(s) of the western empire, spoken by the common people, which is why the Bible was translated into that. This was originally a move to make the bible more accessible to the masses. but then bureaucracy and inertia took over and we all know where that leads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When [ Luther ] nailed his Theses to the church door , the Bible was not written in the vulgateActually , it was written in the Vulgate .
the problem was that the vulgate had n't been the vernacular for a thousand years , even in the areas where it had been spoken .
Vulgate was the common Latin dialect ( s ) of the western empire , spoken by the common people , which is why the Bible was translated into that .
This was originally a move to make the bible more accessible to the masses .
but then bureaucracy and inertia took over and we all know where that leads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When [Luther] nailed his Theses to the church door, the Bible was not written in the vulgateActually, it was written in the Vulgate.
the problem was that the vulgate hadn't been the vernacular for a thousand years, even in the areas where it had been spoken.
Vulgate was the common Latin dialect(s) of the western empire, spoken by the common people, which is why the Bible was translated into that.
This was originally a move to make the bible more accessible to the masses.
but then bureaucracy and inertia took over and we all know where that leads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404475</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, it is quite a fitting analogy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245493680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, it doesn't work like that. Look up the fallacy of translation; what Martin Luther proposed would allow the <em>translator</em> to determine what the bible actually said and meant, not the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , it does n't work like that .
Look up the fallacy of translation ; what Martin Luther proposed would allow the translator to determine what the bible actually said and meant , not the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, it doesn't work like that.
Look up the fallacy of translation; what Martin Luther proposed would allow the translator to determine what the bible actually said and meant, not the people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403707</id>
	<title>Middlemen</title>
	<author>jameson71</author>
	<datestamp>1245529440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean the RIAA and the MPAA are also 'a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries' because they act as the intermediary between creators and audiences?  How has copyright law lowered the cost to enter these industries in the past?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean the RIAA and the MPAA are also 'a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries ' because they act as the intermediary between creators and audiences ?
How has copyright law lowered the cost to enter these industries in the past ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean the RIAA and the MPAA are also 'a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries' because they act as the intermediary between creators and audiences?
How has copyright law lowered the cost to enter these industries in the past?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407965</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cory...</title>
	<author>ibbey</author>
	<datestamp>1245521700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing that you haven't read TFA yet...</p><blockquote><div><p>That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer's market for creative works, control over the dominant distribution channel, and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made, distributed, appreciated, bought, and sold.</p><p>And the danger of that is that these corporate giants might, <b>through malice or negligence</b>, end up screwing up the means by which the world talks to itself.</p></div></blockquote><p>He also specifically says:</p><blockquote><div><p> I have a lot of sympathy with artists' rights groups and even entertainment companies that <b>mistrust</b> giants like Amazon.com Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN) and Google (Nasdaq: GOOG).</p><p>Now, <b>it's not that I hate Amazon or Google</b>, but I do understand that they are fast becoming the intermediary between creators and audiences (and vice-versa), and that this poses a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's quite clear he's not opposed to Amazon or Google, but simply that he's warning against those two companies amassing too much control over media and the Internet, since they <i>could</i> than wield that power in a way that:</p><blockquote><div><p>ultimately sets the agendas for law, politics, health, climate, justice, crime, education, child-rearing, and every other important human subject.</p></div></blockquote><p>All that's just from the executive summary. The rest of the article expands upon that, but doesn't add anything truly significant to that. If you've ever read Doctorow before, you know that he's not opposed to either Amazon or Google, in fact he has promoted services by both of them on his blog, and I'm willing to bet that he'd agree, at least in principal, with your point. That said, he also has called out both companies when they have crossed a line. All he's doing with this article is pointing out that there is a line that they are in danger of crossing if people aren't paying attention. He's not saying people should boycott Amazon or Google or  anything like that, just that they need to be aware of just how much control is concentrated in these two groups hands. That seems pretty reasonable to me.</p><p>So, before you throw around words like pathetic, it might serve you to have a clue what you're talking about, ok?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that you have n't read TFA yet...That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer 's market for creative works , control over the dominant distribution channel , and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made , distributed , appreciated , bought , and sold.And the danger of that is that these corporate giants might , through malice or negligence , end up screwing up the means by which the world talks to itself.He also specifically says : I have a lot of sympathy with artists ' rights groups and even entertainment companies that mistrust giants like Amazon.com Inc. ( Nasdaq : AMZN ) and Google ( Nasdaq : GOOG ) .Now , it 's not that I hate Amazon or Google , but I do understand that they are fast becoming the intermediary between creators and audiences ( and vice-versa ) , and that this poses a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries.It 's quite clear he 's not opposed to Amazon or Google , but simply that he 's warning against those two companies amassing too much control over media and the Internet , since they could than wield that power in a way that : ultimately sets the agendas for law , politics , health , climate , justice , crime , education , child-rearing , and every other important human subject.All that 's just from the executive summary .
The rest of the article expands upon that , but does n't add anything truly significant to that .
If you 've ever read Doctorow before , you know that he 's not opposed to either Amazon or Google , in fact he has promoted services by both of them on his blog , and I 'm willing to bet that he 'd agree , at least in principal , with your point .
That said , he also has called out both companies when they have crossed a line .
All he 's doing with this article is pointing out that there is a line that they are in danger of crossing if people are n't paying attention .
He 's not saying people should boycott Amazon or Google or anything like that , just that they need to be aware of just how much control is concentrated in these two groups hands .
That seems pretty reasonable to me.So , before you throw around words like pathetic , it might serve you to have a clue what you 're talking about , ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that you haven't read TFA yet...That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer's market for creative works, control over the dominant distribution channel, and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made, distributed, appreciated, bought, and sold.And the danger of that is that these corporate giants might, through malice or negligence, end up screwing up the means by which the world talks to itself.He also specifically says: I have a lot of sympathy with artists' rights groups and even entertainment companies that mistrust giants like Amazon.com Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN) and Google (Nasdaq: GOOG).Now, it's not that I hate Amazon or Google, but I do understand that they are fast becoming the intermediary between creators and audiences (and vice-versa), and that this poses a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries.It's quite clear he's not opposed to Amazon or Google, but simply that he's warning against those two companies amassing too much control over media and the Internet, since they could than wield that power in a way that:ultimately sets the agendas for law, politics, health, climate, justice, crime, education, child-rearing, and every other important human subject.All that's just from the executive summary.
The rest of the article expands upon that, but doesn't add anything truly significant to that.
If you've ever read Doctorow before, you know that he's not opposed to either Amazon or Google, in fact he has promoted services by both of them on his blog, and I'm willing to bet that he'd agree, at least in principal, with your point.
That said, he also has called out both companies when they have crossed a line.
All he's doing with this article is pointing out that there is a line that they are in danger of crossing if people aren't paying attention.
He's not saying people should boycott Amazon or Google or  anything like that, just that they need to be aware of just how much control is concentrated in these two groups hands.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.So, before you throw around words like pathetic, it might serve you to have a clue what you're talking about, ok?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407279</id>
	<title>How evil are they after all?</title>
	<author>lie2me</author>
	<datestamp>1245515460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monopolies will always be evil.<br>Why? Simply because they can, and can get away with evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monopolies will always be evil.Why ?
Simply because they can , and can get away with evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monopolies will always be evil.Why?
Simply because they can, and can get away with evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402063</id>
	<title>creative industries...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245514800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is a contradiction in terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is a contradiction in terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is a contradiction in terms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403023</id>
	<title>Move along...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245523500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok what he is saying is that Google and Amazon aren't enough, we need more of their like, a lot more, to cover every niche.</p><p>What he is missing is that Google and Amazon do not, keep the gate, google in particular is only a search engine, *the Internet is the gate*, Google in particular has no intention of hiding niche websites so nobody is getting obscured by it.</p><p>There's nothing to see here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok what he is saying is that Google and Amazon are n't enough , we need more of their like , a lot more , to cover every niche.What he is missing is that Google and Amazon do not , keep the gate , google in particular is only a search engine , * the Internet is the gate * , Google in particular has no intention of hiding niche websites so nobody is getting obscured by it.There 's nothing to see here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok what he is saying is that Google and Amazon aren't enough, we need more of their like, a lot more, to cover every niche.What he is missing is that Google and Amazon do not, keep the gate, google in particular is only a search engine, *the Internet is the gate*, Google in particular has no intention of hiding niche websites so nobody is getting obscured by it.There's nothing to see here...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402251</id>
	<title>Not Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245516300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I'm in general a fan of Google for good reason.<br>They have a genuine commitment to open source. Chrome and Android as just two examples. Also it is in their interest to have open source formats (easier to search and index fully) so long term the company keep to this path.<br>They hire the best and get what they paid for. They are everything a capitalist system is supposed to encourage. Hire the best, pay what they're worth keep developing. They recognize their strength is not the current product but the *innovation* behind it. They find new ways to search and new things to search blowing the shit out of competition by *being more competent* which is a natural result of hiring the best.<br>Hence I like google and doubt that as long as it's under larry page and the other guy, their ideology isn't going to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 'm in general a fan of Google for good reason.They have a genuine commitment to open source .
Chrome and Android as just two examples .
Also it is in their interest to have open source formats ( easier to search and index fully ) so long term the company keep to this path.They hire the best and get what they paid for .
They are everything a capitalist system is supposed to encourage .
Hire the best , pay what they 're worth keep developing .
They recognize their strength is not the current product but the * innovation * behind it .
They find new ways to search and new things to search blowing the shit out of competition by * being more competent * which is a natural result of hiring the best.Hence I like google and doubt that as long as it 's under larry page and the other guy , their ideology is n't going to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I'm in general a fan of Google for good reason.They have a genuine commitment to open source.
Chrome and Android as just two examples.
Also it is in their interest to have open source formats (easier to search and index fully) so long term the company keep to this path.They hire the best and get what they paid for.
They are everything a capitalist system is supposed to encourage.
Hire the best, pay what they're worth keep developing.
They recognize their strength is not the current product but the *innovation* behind it.
They find new ways to search and new things to search blowing the shit out of competition by *being more competent* which is a natural result of hiring the best.Hence I like google and doubt that as long as it's under larry page and the other guy, their ideology isn't going to change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28405959</id>
	<title>So what you're saying is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245503760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that the RIAA is bad because it stands between artists and music lovers.  Got it.  I think we can all agree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that the RIAA is bad because it stands between artists and music lovers .
Got it .
I think we can all agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that the RIAA is bad because it stands between artists and music lovers.
Got it.
I think we can all agree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401965</id>
	<title>My grocer stifles eating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245514020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He acts as the intermediary between me and the farmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He acts as the intermediary between me and the farmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He acts as the intermediary between me and the farmers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401697</id>
	<title>Cory Doctorow Says:</title>
	<author>retech</author>
	<datestamp>1245511920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Put your copyright in,<br>
take your copyright out,<br>
put your copyright in,<br>
and you shake it all about<br> <br>
you do the Cory bullshit speak<br>
and you twist some words around,<br> <br>
that's what it's all about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put your copyright in , take your copyright out , put your copyright in , and you shake it all about you do the Cory bullshit speak and you twist some words around , that 's what it 's all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put your copyright in,
take your copyright out,
put your copyright in,
and you shake it all about 
you do the Cory bullshit speak
and you twist some words around, 
that's what it's all about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28405771</id>
	<title>Sorry!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245502560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You lost me at "Doctorow says..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You lost me at " Doctorow says... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You lost me at "Doctorow says..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402391</id>
	<title>Tru dat!</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1245517500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It actually DOES do that.  I guess that means Doctorow might be substantially right after all, then?</p><p>(Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of religion nor the Catholic Church in particular, unlike my genuflecting parent there.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It actually DOES do that .
I guess that means Doctorow might be substantially right after all , then ?
( Disclaimer : I 'm not a fan of religion nor the Catholic Church in particular , unlike my genuflecting parent there .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It actually DOES do that.
I guess that means Doctorow might be substantially right after all, then?
(Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of religion nor the Catholic Church in particular, unlike my genuflecting parent there.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28406911</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing fees</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1245511740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People can circumvent the crap publishers, distributors, and B&amp;N/Borders pull by publishing through Amazon.</p><p>Agreed, Amazon has its own crap, like the printing and licensing requirements, which may become more publisher-like if Amazon published books get to be a significant slice of the market.</p><p>But they currently have almost 0 interest in acting as a "marketable content filter" that limited inventory &amp; return issues forces upon the current publishing industry.</p><p>You will not get an advance from Amazon, nor will you get any kind of marketing push that could bring in the big sales.  But you can currently rely on the lack of politics, "fitting market trends" or other industry issues, because, right now at least, <b>Amazon doesn't care about you</b>.</p><p>It's both a bad thing and a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People can circumvent the crap publishers , distributors , and B&amp;N/Borders pull by publishing through Amazon.Agreed , Amazon has its own crap , like the printing and licensing requirements , which may become more publisher-like if Amazon published books get to be a significant slice of the market.But they currently have almost 0 interest in acting as a " marketable content filter " that limited inventory &amp; return issues forces upon the current publishing industry.You will not get an advance from Amazon , nor will you get any kind of marketing push that could bring in the big sales .
But you can currently rely on the lack of politics , " fitting market trends " or other industry issues , because , right now at least , Amazon does n't care about you.It 's both a bad thing and a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People can circumvent the crap publishers, distributors, and B&amp;N/Borders pull by publishing through Amazon.Agreed, Amazon has its own crap, like the printing and licensing requirements, which may become more publisher-like if Amazon published books get to be a significant slice of the market.But they currently have almost 0 interest in acting as a "marketable content filter" that limited inventory &amp; return issues forces upon the current publishing industry.You will not get an advance from Amazon, nor will you get any kind of marketing push that could bring in the big sales.
But you can currently rely on the lack of politics, "fitting market trends" or other industry issues, because, right now at least, Amazon doesn't care about you.It's both a bad thing and a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673</id>
	<title>Sorry Cory...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245511800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But intermediaries are never going to go away.  A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just isn't going to work; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck (even worse than it is in the current system).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But intermediaries are never going to go away .
A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just is n't going to work ; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck ( even worse than it is in the current system ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But intermediaries are never going to go away.
A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just isn't going to work; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck (even worse than it is in the current system).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402459</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cory...</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1245518460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But intermediaries are never going to go away. A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just isn't going to work; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck (even worse than it is in the current system).</p></div><p>And other than bare assertion, why do you think that to be true?  Why must there be an intermediary to perform editorial duties?  Why can't an editor/reviwer who picks and chooses high quality works from the pool of available works do so without having a financial interest in the chosen works?  That's kind of like saying that there will never be financial advisors who don't own shares in the companies that they promote.  IIRC, Oprah does that sort of thing already and to the best of my knowledge she does not benefit from the sales of the works she recommends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But intermediaries are never going to go away .
A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just is n't going to work ; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck ( even worse than it is in the current system ) .And other than bare assertion , why do you think that to be true ?
Why must there be an intermediary to perform editorial duties ?
Why ca n't an editor/reviwer who picks and chooses high quality works from the pool of available works do so without having a financial interest in the chosen works ?
That 's kind of like saying that there will never be financial advisors who do n't own shares in the companies that they promote .
IIRC , Oprah does that sort of thing already and to the best of my knowledge she does not benefit from the sales of the works she recommends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But intermediaries are never going to go away.
A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just isn't going to work; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck (even worse than it is in the current system).And other than bare assertion, why do you think that to be true?
Why must there be an intermediary to perform editorial duties?
Why can't an editor/reviwer who picks and chooses high quality works from the pool of available works do so without having a financial interest in the chosen works?
That's kind of like saying that there will never be financial advisors who don't own shares in the companies that they promote.
IIRC, Oprah does that sort of thing already and to the best of my knowledge she does not benefit from the sales of the works she recommends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402095</id>
	<title>Google and Amazon has helped the little guys...</title>
	<author>jfbilodeau</author>
	<datestamp>1245515220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to disagree with TFA. Google and Amazon make it easier for the little guys to get noticed. It's true they act as intermediary, but they lower the entry cost that is normally associated with traditional publishing/marketing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and if you don't want to get noticed via Google or Amazon, go ahead and set up your site/service/product from scratch and hope that it get's noticed. It has worked for some!</p><p>On a personal note, my sister published her first book, and has played Amazon and Google asa well as traditional marketing, and is now her publisher's #1 seller. Her success is a combination of hard-work, traditional marketing (out of her own pocket) and playing the web.</p><p>J-F</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to disagree with TFA .
Google and Amazon make it easier for the little guys to get noticed .
It 's true they act as intermediary , but they lower the entry cost that is normally associated with traditional publishing/marketing .
...and if you do n't want to get noticed via Google or Amazon , go ahead and set up your site/service/product from scratch and hope that it get 's noticed .
It has worked for some ! On a personal note , my sister published her first book , and has played Amazon and Google asa well as traditional marketing , and is now her publisher 's # 1 seller .
Her success is a combination of hard-work , traditional marketing ( out of her own pocket ) and playing the web.J-F</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to disagree with TFA.
Google and Amazon make it easier for the little guys to get noticed.
It's true they act as intermediary, but they lower the entry cost that is normally associated with traditional publishing/marketing.
...and if you don't want to get noticed via Google or Amazon, go ahead and set up your site/service/product from scratch and hope that it get's noticed.
It has worked for some!On a personal note, my sister published her first book, and has played Amazon and Google asa well as traditional marketing, and is now her publisher's #1 seller.
Her success is a combination of hard-work, traditional marketing (out of her own pocket) and playing the web.J-F</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402721</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>risk one</author>
	<datestamp>1245521340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean it's a valid opinion, shared by many people?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.You mean it 's a valid opinion , shared by many people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.You mean it's a valid opinion, shared by many people?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28413143</id>
	<title>Of Trolls and Tolls</title>
	<author>GrantRobertson</author>
	<datestamp>1245575520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is the bulk of an e-mail I sent to Corry Doctorow on this subject yesterday:<blockquote><div><p>I am writing to comment on the fatalist tone of your article. You seem to believe that once an entity has achieved what I call "practical monopoly" status (defined as: reaching a position where people go to the entity first when looking for a specific type of product or information in great enough proportions that that entity has a large and significant influence on what information people find or products they buy.) then there is nothing to be done about it other than attempt to create yet another practical monopoly. You don't seem to leave open the possibility of the public making an end run around the monopolies, completely bypassing their so-called "gates."
<br> <br>
This is similar to the old yarn about the troll under the bridge who demanded a toll to cross. When the toll gets too high, what is to stop others from building their own bridges downstream? According to your article, the cost of building a bridge is too high. Well, then people can build ferries. If enough people build enough ferries and leave them for others to use then the troll will get no toll and will either go away or reduce the toll.
<br> <br>
Here is the ferry I propose we build. Open standards for metadata about creative content or products available on the internet. In fact many of the pieces of our ferry are lying about on the shore already. XML, RDF, Dublin Core, OWL, The Semantic Web.  With all these pieces we should be able to construct an open standard which will allow independent creators of books, music, and more to post information about their offerings on their web sites. Then lots of independent "organizer" web sites could crawl the internet searching for this metadata, index it, and organize it in any way they think their users might like. These independent web sites could offer reviews or create their own little communities based around specific genres of product. Most importantly, anyone would be able to build their own web site to do this just as anyone would be able to use a ferry left tied up along the shore.
<br> <br>
This system could work similarly to the way that web advertising works, where payments are only made to the independent organizing site if the user clicks through and then makes a purchase. The standard would have to include metadata about the content and what standard genres it fits into. It would also have to include information as to how to the financial end of the transaction should be handled. This standard would go hand in hand with your previous idea of creating a Creative Commons type of licence for crafters. People who design the product could post the metadata on their web site, then others would know exactly how they can go about making and or selling the product.
<br> <br>
Larger pieces of our ferry would consist of open-source web-based "shopping cart" software for handling the sale of the products and payment systems such as PayPal. Naturally, many creators may choose to simply set up a "shop" on eBay, Amazon, or Yahoo! But with pre-made, easy-to-use, open-source tools many others may be inclined to set up their own independent shops on their own web sites. In effect, using the ferries we have built and tied up along the shore to cross that river and connect the creators directly to the users of the content.
<br> <br>
So, in a way, it is not gatekeepers who stifle innovation. It is lack of innovation that stifles innovation. If the door is closed go through the window. If the window is closed get out the chain saw.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^)</p></div></blockquote><p>

I am a firm believer that more and better standards plus increased use of standards such as RDF and The Semantic Web will finally give us the internet and world we want. The so-called "gatekeepers" Doctorow wrote of only exist because web developers eschew standards that don't immediately make their sites <strong>look</strong> better or produce immediate results in terms of increased sales. These web developers cater to the "gatekeepers" (AKA "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO)) rather than develop - or develop to - these additional standards, thus giving the gatekeepers the power Doctorow is condemning. I know, I know, it is always a chicken-and-the-egg situation. But people have got to stop being so chicken all the time and start being willing to break some eggs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the bulk of an e-mail I sent to Corry Doctorow on this subject yesterday : I am writing to comment on the fatalist tone of your article .
You seem to believe that once an entity has achieved what I call " practical monopoly " status ( defined as : reaching a position where people go to the entity first when looking for a specific type of product or information in great enough proportions that that entity has a large and significant influence on what information people find or products they buy .
) then there is nothing to be done about it other than attempt to create yet another practical monopoly .
You do n't seem to leave open the possibility of the public making an end run around the monopolies , completely bypassing their so-called " gates .
" This is similar to the old yarn about the troll under the bridge who demanded a toll to cross .
When the toll gets too high , what is to stop others from building their own bridges downstream ?
According to your article , the cost of building a bridge is too high .
Well , then people can build ferries .
If enough people build enough ferries and leave them for others to use then the troll will get no toll and will either go away or reduce the toll .
Here is the ferry I propose we build .
Open standards for metadata about creative content or products available on the internet .
In fact many of the pieces of our ferry are lying about on the shore already .
XML , RDF , Dublin Core , OWL , The Semantic Web .
With all these pieces we should be able to construct an open standard which will allow independent creators of books , music , and more to post information about their offerings on their web sites .
Then lots of independent " organizer " web sites could crawl the internet searching for this metadata , index it , and organize it in any way they think their users might like .
These independent web sites could offer reviews or create their own little communities based around specific genres of product .
Most importantly , anyone would be able to build their own web site to do this just as anyone would be able to use a ferry left tied up along the shore .
This system could work similarly to the way that web advertising works , where payments are only made to the independent organizing site if the user clicks through and then makes a purchase .
The standard would have to include metadata about the content and what standard genres it fits into .
It would also have to include information as to how to the financial end of the transaction should be handled .
This standard would go hand in hand with your previous idea of creating a Creative Commons type of licence for crafters .
People who design the product could post the metadata on their web site , then others would know exactly how they can go about making and or selling the product .
Larger pieces of our ferry would consist of open-source web-based " shopping cart " software for handling the sale of the products and payment systems such as PayPal .
Naturally , many creators may choose to simply set up a " shop " on eBay , Amazon , or Yahoo !
But with pre-made , easy-to-use , open-source tools many others may be inclined to set up their own independent shops on their own web sites .
In effect , using the ferries we have built and tied up along the shore to cross that river and connect the creators directly to the users of the content .
So , in a way , it is not gatekeepers who stifle innovation .
It is lack of innovation that stifles innovation .
If the door is closed go through the window .
If the window is closed get out the chain saw .
; ^ ) I am a firm believer that more and better standards plus increased use of standards such as RDF and The Semantic Web will finally give us the internet and world we want .
The so-called " gatekeepers " Doctorow wrote of only exist because web developers eschew standards that do n't immediately make their sites look better or produce immediate results in terms of increased sales .
These web developers cater to the " gatekeepers " ( AKA " Search Engine Optimization " ( SEO ) ) rather than develop - or develop to - these additional standards , thus giving the gatekeepers the power Doctorow is condemning .
I know , I know , it is always a chicken-and-the-egg situation .
But people have got to stop being so chicken all the time and start being willing to break some eggs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the bulk of an e-mail I sent to Corry Doctorow on this subject yesterday:I am writing to comment on the fatalist tone of your article.
You seem to believe that once an entity has achieved what I call "practical monopoly" status (defined as: reaching a position where people go to the entity first when looking for a specific type of product or information in great enough proportions that that entity has a large and significant influence on what information people find or products they buy.
) then there is nothing to be done about it other than attempt to create yet another practical monopoly.
You don't seem to leave open the possibility of the public making an end run around the monopolies, completely bypassing their so-called "gates.
"
 
This is similar to the old yarn about the troll under the bridge who demanded a toll to cross.
When the toll gets too high, what is to stop others from building their own bridges downstream?
According to your article, the cost of building a bridge is too high.
Well, then people can build ferries.
If enough people build enough ferries and leave them for others to use then the troll will get no toll and will either go away or reduce the toll.
Here is the ferry I propose we build.
Open standards for metadata about creative content or products available on the internet.
In fact many of the pieces of our ferry are lying about on the shore already.
XML, RDF, Dublin Core, OWL, The Semantic Web.
With all these pieces we should be able to construct an open standard which will allow independent creators of books, music, and more to post information about their offerings on their web sites.
Then lots of independent "organizer" web sites could crawl the internet searching for this metadata, index it, and organize it in any way they think their users might like.
These independent web sites could offer reviews or create their own little communities based around specific genres of product.
Most importantly, anyone would be able to build their own web site to do this just as anyone would be able to use a ferry left tied up along the shore.
This system could work similarly to the way that web advertising works, where payments are only made to the independent organizing site if the user clicks through and then makes a purchase.
The standard would have to include metadata about the content and what standard genres it fits into.
It would also have to include information as to how to the financial end of the transaction should be handled.
This standard would go hand in hand with your previous idea of creating a Creative Commons type of licence for crafters.
People who design the product could post the metadata on their web site, then others would know exactly how they can go about making and or selling the product.
Larger pieces of our ferry would consist of open-source web-based "shopping cart" software for handling the sale of the products and payment systems such as PayPal.
Naturally, many creators may choose to simply set up a "shop" on eBay, Amazon, or Yahoo!
But with pre-made, easy-to-use, open-source tools many others may be inclined to set up their own independent shops on their own web sites.
In effect, using the ferries we have built and tied up along the shore to cross that river and connect the creators directly to the users of the content.
So, in a way, it is not gatekeepers who stifle innovation.
It is lack of innovation that stifles innovation.
If the door is closed go through the window.
If the window is closed get out the chain saw.
;^)

I am a firm believer that more and better standards plus increased use of standards such as RDF and The Semantic Web will finally give us the internet and world we want.
The so-called "gatekeepers" Doctorow wrote of only exist because web developers eschew standards that don't immediately make their sites look better or produce immediate results in terms of increased sales.
These web developers cater to the "gatekeepers" (AKA "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO)) rather than develop - or develop to - these additional standards, thus giving the gatekeepers the power Doctorow is condemning.
I know, I know, it is always a chicken-and-the-egg situation.
But people have got to stop being so chicken all the time and start being willing to break some eggs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28406847</id>
	<title>MOD PARENT INTO SPACE!</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1245511020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very well put. I am a (perhaps sometimes overly enthusiastic and/or unfair) frequent critic of Doctorow's goofy worldview and various hypocrisies, but at the heart of my intense dislike for the guy is what you've said. Am I an elitist because I don't consider someone without any degrees to be an expert on much of anything, especially difficult subjects like economics and law? Well... Maybe. What's wrong with expecting someone who gets as much of a readership as Doctorow gets to have at least proven himself minimally competent in fields he wants to affect?

</p><p>I remember when Andrew Keen published his book <i>The Cult of the Amateur</i>, which questioned the real market/economic importance of the Web 2.0 phenomenon, and every time Doctorow mentioned him, it was like this: "Andrew Keen, failed dot-commer, argues in his ridiculous book..."  It was always the "failed dot-commer" thing that drove me crazy, because, um, everyone I know in IT lost their jobs in that crash. Does that mean we have no right to comment on the IT industry anymore? On the contrary, someone who was on the bleeding edge of Web 1.0 is probably a pretty good person to consult about the business model failings of future internet businesses. A college-dropout with a high school diploma in hippie who has to give his terrible books away and whom we've only heard of because he made friends with a guy who started a zine and then a blog called Boing Boing and uses it to distort and spin news to advance his silly activist agenda against anybody ever making money off of their creations ever again? Not so much.

</p><p>It is in his harsh treatment of Keen that we see his true face: He is the amateur in the title, and it is his cult that Keen was warning everyone about. The internet is wonderful for giving people a voice. The problem is that people aren't always very good at judging authority, and armchair economists and lawyers can be mistaken for the real thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very well put .
I am a ( perhaps sometimes overly enthusiastic and/or unfair ) frequent critic of Doctorow 's goofy worldview and various hypocrisies , but at the heart of my intense dislike for the guy is what you 've said .
Am I an elitist because I do n't consider someone without any degrees to be an expert on much of anything , especially difficult subjects like economics and law ?
Well... Maybe .
What 's wrong with expecting someone who gets as much of a readership as Doctorow gets to have at least proven himself minimally competent in fields he wants to affect ?
I remember when Andrew Keen published his book The Cult of the Amateur , which questioned the real market/economic importance of the Web 2.0 phenomenon , and every time Doctorow mentioned him , it was like this : " Andrew Keen , failed dot-commer , argues in his ridiculous book... " It was always the " failed dot-commer " thing that drove me crazy , because , um , everyone I know in IT lost their jobs in that crash .
Does that mean we have no right to comment on the IT industry anymore ?
On the contrary , someone who was on the bleeding edge of Web 1.0 is probably a pretty good person to consult about the business model failings of future internet businesses .
A college-dropout with a high school diploma in hippie who has to give his terrible books away and whom we 've only heard of because he made friends with a guy who started a zine and then a blog called Boing Boing and uses it to distort and spin news to advance his silly activist agenda against anybody ever making money off of their creations ever again ?
Not so much .
It is in his harsh treatment of Keen that we see his true face : He is the amateur in the title , and it is his cult that Keen was warning everyone about .
The internet is wonderful for giving people a voice .
The problem is that people are n't always very good at judging authority , and armchair economists and lawyers can be mistaken for the real thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very well put.
I am a (perhaps sometimes overly enthusiastic and/or unfair) frequent critic of Doctorow's goofy worldview and various hypocrisies, but at the heart of my intense dislike for the guy is what you've said.
Am I an elitist because I don't consider someone without any degrees to be an expert on much of anything, especially difficult subjects like economics and law?
Well... Maybe.
What's wrong with expecting someone who gets as much of a readership as Doctorow gets to have at least proven himself minimally competent in fields he wants to affect?
I remember when Andrew Keen published his book The Cult of the Amateur, which questioned the real market/economic importance of the Web 2.0 phenomenon, and every time Doctorow mentioned him, it was like this: "Andrew Keen, failed dot-commer, argues in his ridiculous book..."  It was always the "failed dot-commer" thing that drove me crazy, because, um, everyone I know in IT lost their jobs in that crash.
Does that mean we have no right to comment on the IT industry anymore?
On the contrary, someone who was on the bleeding edge of Web 1.0 is probably a pretty good person to consult about the business model failings of future internet businesses.
A college-dropout with a high school diploma in hippie who has to give his terrible books away and whom we've only heard of because he made friends with a guy who started a zine and then a blog called Boing Boing and uses it to distort and spin news to advance his silly activist agenda against anybody ever making money off of their creations ever again?
Not so much.
It is in his harsh treatment of Keen that we see his true face: He is the amateur in the title, and it is his cult that Keen was warning everyone about.
The internet is wonderful for giving people a voice.
The problem is that people aren't always very good at judging authority, and armchair economists and lawyers can be mistaken for the real thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402501</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>SQL Error</author>
	<datestamp>1245519060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Martin Luther called.  He wants his 95 Theses back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Martin Luther called .
He wants his 95 Theses back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Martin Luther called.
He wants his 95 Theses back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402085</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245515040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which is false how?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.Which is false how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.Which is false how?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403279</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cory...</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1245525720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But intermediaries are never going to go away.  A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just isn't going to work; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck (even worse than it is in the current system).</p></div><p>Agreed.<br>And further, having Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow decry intermediaries when that is the job definition of an Editor seems more than a little disingenuous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But intermediaries are never going to go away .
A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just is n't going to work ; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck ( even worse than it is in the current system ) .Agreed.And further , having Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow decry intermediaries when that is the job definition of an Editor seems more than a little disingenuous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But intermediaries are never going to go away.
A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just isn't going to work; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck (even worse than it is in the current system).Agreed.And further, having Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow decry intermediaries when that is the job definition of an Editor seems more than a little disingenuous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401829</id>
	<title>Other corporate giants?</title>
	<author>PanDuh</author>
	<datestamp>1245512880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>'only fear competition from other established giants<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... companies whose character as gatekeepers of video distribution and discovery won't be substantially different.' </i>

<p>Yes, because companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft etc.  all started out as established giants, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'only fear competition from other established giants ... companies whose character as gatekeepers of video distribution and discovery wo n't be substantially different .
' Yes , because companies like Google , Amazon , Microsoft etc .
all started out as established giants , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'only fear competition from other established giants ... companies whose character as gatekeepers of video distribution and discovery won't be substantially different.
' 

Yes, because companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft etc.
all started out as established giants, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401633</id>
	<title>First post god strikes again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245511380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kneel before Zod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kneel before Zod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kneel before Zod!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28406871</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistency Alert</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1245511260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doctorow is a revolutionary, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what happens; it has to be overthrown. He is a tiresome blowhard and I often fantasize about giving him a wedgie in public. I've never given a wedgie in my life (I was usually the recipient, probably like a lot of Slashdotters), but he drags discourse down to that level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doctorow is a revolutionary , plain and simple .
It does n't matter what happens ; it has to be overthrown .
He is a tiresome blowhard and I often fantasize about giving him a wedgie in public .
I 've never given a wedgie in my life ( I was usually the recipient , probably like a lot of Slashdotters ) , but he drags discourse down to that level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doctorow is a revolutionary, plain and simple.
It doesn't matter what happens; it has to be overthrown.
He is a tiresome blowhard and I often fantasize about giving him a wedgie in public.
I've never given a wedgie in my life (I was usually the recipient, probably like a lot of Slashdotters), but he drags discourse down to that level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28411683</id>
	<title>Google Can Determine What You Think You Know</title>
	<author>lee1</author>
	<datestamp>1245607680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem of Google as content provider and intermediary is potentially deep, and transcends copyright issues. For many of us, Google is where we turn first to find out about a subject. If Google decides not to include a source of information in its search results, we may never learn that such a source exists.

But do they do that? Why would they?

They not only do it, but are willing to lie about it. I show how with an example here:

<a href="http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/" title="lee-phillips.org">http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/</a> [lee-phillips.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem of Google as content provider and intermediary is potentially deep , and transcends copyright issues .
For many of us , Google is where we turn first to find out about a subject .
If Google decides not to include a source of information in its search results , we may never learn that such a source exists .
But do they do that ?
Why would they ?
They not only do it , but are willing to lie about it .
I show how with an example here : http : //lee-phillips.org/youtube/ [ lee-phillips.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem of Google as content provider and intermediary is potentially deep, and transcends copyright issues.
For many of us, Google is where we turn first to find out about a subject.
If Google decides not to include a source of information in its search results, we may never learn that such a source exists.
But do they do that?
Why would they?
They not only do it, but are willing to lie about it.
I show how with an example here:

http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/ [lee-phillips.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041</id>
	<title>Actually, it is quite a fitting analogy.</title>
	<author>GrantRobertson</author>
	<datestamp>1245514620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Roman Catholic church has stifled diversity and innovation in religion specifically because the Pope and priests pose as intermediaries between between the parishioners and their god. Just ask Martin Luther. He couldn't even get the "Church" to allow him to translate the Bible into his native language so individuals could determine for themselves what it actually said and meant. He had to use innovation and start his own church, thereby increasing diversity in religion.</p><p>When organizations become so big that they are a practical monopoly (I don't want to get into a debate about what exactly is a monopoly and who has or doesn't have one. I define "practical monopoly" to mean most people go to them first when looking for a specific type of product or information to a great enough degree that that organization has a large and significant influence on what information people find or products they buy.) then they can stifle innovation simply by not making it easy for the public to find those things.</p><p>Lately I have been complaining that Google stifles my ability to find what I need simply by predominantly showing me sites that are selling a thing rather than simply have information about the thing itself. This stifles my access to new and innovative things simply by burying them amongst the marketing sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Roman Catholic church has stifled diversity and innovation in religion specifically because the Pope and priests pose as intermediaries between between the parishioners and their god .
Just ask Martin Luther .
He could n't even get the " Church " to allow him to translate the Bible into his native language so individuals could determine for themselves what it actually said and meant .
He had to use innovation and start his own church , thereby increasing diversity in religion.When organizations become so big that they are a practical monopoly ( I do n't want to get into a debate about what exactly is a monopoly and who has or does n't have one .
I define " practical monopoly " to mean most people go to them first when looking for a specific type of product or information to a great enough degree that that organization has a large and significant influence on what information people find or products they buy .
) then they can stifle innovation simply by not making it easy for the public to find those things.Lately I have been complaining that Google stifles my ability to find what I need simply by predominantly showing me sites that are selling a thing rather than simply have information about the thing itself .
This stifles my access to new and innovative things simply by burying them amongst the marketing sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Roman Catholic church has stifled diversity and innovation in religion specifically because the Pope and priests pose as intermediaries between between the parishioners and their god.
Just ask Martin Luther.
He couldn't even get the "Church" to allow him to translate the Bible into his native language so individuals could determine for themselves what it actually said and meant.
He had to use innovation and start his own church, thereby increasing diversity in religion.When organizations become so big that they are a practical monopoly (I don't want to get into a debate about what exactly is a monopoly and who has or doesn't have one.
I define "practical monopoly" to mean most people go to them first when looking for a specific type of product or information to a great enough degree that that organization has a large and significant influence on what information people find or products they buy.
) then they can stifle innovation simply by not making it easy for the public to find those things.Lately I have been complaining that Google stifles my ability to find what I need simply by predominantly showing me sites that are selling a thing rather than simply have information about the thing itself.
This stifles my access to new and innovative things simply by burying them amongst the marketing sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403593</id>
	<title>Youtube already beat Google</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1245528180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cory, you're talking about Google toppling a couple of big *search engine* companies, then saying nobody will be able to do to Google's Youtube business what Google did to Altavista and Yahoo. But Google didn't build Youtube, they bought it, with the money from the search business, after their own video site lost out to Youtube.</p><p>So... someone DID "do it to Google", but instead of suing them they bought them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cory , you 're talking about Google toppling a couple of big * search engine * companies , then saying nobody will be able to do to Google 's Youtube business what Google did to Altavista and Yahoo .
But Google did n't build Youtube , they bought it , with the money from the search business , after their own video site lost out to Youtube.So... someone DID " do it to Google " , but instead of suing them they bought them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cory, you're talking about Google toppling a couple of big *search engine* companies, then saying nobody will be able to do to Google's Youtube business what Google did to Altavista and Yahoo.
But Google didn't build Youtube, they bought it, with the money from the search business, after their own video site lost out to Youtube.So... someone DID "do it to Google", but instead of suing them they bought them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401921</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing fees</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1245513600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The TLDR of it is that he thinks Google and Amazon are too awesome and will become the only way you get at things, thus giving them too much power.</p><p>Not that he thinks they'll abuse it, but he's sad that content creators act like an abused spouse hooking up with another abuser(monopoly/cartel) instead of finding a healthy relationship(using their almighty copyright to force fair percentages).</p><p>As most of them, deep down, wanting to feel like rockstars, they'll sell their rights to any company for a penny if it involves a signing tour and some groupies.</p><p>The only content creators that will get any fair shake are those writing books, lyrics, etc, as a profession instead of a passion.  The real money is in writing the lyrics for the next popstar or doing market research to write the next "15 books and no end(or plot) in sight" series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The TLDR of it is that he thinks Google and Amazon are too awesome and will become the only way you get at things , thus giving them too much power.Not that he thinks they 'll abuse it , but he 's sad that content creators act like an abused spouse hooking up with another abuser ( monopoly/cartel ) instead of finding a healthy relationship ( using their almighty copyright to force fair percentages ) .As most of them , deep down , wanting to feel like rockstars , they 'll sell their rights to any company for a penny if it involves a signing tour and some groupies.The only content creators that will get any fair shake are those writing books , lyrics , etc , as a profession instead of a passion .
The real money is in writing the lyrics for the next popstar or doing market research to write the next " 15 books and no end ( or plot ) in sight " series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TLDR of it is that he thinks Google and Amazon are too awesome and will become the only way you get at things, thus giving them too much power.Not that he thinks they'll abuse it, but he's sad that content creators act like an abused spouse hooking up with another abuser(monopoly/cartel) instead of finding a healthy relationship(using their almighty copyright to force fair percentages).As most of them, deep down, wanting to feel like rockstars, they'll sell their rights to any company for a penny if it involves a signing tour and some groupies.The only content creators that will get any fair shake are those writing books, lyrics, etc, as a profession instead of a passion.
The real money is in writing the lyrics for the next popstar or doing market research to write the next "15 books and no end(or plot) in sight" series.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28412339</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, it is quite a fitting analogy.</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245612240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The Roman Catholic church has stifled diversity and innovation in religion specifically because the Pope and priests pose as intermediaries between between the parishioners and their god. Just ask Martin Luther. He couldn't even get the "Church" to allow him to translate the Bible into his native language so individuals could determine for themselves what it actually said and meant."</p></div></blockquote><p>But the problem is that the Bible is NOT a coherent work - it is self contradictory and inconsistent.  So when lay people read the bible and are confused, you get 1 of 2 results:</p><p>1) The reader chooses which particular part he believes in, and then proceeds on that path under the confidence that he is doing the right thing "because the Bible told him so", or...</p><p>2) The reader goes to another person, and expert, and asks them to interpret it for them.</p><p>Yes, Martin Luther freed us from the yoke of Church hierarchy and corruption, but he's also gave us Creationism, Fundamentalism, and televangelists.  Careful what you wish for...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Roman Catholic church has stifled diversity and innovation in religion specifically because the Pope and priests pose as intermediaries between between the parishioners and their god .
Just ask Martin Luther .
He could n't even get the " Church " to allow him to translate the Bible into his native language so individuals could determine for themselves what it actually said and meant .
" But the problem is that the Bible is NOT a coherent work - it is self contradictory and inconsistent .
So when lay people read the bible and are confused , you get 1 of 2 results : 1 ) The reader chooses which particular part he believes in , and then proceeds on that path under the confidence that he is doing the right thing " because the Bible told him so " , or...2 ) The reader goes to another person , and expert , and asks them to interpret it for them.Yes , Martin Luther freed us from the yoke of Church hierarchy and corruption , but he 's also gave us Creationism , Fundamentalism , and televangelists .
Careful what you wish for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Roman Catholic church has stifled diversity and innovation in religion specifically because the Pope and priests pose as intermediaries between between the parishioners and their god.
Just ask Martin Luther.
He couldn't even get the "Church" to allow him to translate the Bible into his native language so individuals could determine for themselves what it actually said and meant.
"But the problem is that the Bible is NOT a coherent work - it is self contradictory and inconsistent.
So when lay people read the bible and are confused, you get 1 of 2 results:1) The reader chooses which particular part he believes in, and then proceeds on that path under the confidence that he is doing the right thing "because the Bible told him so", or...2) The reader goes to another person, and expert, and asks them to interpret it for them.Yes, Martin Luther freed us from the yoke of Church hierarchy and corruption, but he's also gave us Creationism, Fundamentalism, and televangelists.
Careful what you wish for...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401743</id>
	<title>Amazon and Google were once small startups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245512280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are gatekeepers, it is not because they have some inherent quality of gatekeeperness.</p><p>They provide products that enough people use that they naturally become gatekeepers.</p><p>If new competitors come along and draw the customers to them, the creators will start selling their stuff through them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are gatekeepers , it is not because they have some inherent quality of gatekeeperness.They provide products that enough people use that they naturally become gatekeepers.If new competitors come along and draw the customers to them , the creators will start selling their stuff through them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are gatekeepers, it is not because they have some inherent quality of gatekeeperness.They provide products that enough people use that they naturally become gatekeepers.If new competitors come along and draw the customers to them, the creators will start selling their stuff through them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402757</id>
	<title>Stock Photography</title>
	<author>Herkum01</author>
	<datestamp>1245521580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked form one of these stock photography companies and I would completely agree with this statement.  Photographers are paid 30 cents per download per customer.  On the other hand the stock photography company charges anywhere from $1 to $50 for that same image.</p><p>Considering the technology is relatively simple and they are not generating the product, there is a lot of money that goes into management, marketing and sales.  Of course these are the people that create the illusion that they are needed to sell this product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked form one of these stock photography companies and I would completely agree with this statement .
Photographers are paid 30 cents per download per customer .
On the other hand the stock photography company charges anywhere from $ 1 to $ 50 for that same image.Considering the technology is relatively simple and they are not generating the product , there is a lot of money that goes into management , marketing and sales .
Of course these are the people that create the illusion that they are needed to sell this product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked form one of these stock photography companies and I would completely agree with this statement.
Photographers are paid 30 cents per download per customer.
On the other hand the stock photography company charges anywhere from $1 to $50 for that same image.Considering the technology is relatively simple and they are not generating the product, there is a lot of money that goes into management, marketing and sales.
Of course these are the people that create the illusion that they are needed to sell this product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404019</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1245489480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's crazy talk! Everyone knows that if man were capable of communicating with God himself people would get all sorts of wild ideas, the whole hierarchy of the church would be undermined!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's crazy talk !
Everyone knows that if man were capable of communicating with God himself people would get all sorts of wild ideas , the whole hierarchy of the church would be undermined !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's crazy talk!
Everyone knows that if man were capable of communicating with God himself people would get all sorts of wild ideas, the whole hierarchy of the church would be undermined!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</id>
	<title>Oh please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245511740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402533</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing fees</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1245519480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon already *has* abused it.  Both by required independent authors to use their print service, and more recently cutting off partners or writers who took on LGBT subjects, claiming that knowing about gays is an 'adult' subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon already * has * abused it .
Both by required independent authors to use their print service , and more recently cutting off partners or writers who took on LGBT subjects , claiming that knowing about gays is an 'adult ' subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon already *has* abused it.
Both by required independent authors to use their print service, and more recently cutting off partners or writers who took on LGBT subjects, claiming that knowing about gays is an 'adult' subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404103</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cory...</title>
	<author>shakuni</author>
	<datestamp>1245490140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its the number of disintermediaries that is the problem here - too few and hence too powerful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the number of disintermediaries that is the problem here - too few and hence too powerful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the number of disintermediaries that is the problem here - too few and hence too powerful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28408277</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, it is quite a fitting analogy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that Martin Luther also took issue with the Catholic Churches habit of communicating with the dead.</p><p>You see the Catholic Church developed a very lucrative cash flow charging money for saying masses for the dead to limit the time they had to spend in purgatory before going to heaven.  People started willing their entire estates to the church for the sole purposes of saying masses to get them out of purgatory and on their way to heaven.</p><p>Martin Luther pointed out that in order for the church to deliver on its promises it had to be in communication with the realm of the dead which the bible clearly said was impossible. Ergo, they were either lying or they were some sort of death worshiping wizards.</p><p>So, are Google and Amazon talking with the dead?  I don't know but until they deny it I think it is safe to assume they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that Martin Luther also took issue with the Catholic Churches habit of communicating with the dead.You see the Catholic Church developed a very lucrative cash flow charging money for saying masses for the dead to limit the time they had to spend in purgatory before going to heaven .
People started willing their entire estates to the church for the sole purposes of saying masses to get them out of purgatory and on their way to heaven.Martin Luther pointed out that in order for the church to deliver on its promises it had to be in communication with the realm of the dead which the bible clearly said was impossible .
Ergo , they were either lying or they were some sort of death worshiping wizards.So , are Google and Amazon talking with the dead ?
I do n't know but until they deny it I think it is safe to assume they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that Martin Luther also took issue with the Catholic Churches habit of communicating with the dead.You see the Catholic Church developed a very lucrative cash flow charging money for saying masses for the dead to limit the time they had to spend in purgatory before going to heaven.
People started willing their entire estates to the church for the sole purposes of saying masses to get them out of purgatory and on their way to heaven.Martin Luther pointed out that in order for the church to deliver on its promises it had to be in communication with the realm of the dead which the bible clearly said was impossible.
Ergo, they were either lying or they were some sort of death worshiping wizards.So, are Google and Amazon talking with the dead?
I don't know but until they deny it I think it is safe to assume they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403865</id>
	<title>Re:For those confused about what he's talking abou</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245531060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What's REALLY funny, as another commenter pointed out earlier, is that every company he complains about started as some guy with an idea and a garage about 10-20 years ago! Talk about raising the barrier to entry!</p></div></blockquote><p>

You forgot to mention the $1.1 million investment Google had when they started in their garage. Sure, they didn't get their money from their daddy but it was through connections most people -- even people as talented as them -- wouldn't have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's REALLY funny , as another commenter pointed out earlier , is that every company he complains about started as some guy with an idea and a garage about 10-20 years ago !
Talk about raising the barrier to entry !
You forgot to mention the $ 1.1 million investment Google had when they started in their garage .
Sure , they did n't get their money from their daddy but it was through connections most people -- even people as talented as them -- would n't have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's REALLY funny, as another commenter pointed out earlier, is that every company he complains about started as some guy with an idea and a garage about 10-20 years ago!
Talk about raising the barrier to entry!
You forgot to mention the $1.1 million investment Google had when they started in their garage.
Sure, they didn't get their money from their daddy but it was through connections most people -- even people as talented as them -- wouldn't have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401803</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245512640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.</p></div><p>It's more like the Roman Catholic church sits between the Faith and its followers. And they did stifle any changes from the doctrine, by torturing or murdering people who had different opinions. See the original Martin Luther, or Kepler.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.It 's more like the Roman Catholic church sits between the Faith and its followers .
And they did stifle any changes from the doctrine , by torturing or murdering people who had different opinions .
See the original Martin Luther , or Kepler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.It's more like the Roman Catholic church sits between the Faith and its followers.
And they did stifle any changes from the doctrine, by torturing or murdering people who had different opinions.
See the original Martin Luther, or Kepler.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402811</id>
	<title>On what authority?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245521940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cory Doctorow seems to me to be a career activist, raised in an environment of "dismantling the system." This is the sort of person who's so blinded by ideology that he'll never choose to grasp anything outside of a contrary perspective to mainstream thinking. It's not that he doesn't--he can't.</p><p>This man didn't even complete college. His education consists of attending a "Free" "Alternative Education" High School before failing out of college and working at a series of non-profits. Most of the people posting on this thread are probably more qualified to make statements on this matter in both a theoretical and real world sense. Think about it. Have you taken economics classes? You win.</p><p>We're reading the words and ideas of someone who's been raised to just say things that are contrary. When Doctorow makes sweeping statements, it's best to back away and think through them. Sci-fi writers are good at sounding like they have authority. Sometimes, this leads to brilliant and revolutionary visions of the future in a superficial sense, other times you get Scientology.</p><p>I know he's got oodles of "internet cred," but I'd just like to state for the record that I don't choose to credit this man as an authority in this field and I think we should take anything he says with a grain of salt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cory Doctorow seems to me to be a career activist , raised in an environment of " dismantling the system .
" This is the sort of person who 's so blinded by ideology that he 'll never choose to grasp anything outside of a contrary perspective to mainstream thinking .
It 's not that he does n't--he ca n't.This man did n't even complete college .
His education consists of attending a " Free " " Alternative Education " High School before failing out of college and working at a series of non-profits .
Most of the people posting on this thread are probably more qualified to make statements on this matter in both a theoretical and real world sense .
Think about it .
Have you taken economics classes ?
You win.We 're reading the words and ideas of someone who 's been raised to just say things that are contrary .
When Doctorow makes sweeping statements , it 's best to back away and think through them .
Sci-fi writers are good at sounding like they have authority .
Sometimes , this leads to brilliant and revolutionary visions of the future in a superficial sense , other times you get Scientology.I know he 's got oodles of " internet cred , " but I 'd just like to state for the record that I do n't choose to credit this man as an authority in this field and I think we should take anything he says with a grain of salt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cory Doctorow seems to me to be a career activist, raised in an environment of "dismantling the system.
" This is the sort of person who's so blinded by ideology that he'll never choose to grasp anything outside of a contrary perspective to mainstream thinking.
It's not that he doesn't--he can't.This man didn't even complete college.
His education consists of attending a "Free" "Alternative Education" High School before failing out of college and working at a series of non-profits.
Most of the people posting on this thread are probably more qualified to make statements on this matter in both a theoretical and real world sense.
Think about it.
Have you taken economics classes?
You win.We're reading the words and ideas of someone who's been raised to just say things that are contrary.
When Doctorow makes sweeping statements, it's best to back away and think through them.
Sci-fi writers are good at sounding like they have authority.
Sometimes, this leads to brilliant and revolutionary visions of the future in a superficial sense, other times you get Scientology.I know he's got oodles of "internet cred," but I'd just like to state for the record that I don't choose to credit this man as an authority in this field and I think we should take anything he says with a grain of salt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402565</id>
	<title>Hardly</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1245519840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google may tend to promote things that are Google-centric, and they may fail to recognize the importance of things that don't fit into their view.  The same can be said of any big time development and distribution organization.  That doesn't mean they stifle competition, or development.  If there is any major player out there that actively seeks to stifle development that they can't control, that would be Microsoft.  Even they are becoming less relevant, in that respect, thanks to Euro rulings among other things.</p><p>I cannot see that either Google or Amazon constitute some sort of monopoly, or oligarchy, or whatever term might fit.  Apple may come close - but they don't quite make it either.</p><p>If I have an idea, it's easy to distribute the idea, it's easy to recruit developmental help (especially if I go open source), and it's pretty darned easy to display my wares on the internet.  If it's really a good idea, people will pick it up.  Now, whether I can make MONEY with my idea, is another matter entirely.  An online game, for instance, requires expensive servers and personnel to maintain those servers. Not to mention support personnel.  Which means, capital investment.</p><p>Am I to blame Google or Amazon, if I can't find the capital to start up my game?  Maybe I should have hired some marketing guru to sell my idea to an investor somewhere, instead of whining that Google wouldn't move on my idea.</p><p>IMHO - Google deserves a good deal of credit for the innovative ideas that they push forward.  At worst, they may neglect some important new technology, in favor of other technology.  Never, to my knowledge, have they pulled a Microsoft by adopting then changing a standard, bastardizing it to the point no one else can make reasonable use of it.</p><p>The author will have to go a long way to make a convincing argument that Google stifles innovation.  Making a case against Amazon would be considerably easier - but still no small task.</p><p>One has to wonder if the author hasn't submitted something to Google and Amazon, which was rejected by both.  Failing to recognize that his submission may actually be worthless, he blames them for stifling innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google may tend to promote things that are Google-centric , and they may fail to recognize the importance of things that do n't fit into their view .
The same can be said of any big time development and distribution organization .
That does n't mean they stifle competition , or development .
If there is any major player out there that actively seeks to stifle development that they ca n't control , that would be Microsoft .
Even they are becoming less relevant , in that respect , thanks to Euro rulings among other things.I can not see that either Google or Amazon constitute some sort of monopoly , or oligarchy , or whatever term might fit .
Apple may come close - but they do n't quite make it either.If I have an idea , it 's easy to distribute the idea , it 's easy to recruit developmental help ( especially if I go open source ) , and it 's pretty darned easy to display my wares on the internet .
If it 's really a good idea , people will pick it up .
Now , whether I can make MONEY with my idea , is another matter entirely .
An online game , for instance , requires expensive servers and personnel to maintain those servers .
Not to mention support personnel .
Which means , capital investment.Am I to blame Google or Amazon , if I ca n't find the capital to start up my game ?
Maybe I should have hired some marketing guru to sell my idea to an investor somewhere , instead of whining that Google would n't move on my idea.IMHO - Google deserves a good deal of credit for the innovative ideas that they push forward .
At worst , they may neglect some important new technology , in favor of other technology .
Never , to my knowledge , have they pulled a Microsoft by adopting then changing a standard , bastardizing it to the point no one else can make reasonable use of it.The author will have to go a long way to make a convincing argument that Google stifles innovation .
Making a case against Amazon would be considerably easier - but still no small task.One has to wonder if the author has n't submitted something to Google and Amazon , which was rejected by both .
Failing to recognize that his submission may actually be worthless , he blames them for stifling innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google may tend to promote things that are Google-centric, and they may fail to recognize the importance of things that don't fit into their view.
The same can be said of any big time development and distribution organization.
That doesn't mean they stifle competition, or development.
If there is any major player out there that actively seeks to stifle development that they can't control, that would be Microsoft.
Even they are becoming less relevant, in that respect, thanks to Euro rulings among other things.I cannot see that either Google or Amazon constitute some sort of monopoly, or oligarchy, or whatever term might fit.
Apple may come close - but they don't quite make it either.If I have an idea, it's easy to distribute the idea, it's easy to recruit developmental help (especially if I go open source), and it's pretty darned easy to display my wares on the internet.
If it's really a good idea, people will pick it up.
Now, whether I can make MONEY with my idea, is another matter entirely.
An online game, for instance, requires expensive servers and personnel to maintain those servers.
Not to mention support personnel.
Which means, capital investment.Am I to blame Google or Amazon, if I can't find the capital to start up my game?
Maybe I should have hired some marketing guru to sell my idea to an investor somewhere, instead of whining that Google wouldn't move on my idea.IMHO - Google deserves a good deal of credit for the innovative ideas that they push forward.
At worst, they may neglect some important new technology, in favor of other technology.
Never, to my knowledge, have they pulled a Microsoft by adopting then changing a standard, bastardizing it to the point no one else can make reasonable use of it.The author will have to go a long way to make a convincing argument that Google stifles innovation.
Making a case against Amazon would be considerably easier - but still no small task.One has to wonder if the author hasn't submitted something to Google and Amazon, which was rejected by both.
Failing to recognize that his submission may actually be worthless, he blames them for stifling innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403337</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245526200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I look it like this.</p><p>You have Audience on one side of a river and creators on the other.</p><p>You have a choice -</p><p>1.  Use a canoe and paddle (Snail Mail to get the information across)<br>2.  Use a Ferry (Fax Machines)<br>3.  Use a bridge (the internet and e-mail)<br>4.  Use an autobahn bridge with a Ferrari (Google it)</p><p>scholar.google.com  has put me in touch a lot of information that can't be handled by disjointed library databases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I look it like this.You have Audience on one side of a river and creators on the other.You have a choice -1 .
Use a canoe and paddle ( Snail Mail to get the information across ) 2 .
Use a Ferry ( Fax Machines ) 3 .
Use a bridge ( the internet and e-mail ) 4 .
Use an autobahn bridge with a Ferrari ( Google it ) scholar.google.com has put me in touch a lot of information that ca n't be handled by disjointed library databases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I look it like this.You have Audience on one side of a river and creators on the other.You have a choice -1.
Use a canoe and paddle (Snail Mail to get the information across)2.
Use a Ferry (Fax Machines)3.
Use a bridge (the internet and e-mail)4.
Use an autobahn bridge with a Ferrari (Google it)scholar.google.com  has put me in touch a lot of information that can't be handled by disjointed library databases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402509</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245519180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>by torturing or murdering people who had different opinions. See the original Martin Luther, or Kepler.</p></div><p>Neither Martin Luther nor Johannes Kepler were tortured or murdered by the church. In fact, it was only *after* Martin Luther complained that the Copernican model was incompatible with scripture that the church established a doctrinal position on the structure of the solar system in order to win back protestant converts (as part of the counter-reformation). Before that, they really couldn't care less -- and were quite happy hiring Copernicus as a consultant to fix their church calendar.</p><p>You know, I completely agree that the catholic church has done some awful things -- but the relationship between science and religion during that time period is A LOT more complicated than most people think. It's really unfortunate that people cling to these simplistic accounts of "organized religion vs. progress."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>by torturing or murdering people who had different opinions .
See the original Martin Luther , or Kepler.Neither Martin Luther nor Johannes Kepler were tortured or murdered by the church .
In fact , it was only * after * Martin Luther complained that the Copernican model was incompatible with scripture that the church established a doctrinal position on the structure of the solar system in order to win back protestant converts ( as part of the counter-reformation ) .
Before that , they really could n't care less -- and were quite happy hiring Copernicus as a consultant to fix their church calendar.You know , I completely agree that the catholic church has done some awful things -- but the relationship between science and religion during that time period is A LOT more complicated than most people think .
It 's really unfortunate that people cling to these simplistic accounts of " organized religion vs .
progress. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by torturing or murdering people who had different opinions.
See the original Martin Luther, or Kepler.Neither Martin Luther nor Johannes Kepler were tortured or murdered by the church.
In fact, it was only *after* Martin Luther complained that the Copernican model was incompatible with scripture that the church established a doctrinal position on the structure of the solar system in order to win back protestant converts (as part of the counter-reformation).
Before that, they really couldn't care less -- and were quite happy hiring Copernicus as a consultant to fix their church calendar.You know, I completely agree that the catholic church has done some awful things -- but the relationship between science and religion during that time period is A LOT more complicated than most people think.
It's really unfortunate that people cling to these simplistic accounts of "organized religion vs.
progress."
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28410165</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, it is quite a fitting analogy.</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1245594720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Lately I have been complaining that Google stifles my ability to find what I need simply by predominantly showing me sites that are selling a thing...</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps you are an advocate for Microsoft's new offering? What you just said is a meme they are disparatly attempting to establish in the social conciousness via shilling. My experience with Google is quite the contrary to yours. I don't remember a single occasion where I have seen an ad posing as information. Of course ads must be there I suppose, but I think I must tune them out so automatically that I never even notice. However, for them to be so invisible to me must mean that they are unobtrusive to begin with. I would go on to add that in my opinion Google just keeps on getting better and better. Sometimes in the past I have thought the third or fourth item down in the search results appeared, at least superficially, to be more relevant to my search. However, on each occasion, when I went back unsatisfied and clicked on the first item presented, I discovered that it was indeed the answer to my question. I now make it a habit to give the first item presented more weight.</p><p>Speaking of Microsoft's new offering - bling or whatever it is called (I am not going to help establish brand recognition for this product), I have serious reservations about it. Last week I was looking for information on the term "Microsoft shill", and input that into bling. The results that came up demonstrated that Microsoft disengeniously confused it with "shell" and skill". In fact, the first item presented in response to such a search is "Microsoft Education Competencies". How ironic! I had to click though 4 pages of results before I got a meaningful result. I posted about this at the time, and now I see they provide "disambiguation" (as if there was something ambiguous in the first place about such a well known expression.) What I want to point out is this: If Microsoft's search initiative succeeds in a big way, (and some of that success would be attributable to their current campaign to vilify Google), then we will see a controversial company who already has a monopoly the desktop being in a position to control information about themselves. We could easily imagine that when we search for terms in the future describing some shady Microsoft marketing practise the answers provided by them will be sanitized. I think these things I have mentioned are far more worisome than anything one might say about Google. It appears that Microsoft has launched a campaign to counteract complaints about its behaviour by paying for edits on Wikipedia, shilling on forums and in comments to articles and blogs everywhere, and now this bling thing, rather than change its behaviour.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lately I have been complaining that Google stifles my ability to find what I need simply by predominantly showing me sites that are selling a thing...Perhaps you are an advocate for Microsoft 's new offering ?
What you just said is a meme they are disparatly attempting to establish in the social conciousness via shilling .
My experience with Google is quite the contrary to yours .
I do n't remember a single occasion where I have seen an ad posing as information .
Of course ads must be there I suppose , but I think I must tune them out so automatically that I never even notice .
However , for them to be so invisible to me must mean that they are unobtrusive to begin with .
I would go on to add that in my opinion Google just keeps on getting better and better .
Sometimes in the past I have thought the third or fourth item down in the search results appeared , at least superficially , to be more relevant to my search .
However , on each occasion , when I went back unsatisfied and clicked on the first item presented , I discovered that it was indeed the answer to my question .
I now make it a habit to give the first item presented more weight.Speaking of Microsoft 's new offering - bling or whatever it is called ( I am not going to help establish brand recognition for this product ) , I have serious reservations about it .
Last week I was looking for information on the term " Microsoft shill " , and input that into bling .
The results that came up demonstrated that Microsoft disengeniously confused it with " shell " and skill " .
In fact , the first item presented in response to such a search is " Microsoft Education Competencies " .
How ironic !
I had to click though 4 pages of results before I got a meaningful result .
I posted about this at the time , and now I see they provide " disambiguation " ( as if there was something ambiguous in the first place about such a well known expression .
) What I want to point out is this : If Microsoft 's search initiative succeeds in a big way , ( and some of that success would be attributable to their current campaign to vilify Google ) , then we will see a controversial company who already has a monopoly the desktop being in a position to control information about themselves .
We could easily imagine that when we search for terms in the future describing some shady Microsoft marketing practise the answers provided by them will be sanitized .
I think these things I have mentioned are far more worisome than anything one might say about Google .
It appears that Microsoft has launched a campaign to counteract complaints about its behaviour by paying for edits on Wikipedia , shilling on forums and in comments to articles and blogs everywhere , and now this bling thing , rather than change its behaviour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lately I have been complaining that Google stifles my ability to find what I need simply by predominantly showing me sites that are selling a thing...Perhaps you are an advocate for Microsoft's new offering?
What you just said is a meme they are disparatly attempting to establish in the social conciousness via shilling.
My experience with Google is quite the contrary to yours.
I don't remember a single occasion where I have seen an ad posing as information.
Of course ads must be there I suppose, but I think I must tune them out so automatically that I never even notice.
However, for them to be so invisible to me must mean that they are unobtrusive to begin with.
I would go on to add that in my opinion Google just keeps on getting better and better.
Sometimes in the past I have thought the third or fourth item down in the search results appeared, at least superficially, to be more relevant to my search.
However, on each occasion, when I went back unsatisfied and clicked on the first item presented, I discovered that it was indeed the answer to my question.
I now make it a habit to give the first item presented more weight.Speaking of Microsoft's new offering - bling or whatever it is called (I am not going to help establish brand recognition for this product), I have serious reservations about it.
Last week I was looking for information on the term "Microsoft shill", and input that into bling.
The results that came up demonstrated that Microsoft disengeniously confused it with "shell" and skill".
In fact, the first item presented in response to such a search is "Microsoft Education Competencies".
How ironic!
I had to click though 4 pages of results before I got a meaningful result.
I posted about this at the time, and now I see they provide "disambiguation" (as if there was something ambiguous in the first place about such a well known expression.
) What I want to point out is this: If Microsoft's search initiative succeeds in a big way, (and some of that success would be attributable to their current campaign to vilify Google), then we will see a controversial company who already has a monopoly the desktop being in a position to control information about themselves.
We could easily imagine that when we search for terms in the future describing some shady Microsoft marketing practise the answers provided by them will be sanitized.
I think these things I have mentioned are far more worisome than anything one might say about Google.
It appears that Microsoft has launched a campaign to counteract complaints about its behaviour by paying for edits on Wikipedia, shilling on forums and in comments to articles and blogs everywhere, and now this bling thing, rather than change its behaviour.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402787</id>
	<title>Re:Culture PRE-DATES market, Cory!</title>
	<author>arizonagroovejet</author>
	<datestamp>1245521820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The original article is just an oh-so-typical piece of American thinking...</p></div><p>Cory Doctorow is Canadian. Though I guess that doesn't mean he's not capable of typical American thinking. And perhaps you meant American as in 'North American'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original article is just an oh-so-typical piece of American thinking...Cory Doctorow is Canadian .
Though I guess that does n't mean he 's not capable of typical American thinking .
And perhaps you meant American as in 'North American' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original article is just an oh-so-typical piece of American thinking...Cory Doctorow is Canadian.
Though I guess that doesn't mean he's not capable of typical American thinking.
And perhaps you meant American as in 'North American'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402631</id>
	<title>No, not at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245520500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers, seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace, they're doomed to work for their gatekeepers,' he says.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, that's exactly the problem. Maybe it's not obvious to those trying to make the money, but it is to the people who copyright is supposed to benefit, ie. us.<br>Copyright is supposed to grant an author limited time to cover the costs of production. If they can make a profit during that time, good for them. If they can't, tough. The way he speaks encourages the conception that holding a copyright constitutes an income stream, he treats it as a given. It was never intended for that purpose, and this is why there is so much trouble with it currently.<br>Copyright holders ARE short timers. If they want to benefit from copyright, they should produce new works, not rely on a never ending stream of income from old works. If they can't cover their costs sufficiently from a copyrighted work, that is not a failure of the copyright system, it is a failure on their part to produce a popular work or to market it correctly. They should not be able to extend the length of copyright just because they haven't made enough money yet.<br> <br>How much does it cost to live for a year ? Let's call it X. If it takes you a year to create a work, then that figure X plus publishing costs(Y) are all the recompense you can reasonably expect to recoup from copyright. If you make X+Y+2 or 2(X+Y) then you're doing well. But once you have recouped X+Y copyright has fulfilled its purpose. Maybe that takes a year, maybe it takes 5 years but in any case you should be working on your next creation. If you run it right and your works are popular you end up with an income stream. If you sit on your arse, expecting copyright to make things turn out all right, you will be disappointed. Similarly, if you expect one work to cover X+Y before you start the next work, you will be disappointed. No-one in the world has the luxury of sitting back like that. I don't do a weeks work then think I can now have a week off. You have to build a margin of financial safety before you can interrupt your work. Expecting copyright to guarantee that margin is not a sound business plan.<br> <br>If you write a song, say it takes you a day. How much is a person reasonably due for a days work ? $1000 sound fair ? If you sing that song and get paid $50 for each performance, it will take 20 performances to cover the costs of creating that song. If you record it and it sells 2000 copies (@ $0.99), is it still reasonable to claim you are owed recompense for the creation ? Especially since after the recording is done you essentially don't do any more work on that song. Now lets allow you to claim money for life plus 50 years on that song. Is that anywhere near reasonable ?<br> <br>I suggest it isn't.<br> <br>Reform copyright, and let's get those artists back to work !</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers , seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace , they 're doomed to work for their gatekeepers, ' he says.No , that 's exactly the problem .
Maybe it 's not obvious to those trying to make the money , but it is to the people who copyright is supposed to benefit , ie .
us.Copyright is supposed to grant an author limited time to cover the costs of production .
If they can make a profit during that time , good for them .
If they ca n't , tough .
The way he speaks encourages the conception that holding a copyright constitutes an income stream , he treats it as a given .
It was never intended for that purpose , and this is why there is so much trouble with it currently.Copyright holders ARE short timers .
If they want to benefit from copyright , they should produce new works , not rely on a never ending stream of income from old works .
If they ca n't cover their costs sufficiently from a copyrighted work , that is not a failure of the copyright system , it is a failure on their part to produce a popular work or to market it correctly .
They should not be able to extend the length of copyright just because they have n't made enough money yet .
How much does it cost to live for a year ?
Let 's call it X. If it takes you a year to create a work , then that figure X plus publishing costs ( Y ) are all the recompense you can reasonably expect to recoup from copyright .
If you make X + Y + 2 or 2 ( X + Y ) then you 're doing well .
But once you have recouped X + Y copyright has fulfilled its purpose .
Maybe that takes a year , maybe it takes 5 years but in any case you should be working on your next creation .
If you run it right and your works are popular you end up with an income stream .
If you sit on your arse , expecting copyright to make things turn out all right , you will be disappointed .
Similarly , if you expect one work to cover X + Y before you start the next work , you will be disappointed .
No-one in the world has the luxury of sitting back like that .
I do n't do a weeks work then think I can now have a week off .
You have to build a margin of financial safety before you can interrupt your work .
Expecting copyright to guarantee that margin is not a sound business plan .
If you write a song , say it takes you a day .
How much is a person reasonably due for a days work ?
$ 1000 sound fair ?
If you sing that song and get paid $ 50 for each performance , it will take 20 performances to cover the costs of creating that song .
If you record it and it sells 2000 copies ( @ $ 0.99 ) , is it still reasonable to claim you are owed recompense for the creation ?
Especially since after the recording is done you essentially do n't do any more work on that song .
Now lets allow you to claim money for life plus 50 years on that song .
Is that anywhere near reasonable ?
I suggest it is n't .
Reform copyright , and let 's get those artists back to work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers, seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace, they're doomed to work for their gatekeepers,' he says.No, that's exactly the problem.
Maybe it's not obvious to those trying to make the money, but it is to the people who copyright is supposed to benefit, ie.
us.Copyright is supposed to grant an author limited time to cover the costs of production.
If they can make a profit during that time, good for them.
If they can't, tough.
The way he speaks encourages the conception that holding a copyright constitutes an income stream, he treats it as a given.
It was never intended for that purpose, and this is why there is so much trouble with it currently.Copyright holders ARE short timers.
If they want to benefit from copyright, they should produce new works, not rely on a never ending stream of income from old works.
If they can't cover their costs sufficiently from a copyrighted work, that is not a failure of the copyright system, it is a failure on their part to produce a popular work or to market it correctly.
They should not be able to extend the length of copyright just because they haven't made enough money yet.
How much does it cost to live for a year ?
Let's call it X. If it takes you a year to create a work, then that figure X plus publishing costs(Y) are all the recompense you can reasonably expect to recoup from copyright.
If you make X+Y+2 or 2(X+Y) then you're doing well.
But once you have recouped X+Y copyright has fulfilled its purpose.
Maybe that takes a year, maybe it takes 5 years but in any case you should be working on your next creation.
If you run it right and your works are popular you end up with an income stream.
If you sit on your arse, expecting copyright to make things turn out all right, you will be disappointed.
Similarly, if you expect one work to cover X+Y before you start the next work, you will be disappointed.
No-one in the world has the luxury of sitting back like that.
I don't do a weeks work then think I can now have a week off.
You have to build a margin of financial safety before you can interrupt your work.
Expecting copyright to guarantee that margin is not a sound business plan.
If you write a song, say it takes you a day.
How much is a person reasonably due for a days work ?
$1000 sound fair ?
If you sing that song and get paid $50 for each performance, it will take 20 performances to cover the costs of creating that song.
If you record it and it sells 2000 copies (@ $0.99), is it still reasonable to claim you are owed recompense for the creation ?
Especially since after the recording is done you essentially don't do any more work on that song.
Now lets allow you to claim money for life plus 50 years on that song.
Is that anywhere near reasonable ?
I suggest it isn't.
Reform copyright, and let's get those artists back to work !
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404839</id>
	<title>I'm Selling Through Amazon</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245496800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm selling eBooks through Amazon and Fictionwise, and will move into POD books soon also through Amazon. There is no way to reach that audience other than by playing by their rules since I don't have a big mainstream publisher behind me. If I can sell for money through Google in the future I'll do it there as well. If Amazon and Google are making too much in the way of profits off of my work - compared to zero profits otherwise for me - then I will use what I do get from them to invest in their stock in order to share those profits.<br> <br>
Wake me when a better proven selling model for a small author arrives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm selling eBooks through Amazon and Fictionwise , and will move into POD books soon also through Amazon .
There is no way to reach that audience other than by playing by their rules since I do n't have a big mainstream publisher behind me .
If I can sell for money through Google in the future I 'll do it there as well .
If Amazon and Google are making too much in the way of profits off of my work - compared to zero profits otherwise for me - then I will use what I do get from them to invest in their stock in order to share those profits .
Wake me when a better proven selling model for a small author arrives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm selling eBooks through Amazon and Fictionwise, and will move into POD books soon also through Amazon.
There is no way to reach that audience other than by playing by their rules since I don't have a big mainstream publisher behind me.
If I can sell for money through Google in the future I'll do it there as well.
If Amazon and Google are making too much in the way of profits off of my work - compared to zero profits otherwise for me - then I will use what I do get from them to invest in their stock in order to share those profits.
Wake me when a better proven selling model for a small author arrives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401763</id>
	<title>Licensing fees</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1245512340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the article and I still not quite sure what he is talking about.  He seems to be complaining about fee structures.  Amazon doesn't control compensation structures and offers all sorts of direct sales models and google by and large doesn't sell content at all.</p><p>I couldn't follow even the basic cause and effect claim for his issue with the current model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article and I still not quite sure what he is talking about .
He seems to be complaining about fee structures .
Amazon does n't control compensation structures and offers all sorts of direct sales models and google by and large does n't sell content at all.I could n't follow even the basic cause and effect claim for his issue with the current model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article and I still not quite sure what he is talking about.
He seems to be complaining about fee structures.
Amazon doesn't control compensation structures and offers all sorts of direct sales models and google by and large doesn't sell content at all.I couldn't follow even the basic cause and effect claim for his issue with the current model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402981</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1245523200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.</p></div><p>Oh please?  Actually, that's pretty much what Protestantism was originally about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.Oh please ?
Actually , that 's pretty much what Protestantism was originally about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.Oh please?
Actually, that's pretty much what Protestantism was originally about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402081</id>
	<title>Blakey Rat says Doctorow is a blowhard</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1245514980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually he's a special combination of blowhard and attention-seeking whore that's becoming rapidly more prevalent lately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually he 's a special combination of blowhard and attention-seeking whore that 's becoming rapidly more prevalent lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually he's a special combination of blowhard and attention-seeking whore that's becoming rapidly more prevalent lately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401849</id>
	<title>THIS JUST IN!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245513060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitalism stifles progress while communism stimulates progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism stifles progress while communism stimulates progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism stifles progress while communism stimulates progress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407273</id>
	<title>IIRC...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245515460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't Doctorow praising Amazon for their excellent service in his e-book Little Brother?</p><blockquote><div><p>Chapter 2</p><p>This chapter is dedicated to Amazon.com, the largest Internet bookseller in the world. Amazon is amazing -- a "store" where you can get practically any book ever published (along with practically everything else, from laptops to cheese-graters), where they've elevated recommendations to a high art, where they allow customers to directly communicate with each other, where they are constantly inventing new and better ways of connecting books with readers. Amazon has always treated me like gold -- the founder, Jeff Bezos, even posted a reader-review for my first novel! -- and I shop there like crazy (looking at my spreadsheets, it appears that I buy something from Amazon approximately every six days). Amazon's in the process of reinventing what it means to be a bookstore in the twenty-first century and I can't think of a better group of people to be facing down that thorny set of problems.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't Doctorow praising Amazon for their excellent service in his e-book Little Brother ? Chapter 2This chapter is dedicated to Amazon.com , the largest Internet bookseller in the world .
Amazon is amazing -- a " store " where you can get practically any book ever published ( along with practically everything else , from laptops to cheese-graters ) , where they 've elevated recommendations to a high art , where they allow customers to directly communicate with each other , where they are constantly inventing new and better ways of connecting books with readers .
Amazon has always treated me like gold -- the founder , Jeff Bezos , even posted a reader-review for my first novel !
-- and I shop there like crazy ( looking at my spreadsheets , it appears that I buy something from Amazon approximately every six days ) .
Amazon 's in the process of reinventing what it means to be a bookstore in the twenty-first century and I ca n't think of a better group of people to be facing down that thorny set of problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't Doctorow praising Amazon for their excellent service in his e-book Little Brother?Chapter 2This chapter is dedicated to Amazon.com, the largest Internet bookseller in the world.
Amazon is amazing -- a "store" where you can get practically any book ever published (along with practically everything else, from laptops to cheese-graters), where they've elevated recommendations to a high art, where they allow customers to directly communicate with each other, where they are constantly inventing new and better ways of connecting books with readers.
Amazon has always treated me like gold -- the founder, Jeff Bezos, even posted a reader-review for my first novel!
-- and I shop there like crazy (looking at my spreadsheets, it appears that I buy something from Amazon approximately every six days).
Amazon's in the process of reinventing what it means to be a bookstore in the twenty-first century and I can't think of a better group of people to be facing down that thorny set of problems.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402621</id>
	<title>Well ... yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245520440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yeah.  When there is an uber-player in the game, the little innovative guys suffer.  I used to go to the Homebrew meetings at SLAC where there was tremendous excitement and innovation going on.  This went on for several years.  Really interesting years.  in 1981 it came to a screeching halt with introduction of the IBM PC.  It took something like what Alan Kay was doing at XEROX PARC and Dale Luck and Jay Miner on the Amiga to make the juggernaut PC that exists today.  Without them, it would just be an accountant's dream machine.</p><p>Former Cromemco employee and Denizen of Doom member (if you have to ask, I have to kill you)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well ... yeah. When there is an uber-player in the game , the little innovative guys suffer .
I used to go to the Homebrew meetings at SLAC where there was tremendous excitement and innovation going on .
This went on for several years .
Really interesting years .
in 1981 it came to a screeching halt with introduction of the IBM PC .
It took something like what Alan Kay was doing at XEROX PARC and Dale Luck and Jay Miner on the Amiga to make the juggernaut PC that exists today .
Without them , it would just be an accountant 's dream machine.Former Cromemco employee and Denizen of Doom member ( if you have to ask , I have to kill you )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well ... yeah.  When there is an uber-player in the game, the little innovative guys suffer.
I used to go to the Homebrew meetings at SLAC where there was tremendous excitement and innovation going on.
This went on for several years.
Really interesting years.
in 1981 it came to a screeching halt with introduction of the IBM PC.
It took something like what Alan Kay was doing at XEROX PARC and Dale Luck and Jay Miner on the Amiga to make the juggernaut PC that exists today.
Without them, it would just be an accountant's dream machine.Former Cromemco employee and Denizen of Doom member (if you have to ask, I have to kill you)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402433</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245517920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.</p><p>It's more like the Roman Catholic church sits between the Faith and its followers. And they did stifle any changes from the doctrine, by torturing or murdering people who had different opinions. See the original Martin Luther, or Kepler.</p></div><p>The OP had to have been speaking ironically there or else he is dense as neutronium. The whole big argument with Martin Luther and the Church was about giving people access to their faith. When he nailed his Theses to the church door, the Bible was not written in the vulgate. The masses were conducted in Latin and Catholicism remained a giant mystery religion. The reforms he proposed were threatening to the Church because if people did not need priests to intercede for them with God, there would be no need to continue supporting the massive ecclesiarchy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.It 's more like the Roman Catholic church sits between the Faith and its followers .
And they did stifle any changes from the doctrine , by torturing or murdering people who had different opinions .
See the original Martin Luther , or Kepler.The OP had to have been speaking ironically there or else he is dense as neutronium .
The whole big argument with Martin Luther and the Church was about giving people access to their faith .
When he nailed his Theses to the church door , the Bible was not written in the vulgate .
The masses were conducted in Latin and Catholicism remained a giant mystery religion .
The reforms he proposed were threatening to the Church because if people did not need priests to intercede for them with God , there would be no need to continue supporting the massive ecclesiarchy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.It's more like the Roman Catholic church sits between the Faith and its followers.
And they did stifle any changes from the doctrine, by torturing or murdering people who had different opinions.
See the original Martin Luther, or Kepler.The OP had to have been speaking ironically there or else he is dense as neutronium.
The whole big argument with Martin Luther and the Church was about giving people access to their faith.
When he nailed his Theses to the church door, the Bible was not written in the vulgate.
The masses were conducted in Latin and Catholicism remained a giant mystery religion.
The reforms he proposed were threatening to the Church because if people did not need priests to intercede for them with God, there would be no need to continue supporting the massive ecclesiarchy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402311</id>
	<title>Doucherow</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1245516780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazon doesn't kill progress.  I do.  Muhahahahaha.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon does n't kill progress .
I do .
Muhahahahaha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon doesn't kill progress.
I do.
Muhahahahaha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402839</id>
	<title>Inconsistency Alert</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1245522180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny, back in 2006, Cory Doctorow wrote an article titled: "Why Publishing Should Send Fruit-Baskets to Google", where he says:
<br> <br>
<i>Google's new Book Search promises to save writers' and publishers' asses by putting their books into the index of works that are visible to searchers who get all their information from the Internet.</i>
<br> <br>
Oh, and congratulations on getting yourself on slashdot, again, "anonymous reader" (aka Cory Doctorow).  You are truely a master of self-promotion.  Clearly, Doctorow has a talent for creating controversial stories to raise his status and visibility on the internet.  It isn't really about the consistency of his views, but rather, saying whatever is going to get himself in the news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , back in 2006 , Cory Doctorow wrote an article titled : " Why Publishing Should Send Fruit-Baskets to Google " , where he says : Google 's new Book Search promises to save writers ' and publishers ' asses by putting their books into the index of works that are visible to searchers who get all their information from the Internet .
Oh , and congratulations on getting yourself on slashdot , again , " anonymous reader " ( aka Cory Doctorow ) .
You are truely a master of self-promotion .
Clearly , Doctorow has a talent for creating controversial stories to raise his status and visibility on the internet .
It is n't really about the consistency of his views , but rather , saying whatever is going to get himself in the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, back in 2006, Cory Doctorow wrote an article titled: "Why Publishing Should Send Fruit-Baskets to Google", where he says:
 
Google's new Book Search promises to save writers' and publishers' asses by putting their books into the index of works that are visible to searchers who get all their information from the Internet.
Oh, and congratulations on getting yourself on slashdot, again, "anonymous reader" (aka Cory Doctorow).
You are truely a master of self-promotion.
Clearly, Doctorow has a talent for creating controversial stories to raise his status and visibility on the internet.
It isn't really about the consistency of his views, but rather, saying whatever is going to get himself in the news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401801</id>
	<title>Dr Doctoro, you an intermediary too!</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245512580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony is that Dr Doctoro is another intermediary too, putting himself between the things he finds interesting and us.  what a corporate dog! I free myself of your monopoly!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony is that Dr Doctoro is another intermediary too , putting himself between the things he finds interesting and us .
what a corporate dog !
I free myself of your monopoly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony is that Dr Doctoro is another intermediary too, putting himself between the things he finds interesting and us.
what a corporate dog!
I free myself of your monopoly!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407925</id>
	<title>Re:Inconsistency Alert (False Alarm)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245521400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's not being inconsistent (at least with the 2006 article you point out).  You seemed to have missed his point.  He's not complaining that Google provides a search service for books.  He's complaining that the class action agreement essentially allows Google to have a *monopoly* for providing a search service for books.  Instead, the class action suit should have used the leverage of their collective copyrights to force Google to allow other search providers to use the data that Google was indexing (perhaps instead of the settlement payment).</p><p>You could complain that Doctorow should have been more forward thinking in 2006.  He should have realized that all the short sighted people at the top would rather settle for a handful of gatekeepers rather than attempting to build a more open marketplace.  After all, as his latest post points out, this is what *always* happens.  Since business relationships is a modified form of monkey grooming behavior, you can't expect people to create thriving marketplaces when they would rather have a few good flea picking er...  Wine swilling lunches with high status business people with a stagnant (stable) marketplace in the background.  (Even when the stagnant market provides less profit in the long run.)</p><p>However, I forgive him his 2006 enthusiasm.  I am not an author, but I was also enthusiastic for Google Book Search.  I've used it multiple times to find and identify resources that I would have been highly unlikely to find where I currently reside.  However, I was disappointed about the settlement and the fact that Google appears to be the only game in town for this book search now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not being inconsistent ( at least with the 2006 article you point out ) .
You seemed to have missed his point .
He 's not complaining that Google provides a search service for books .
He 's complaining that the class action agreement essentially allows Google to have a * monopoly * for providing a search service for books .
Instead , the class action suit should have used the leverage of their collective copyrights to force Google to allow other search providers to use the data that Google was indexing ( perhaps instead of the settlement payment ) .You could complain that Doctorow should have been more forward thinking in 2006 .
He should have realized that all the short sighted people at the top would rather settle for a handful of gatekeepers rather than attempting to build a more open marketplace .
After all , as his latest post points out , this is what * always * happens .
Since business relationships is a modified form of monkey grooming behavior , you ca n't expect people to create thriving marketplaces when they would rather have a few good flea picking er... Wine swilling lunches with high status business people with a stagnant ( stable ) marketplace in the background .
( Even when the stagnant market provides less profit in the long run .
) However , I forgive him his 2006 enthusiasm .
I am not an author , but I was also enthusiastic for Google Book Search .
I 've used it multiple times to find and identify resources that I would have been highly unlikely to find where I currently reside .
However , I was disappointed about the settlement and the fact that Google appears to be the only game in town for this book search now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not being inconsistent (at least with the 2006 article you point out).
You seemed to have missed his point.
He's not complaining that Google provides a search service for books.
He's complaining that the class action agreement essentially allows Google to have a *monopoly* for providing a search service for books.
Instead, the class action suit should have used the leverage of their collective copyrights to force Google to allow other search providers to use the data that Google was indexing (perhaps instead of the settlement payment).You could complain that Doctorow should have been more forward thinking in 2006.
He should have realized that all the short sighted people at the top would rather settle for a handful of gatekeepers rather than attempting to build a more open marketplace.
After all, as his latest post points out, this is what *always* happens.
Since business relationships is a modified form of monkey grooming behavior, you can't expect people to create thriving marketplaces when they would rather have a few good flea picking er...  Wine swilling lunches with high status business people with a stagnant (stable) marketplace in the background.
(Even when the stagnant market provides less profit in the long run.
)However, I forgive him his 2006 enthusiasm.
I am not an author, but I was also enthusiastic for Google Book Search.
I've used it multiple times to find and identify resources that I would have been highly unlikely to find where I currently reside.
However, I was disappointed about the settlement and the fact that Google appears to be the only game in town for this book search now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403753</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cory...</title>
	<author>Prof.Phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1245529860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't agree with the article, but... why do there have to be intermediaries? The whole success story of the Internet is that... it removed a lot of the intermediaries. Suddenly, you could have 1 single `creator' reaching millions of folks without too much investment. Now, you suddenly need an investment into...google/amazon (paying them to advertise you---to connect you to your customers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree with the article , but... why do there have to be intermediaries ?
The whole success story of the Internet is that... it removed a lot of the intermediaries .
Suddenly , you could have 1 single ` creator ' reaching millions of folks without too much investment .
Now , you suddenly need an investment into...google/amazon ( paying them to advertise you---to connect you to your customers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree with the article, but... why do there have to be intermediaries?
The whole success story of the Internet is that... it removed a lot of the intermediaries.
Suddenly, you could have 1 single `creator' reaching millions of folks without too much investment.
Now, you suddenly need an investment into...google/amazon (paying them to advertise you---to connect you to your customers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402507</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing fees</title>
	<author>perlchild</author>
	<datestamp>1245519180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google checkout and most of the payment processors have a fee structure.</p><p>IMHO he's objecting to the fact that once a provider like amazon or google has the public's trust, they can both profit from it, and abuse it, usually at the same time.  A "They're too big to be benevolent anymore, downsize them" theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google checkout and most of the payment processors have a fee structure.IMHO he 's objecting to the fact that once a provider like amazon or google has the public 's trust , they can both profit from it , and abuse it , usually at the same time .
A " They 're too big to be benevolent anymore , downsize them " theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google checkout and most of the payment processors have a fee structure.IMHO he's objecting to the fact that once a provider like amazon or google has the public's trust, they can both profit from it, and abuse it, usually at the same time.
A "They're too big to be benevolent anymore, downsize them" theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402529</id>
	<title>Re:For those confused about what he's talking abou</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245519360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's REALLY funny, as another commenter pointed out earlier, is that every company he complains about started as some guy with an idea and a garage about 10-20 years ago!  Talk about raising the barrier to entry!</p><p>Google did not exist in the early 90's, some guys with a great idea for a search algorithm started a search engine in their garage (or maybe basement, I don't remember).  People started saying "Hey, this is kinda cool", and it grew, and as it grew so did it's influence, and eventually the Mega-Corp Google (actually on the small end of mega-corp) was born.</p><p>Amazon, same thing, some guy in his garage said "I can't afford to open a book shop, I know, I'll sell books on the internet!".  It started small, and grew, and now Amazon sells -everything- and keeps market prices down while doing so because of his business model.</p><p>Doctoro seems to be forming his opinion by closing his eyes to the last 15 years of the Internet.  Well, 15 years is not a long time, and in that time we've seen entire markets shaken up by the continually lowering barrier to entry - just look at the newspapers going through the same thing now.</p><p>Google and Amazon may be gatekeepers, but it's the back gate they are keeping, and they've been propping it open.  If they try to close it now, an enterprising individual will simply find a new gate to prop open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's REALLY funny , as another commenter pointed out earlier , is that every company he complains about started as some guy with an idea and a garage about 10-20 years ago !
Talk about raising the barrier to entry ! Google did not exist in the early 90 's , some guys with a great idea for a search algorithm started a search engine in their garage ( or maybe basement , I do n't remember ) .
People started saying " Hey , this is kinda cool " , and it grew , and as it grew so did it 's influence , and eventually the Mega-Corp Google ( actually on the small end of mega-corp ) was born.Amazon , same thing , some guy in his garage said " I ca n't afford to open a book shop , I know , I 'll sell books on the internet ! " .
It started small , and grew , and now Amazon sells -everything- and keeps market prices down while doing so because of his business model.Doctoro seems to be forming his opinion by closing his eyes to the last 15 years of the Internet .
Well , 15 years is not a long time , and in that time we 've seen entire markets shaken up by the continually lowering barrier to entry - just look at the newspapers going through the same thing now.Google and Amazon may be gatekeepers , but it 's the back gate they are keeping , and they 've been propping it open .
If they try to close it now , an enterprising individual will simply find a new gate to prop open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's REALLY funny, as another commenter pointed out earlier, is that every company he complains about started as some guy with an idea and a garage about 10-20 years ago!
Talk about raising the barrier to entry!Google did not exist in the early 90's, some guys with a great idea for a search algorithm started a search engine in their garage (or maybe basement, I don't remember).
People started saying "Hey, this is kinda cool", and it grew, and as it grew so did it's influence, and eventually the Mega-Corp Google (actually on the small end of mega-corp) was born.Amazon, same thing, some guy in his garage said "I can't afford to open a book shop, I know, I'll sell books on the internet!".
It started small, and grew, and now Amazon sells -everything- and keeps market prices down while doing so because of his business model.Doctoro seems to be forming his opinion by closing his eyes to the last 15 years of the Internet.
Well, 15 years is not a long time, and in that time we've seen entire markets shaken up by the continually lowering barrier to entry - just look at the newspapers going through the same thing now.Google and Amazon may be gatekeepers, but it's the back gate they are keeping, and they've been propping it open.
If they try to close it now, an enterprising individual will simply find a new gate to prop open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402033</id>
	<title>Re:Oh please</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1245514560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.</p></div><p>And?  The Roman Catholic church saddled Europe with a ridiculous Aristotlean physics for centuries, while better alternatives were already available.  That is definately a case of coming between the mind of the 'creator' and his followers.  Not to mention suppressed theological heresies, many of which were better but less profitable than what the church was up to with the sale of indulgences, etc.</p><p>This is not a new problem - there's even a parable for it in the New Testament, about dogs at the trough that don't eat and don't let the other animals eat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.And ?
The Roman Catholic church saddled Europe with a ridiculous Aristotlean physics for centuries , while better alternatives were already available .
That is definately a case of coming between the mind of the 'creator ' and his followers .
Not to mention suppressed theological heresies , many of which were better but less profitable than what the church was up to with the sale of indulgences , etc.This is not a new problem - there 's even a parable for it in the New Testament , about dogs at the trough that do n't eat and do n't let the other animals eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that Amazon and Google stifle innovation because they sit as an intermediary between creators and audiences is a bit like saying the Roman Catholic church stifles religion because a priest sits between the Creator and his followers.And?
The Roman Catholic church saddled Europe with a ridiculous Aristotlean physics for centuries, while better alternatives were already available.
That is definately a case of coming between the mind of the 'creator' and his followers.
Not to mention suppressed theological heresies, many of which were better but less profitable than what the church was up to with the sale of indulgences, etc.This is not a new problem - there's even a parable for it in the New Testament, about dogs at the trough that don't eat and don't let the other animals eat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407471</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Cory...</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245517320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the media services provided by Amazon made it possible for the very first time in the history of the music business that a nobody could market it's modest album throughout the entire world without the intervention of the established music industry.</p></div><p>First time? Try the old MP3.com, whose D.A.M. service let artists sell phonorecords of their work on CD-R, burned on demand. But how does Amazon let artists promote their work? Does it include promotion to people in vehicles through FM radio?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the media services provided by Amazon made it possible for the very first time in the history of the music business that a nobody could market it 's modest album throughout the entire world without the intervention of the established music industry.First time ?
Try the old MP3.com , whose D.A.M .
service let artists sell phonorecords of their work on CD-R , burned on demand .
But how does Amazon let artists promote their work ?
Does it include promotion to people in vehicles through FM radio ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the media services provided by Amazon made it possible for the very first time in the history of the music business that a nobody could market it's modest album throughout the entire world without the intervention of the established music industry.First time?
Try the old MP3.com, whose D.A.M.
service let artists sell phonorecords of their work on CD-R, burned on demand.
But how does Amazon let artists promote their work?
Does it include promotion to people in vehicles through FM radio?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404361</id>
	<title>Re:On what authority?</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1245492840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> When Doctorow makes sweeping statements, it's best to back away and think through them. Sci-fi writers are good at sounding like they have authority. Sometimes, this leads to brilliant and revolutionary visions of the future in a superficial sense, other times you get Scientology.</p><p>I know he's got oodles of "internet cred," but I'd just like to state for the record that I don't choose to credit this man as an authority in this field and I think we should take anything he says with a grain of salt.</p></div><p>I've never understood <em>why</em> he seems to have so much "cred," as he never actually seems to do anything particularly noteworthy.  He seems to be the blog version of a celebrity who's "famous for being famous"...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Doctorow makes sweeping statements , it 's best to back away and think through them .
Sci-fi writers are good at sounding like they have authority .
Sometimes , this leads to brilliant and revolutionary visions of the future in a superficial sense , other times you get Scientology.I know he 's got oodles of " internet cred , " but I 'd just like to state for the record that I do n't choose to credit this man as an authority in this field and I think we should take anything he says with a grain of salt.I 've never understood why he seems to have so much " cred , " as he never actually seems to do anything particularly noteworthy .
He seems to be the blog version of a celebrity who 's " famous for being famous " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When Doctorow makes sweeping statements, it's best to back away and think through them.
Sci-fi writers are good at sounding like they have authority.
Sometimes, this leads to brilliant and revolutionary visions of the future in a superficial sense, other times you get Scientology.I know he's got oodles of "internet cred," but I'd just like to state for the record that I don't choose to credit this man as an authority in this field and I think we should take anything he says with a grain of salt.I've never understood why he seems to have so much "cred," as he never actually seems to do anything particularly noteworthy.
He seems to be the blog version of a celebrity who's "famous for being famous"...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402431</id>
	<title>Ahistorical thinking</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1245517920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love this quote: <i>He warns that the corporate giants will 'only fear competition from other established giants<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i> when applied to Google and Amazon, two companies that were either nonexistent or minuscule 15 years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love this quote : He warns that the corporate giants will 'only fear competition from other established giants ... when applied to Google and Amazon , two companies that were either nonexistent or minuscule 15 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love this quote: He warns that the corporate giants will 'only fear competition from other established giants ... when applied to Google and Amazon, two companies that were either nonexistent or minuscule 15 years ago.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401959</id>
	<title>For those confused about what he's talking about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245514020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Essentially, the main complaint he has is that the creative industry is going to be governed by a handful of companies (an oligopoly) or a single company (a monopoly), and that this has great risks for the creative industries because said company/companies will be able to impose their will on the creative artists e.g. what books they'll stock/sell, what price they'll pay for it, and sell it at, etc. </p><p>The only way to combat this is to ensure that there are no "gatekeepers", and that there is healthy competition. </p><p>However, he's saying that the cost to enter the market for these competitors is becoming too high because of deals involving copyright issues that place Google and Amazon at the forefront since they can afford to pay the high sums being asked for. </p><p>So, he's saying that RIAA, the MPAA, the Author's Guild and the like should make it much cheaper and easier for people to get into the market to sell stuff. FTA: </p><blockquote><div><p>What if the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) had started out by offering MP3 licenses on fair terms to any wholesaler who wanted to open a retailer (online or offline), so that the cost of starting a Web music store was a known quantity, rather than a potentially limitless litigation quagmire?

What if the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the North American Broadcasters Association made their streams available to anyone who paid a portion of their advertising revenue (with a guaranteed minimum), allowing 10 million video-on-demand systems to spring up from every garage in the world?

What if the Authors Guild had offered to stop suing Google for notional copyright violations in exchange for Google contributing its scans to a common pool of indexable books available to all search-engines, ensuring that book search was as competitive as Web search?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Dunno, it seems to me that he's just describing basic economics, and the dangers of monopolies and oligopolies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Essentially , the main complaint he has is that the creative industry is going to be governed by a handful of companies ( an oligopoly ) or a single company ( a monopoly ) , and that this has great risks for the creative industries because said company/companies will be able to impose their will on the creative artists e.g .
what books they 'll stock/sell , what price they 'll pay for it , and sell it at , etc .
The only way to combat this is to ensure that there are no " gatekeepers " , and that there is healthy competition .
However , he 's saying that the cost to enter the market for these competitors is becoming too high because of deals involving copyright issues that place Google and Amazon at the forefront since they can afford to pay the high sums being asked for .
So , he 's saying that RIAA , the MPAA , the Author 's Guild and the like should make it much cheaper and easier for people to get into the market to sell stuff .
FTA : What if the Recording Industry Association of America ( RIAA ) had started out by offering MP3 licenses on fair terms to any wholesaler who wanted to open a retailer ( online or offline ) , so that the cost of starting a Web music store was a known quantity , rather than a potentially limitless litigation quagmire ?
What if the Motion Picture Association of America ( MPAA ) and the North American Broadcasters Association made their streams available to anyone who paid a portion of their advertising revenue ( with a guaranteed minimum ) , allowing 10 million video-on-demand systems to spring up from every garage in the world ?
What if the Authors Guild had offered to stop suing Google for notional copyright violations in exchange for Google contributing its scans to a common pool of indexable books available to all search-engines , ensuring that book search was as competitive as Web search ?
Dunno , it seems to me that he 's just describing basic economics , and the dangers of monopolies and oligopolies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Essentially, the main complaint he has is that the creative industry is going to be governed by a handful of companies (an oligopoly) or a single company (a monopoly), and that this has great risks for the creative industries because said company/companies will be able to impose their will on the creative artists e.g.
what books they'll stock/sell, what price they'll pay for it, and sell it at, etc.
The only way to combat this is to ensure that there are no "gatekeepers", and that there is healthy competition.
However, he's saying that the cost to enter the market for these competitors is becoming too high because of deals involving copyright issues that place Google and Amazon at the forefront since they can afford to pay the high sums being asked for.
So, he's saying that RIAA, the MPAA, the Author's Guild and the like should make it much cheaper and easier for people to get into the market to sell stuff.
FTA: What if the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) had started out by offering MP3 licenses on fair terms to any wholesaler who wanted to open a retailer (online or offline), so that the cost of starting a Web music store was a known quantity, rather than a potentially limitless litigation quagmire?
What if the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the North American Broadcasters Association made their streams available to anyone who paid a portion of their advertising revenue (with a guaranteed minimum), allowing 10 million video-on-demand systems to spring up from every garage in the world?
What if the Authors Guild had offered to stop suing Google for notional copyright violations in exchange for Google contributing its scans to a common pool of indexable books available to all search-engines, ensuring that book search was as competitive as Web search?
Dunno, it seems to me that he's just describing basic economics, and the dangers of monopolies and oligopolies.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404085</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing fees</title>
	<author>schwaang</author>
	<datestamp>1245490020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zerth:</p><blockquote><div><p>The only content creators that will get any fair shake are those writing books, lyrics, etc, as a profession instead of a passion.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think part of CD's point is that not <i>even</i> professional authors (of which he is obviously one) get a fair shake against a near-monopoly.  From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>Publishing is constrained by a tiny number of giant distributors and two major bookstore chains, all of which demand ridiculous terms on the books they carry</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zerth : The only content creators that will get any fair shake are those writing books , lyrics , etc , as a profession instead of a passion.I think part of CD 's point is that not even professional authors ( of which he is obviously one ) get a fair shake against a near-monopoly .
From TFA : Publishing is constrained by a tiny number of giant distributors and two major bookstore chains , all of which demand ridiculous terms on the books they carry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zerth:The only content creators that will get any fair shake are those writing books, lyrics, etc, as a profession instead of a passion.I think part of CD's point is that not even professional authors (of which he is obviously one) get a fair shake against a near-monopoly.
From TFA:Publishing is constrained by a tiny number of giant distributors and two major bookstore chains, all of which demand ridiculous terms on the books they carry
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28405065</id>
	<title>Healthy competitive marketplace?</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1245498360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is he really equating the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial\_scarcity" title="wikipedia.org">artificial scarcity</a> [wikipedia.org] of the classic media publishing businesses with a "healthy competitive marketplace?"   Healthy for a certain insider elite no doubt.  Bad rubbish...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is he really equating the artificial scarcity [ wikipedia.org ] of the classic media publishing businesses with a " healthy competitive marketplace ?
" Healthy for a certain insider elite no doubt .
Bad rubbish.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is he really equating the artificial scarcity [wikipedia.org] of the classic media publishing businesses with a "healthy competitive marketplace?
"   Healthy for a certain insider elite no doubt.
Bad rubbish...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403443</id>
	<title>Amazon and independent producers/artists</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1245527160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't Amazon still one of the few major players that will let almost anyone who self-publishes market their product through Amazon? Do they no longer do this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Amazon still one of the few major players that will let almost anyone who self-publishes market their product through Amazon ?
Do they no longer do this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Amazon still one of the few major players that will let almost anyone who self-publishes market their product through Amazon?
Do they no longer do this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401711</id>
	<title>What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245512040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So artists should spend 60 hours a week pressing disks and mailing boxes to cut out the middleman? So there should be a hundred thousand separate online stores, one per manufacturer? I'm not giving out my credit card number to some rubik's cube manufacturer, but Amazon is trustworthy. And how does it make good sense to design a web site for every manufacturer; just uniting everything in one familiar format is much more efficient. Any possible gains from doing it on your own would be offset by the cost of developing and deploying your own ecommerce platform. I don't think Doctorow realizes how many millions of dollars it costs to run warehouses and hire workers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So artists should spend 60 hours a week pressing disks and mailing boxes to cut out the middleman ?
So there should be a hundred thousand separate online stores , one per manufacturer ?
I 'm not giving out my credit card number to some rubik 's cube manufacturer , but Amazon is trustworthy .
And how does it make good sense to design a web site for every manufacturer ; just uniting everything in one familiar format is much more efficient .
Any possible gains from doing it on your own would be offset by the cost of developing and deploying your own ecommerce platform .
I do n't think Doctorow realizes how many millions of dollars it costs to run warehouses and hire workers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So artists should spend 60 hours a week pressing disks and mailing boxes to cut out the middleman?
So there should be a hundred thousand separate online stores, one per manufacturer?
I'm not giving out my credit card number to some rubik's cube manufacturer, but Amazon is trustworthy.
And how does it make good sense to design a web site for every manufacturer; just uniting everything in one familiar format is much more efficient.
Any possible gains from doing it on your own would be offset by the cost of developing and deploying your own ecommerce platform.
I don't think Doctorow realizes how many millions of dollars it costs to run warehouses and hire workers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407355</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245516240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no one gives a shit about your opinion cory</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no one gives a shit about your opinion cory</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no one gives a shit about your opinion cory</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402871</id>
	<title>It'a all about DRM</title>
	<author>Uteck</author>
	<datestamp>1245522360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cory is still mad because he can't release his audio books on Audible(owned by Amazon) because they require DRM on the audio books they sell, even if the author and copyright holder does not want DRM.</p><p>Did YouTube take down some BoingBoing video and that has him cheesed at them now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cory is still mad because he ca n't release his audio books on Audible ( owned by Amazon ) because they require DRM on the audio books they sell , even if the author and copyright holder does not want DRM.Did YouTube take down some BoingBoing video and that has him cheesed at them now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cory is still mad because he can't release his audio books on Audible(owned by Amazon) because they require DRM on the audio books they sell, even if the author and copyright holder does not want DRM.Did YouTube take down some BoingBoing video and that has him cheesed at them now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402439</id>
	<title>It wasn't exactly spot-on...</title>
	<author>MsGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245517980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But there are enough "hits" in this to raise your eyebrows a little.</p><p><a href="http://epic.makingithappen.co.uk/new-master1.html" title="makingithappen.co.uk">EPIC 2015</a> [makingithappen.co.uk]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPIC\_2014" title="wikipedia.org">About EPIC 2014 and EPIC 2015, from Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But there are enough " hits " in this to raise your eyebrows a little.EPIC 2015 [ makingithappen.co.uk ] About EPIC 2014 and EPIC 2015 , from Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there are enough "hits" in this to raise your eyebrows a little.EPIC 2015 [makingithappen.co.uk]About EPIC 2014 and EPIC 2015, from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28412339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28406871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28408277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28412225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28406847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28406911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28410165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1325216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28410165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28408277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28412339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402433
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407289
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28412225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28406847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28406871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402023
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28407471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28403407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1325216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28401921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28404085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28402533
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1325216.28406911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
