<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_29_2240213</id>
	<title>High Court Allows Remote-Storage DVR System</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246282560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Immutate and several other readers noted that Cablevision will be allowed to go ahead with <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5huA29y1WNNqS4rykHhxbWlvPUcUAD994I0CO0">deploying a remote-storage DVR system</a>, when the US Supreme Court declined (without comment) to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that went against movie studios and TV networks. (We <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/12/1415254&amp;tid=188">discussed this case</a> a few months back.) <i>"Cable TV operators won a key legal battle against Hollywood studios and television networks on Monday as the Supreme Court declined to block a new digital video recording system that could make it even easier for viewers to bypass commercials. The justices declined to hear arguments on whether Cablevision Systems Corp.'s remote-storage DVR system would violate copyright laws. That allows the... company to proceed with plans to start deploying the technology this summer."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Immutate and several other readers noted that Cablevision will be allowed to go ahead with deploying a remote-storage DVR system , when the US Supreme Court declined ( without comment ) to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that went against movie studios and TV networks .
( We discussed this case a few months back .
) " Cable TV operators won a key legal battle against Hollywood studios and television networks on Monday as the Supreme Court declined to block a new digital video recording system that could make it even easier for viewers to bypass commercials .
The justices declined to hear arguments on whether Cablevision Systems Corp. 's remote-storage DVR system would violate copyright laws .
That allows the... company to proceed with plans to start deploying the technology this summer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Immutate and several other readers noted that Cablevision will be allowed to go ahead with deploying a remote-storage DVR system, when the US Supreme Court declined (without comment) to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that went against movie studios and TV networks.
(We discussed this case a few months back.
) "Cable TV operators won a key legal battle against Hollywood studios and television networks on Monday as the Supreme Court declined to block a new digital video recording system that could make it even easier for viewers to bypass commercials.
The justices declined to hear arguments on whether Cablevision Systems Corp.'s remote-storage DVR system would violate copyright laws.
That allows the... company to proceed with plans to start deploying the technology this summer.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523169</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246287480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually TV and Internet costs aren't that different. I pay a monthly fee for the line that goes to my house for both TV and Internet. When I watch a TV show I see commercials, and when I go to most websites I see ads. The only difference is that TV ads are far more obstructive to the content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually TV and Internet costs are n't that different .
I pay a monthly fee for the line that goes to my house for both TV and Internet .
When I watch a TV show I see commercials , and when I go to most websites I see ads .
The only difference is that TV ads are far more obstructive to the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually TV and Internet costs aren't that different.
I pay a monthly fee for the line that goes to my house for both TV and Internet.
When I watch a TV show I see commercials, and when I go to most websites I see ads.
The only difference is that TV ads are far more obstructive to the content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28531089</id>
	<title>Re:Thoughts from the consumer side.</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1246385400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's still your DVR.  You can keep your recordings on it until you run out of space.  Each cable account will have its own designated storage account, with access to programs recorded based on your cable subscription level.  This is the only way it works, as Cablevision was forced earlier in the litigation to argue a 1:1 relationship in order to avoid the direct infringement of public performances.  Whether, in fact, their data storage system keeps bit-for-bit separate copies for each account or just an alias will undoubtedly be part of future litigation.  A strict reading of this decision requires that each customer have their own dedicated hard drive, just physically relocated to a server farm.  A less strict reading simply requires each customer to have their current 80 hours of HD recording space, which cannot be accessed by any other customer.  Cable companies undoubtedly want the latter to save on storage space, but it's not clear that that usage is out of the litigation woods just yet.</p><p>The cable companies want this because it means no longer having to buy expensive hardware for each DVR customer.  All the cable box needs is a way to connect to the video storage center and authenticate against your video "mailbox" and pull the recordings.</p><p>The theoretical benefit is lower prices (or slower price increases) and greater storage space (or improved video bitrates) for consumers.  The practical benefit, of course, is more profit for the cable companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's still your DVR .
You can keep your recordings on it until you run out of space .
Each cable account will have its own designated storage account , with access to programs recorded based on your cable subscription level .
This is the only way it works , as Cablevision was forced earlier in the litigation to argue a 1 : 1 relationship in order to avoid the direct infringement of public performances .
Whether , in fact , their data storage system keeps bit-for-bit separate copies for each account or just an alias will undoubtedly be part of future litigation .
A strict reading of this decision requires that each customer have their own dedicated hard drive , just physically relocated to a server farm .
A less strict reading simply requires each customer to have their current 80 hours of HD recording space , which can not be accessed by any other customer .
Cable companies undoubtedly want the latter to save on storage space , but it 's not clear that that usage is out of the litigation woods just yet.The cable companies want this because it means no longer having to buy expensive hardware for each DVR customer .
All the cable box needs is a way to connect to the video storage center and authenticate against your video " mailbox " and pull the recordings.The theoretical benefit is lower prices ( or slower price increases ) and greater storage space ( or improved video bitrates ) for consumers .
The practical benefit , of course , is more profit for the cable companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's still your DVR.
You can keep your recordings on it until you run out of space.
Each cable account will have its own designated storage account, with access to programs recorded based on your cable subscription level.
This is the only way it works, as Cablevision was forced earlier in the litigation to argue a 1:1 relationship in order to avoid the direct infringement of public performances.
Whether, in fact, their data storage system keeps bit-for-bit separate copies for each account or just an alias will undoubtedly be part of future litigation.
A strict reading of this decision requires that each customer have their own dedicated hard drive, just physically relocated to a server farm.
A less strict reading simply requires each customer to have their current 80 hours of HD recording space, which cannot be accessed by any other customer.
Cable companies undoubtedly want the latter to save on storage space, but it's not clear that that usage is out of the litigation woods just yet.The cable companies want this because it means no longer having to buy expensive hardware for each DVR customer.
All the cable box needs is a way to connect to the video storage center and authenticate against your video "mailbox" and pull the recordings.The theoretical benefit is lower prices (or slower price increases) and greater storage space (or improved video bitrates) for consumers.
The practical benefit, of course, is more profit for the cable companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523207</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1246287720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how this stuff works in the US, but where I live, the cable operator just catches the TV programs off the air or via some cable or satellite (I don't work for a cable company so don't know for sure), converts it to analog and sends both analog and digital versions trough the cable to my home. There is no difference between a channel that I can get off the air and the same channel on cable (except the reception quality). The commercials are part of the original program, so if the cable company were to remove them, it would leave a 5-10min gap of nothing where the commercials were.</p><p>Why use cable then? Because of the higher reception quality and the ability to see foreign channels that would only be available via satellite.</p><p>My cable company has a single channel of their own, but nothing interesting (to me) is there so I don't know if it has commercials or not (it only operates part of the day, the other part is ads with music, but it's easy to avoid them - just don't watch that channel)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how this stuff works in the US , but where I live , the cable operator just catches the TV programs off the air or via some cable or satellite ( I do n't work for a cable company so do n't know for sure ) , converts it to analog and sends both analog and digital versions trough the cable to my home .
There is no difference between a channel that I can get off the air and the same channel on cable ( except the reception quality ) .
The commercials are part of the original program , so if the cable company were to remove them , it would leave a 5-10min gap of nothing where the commercials were.Why use cable then ?
Because of the higher reception quality and the ability to see foreign channels that would only be available via satellite.My cable company has a single channel of their own , but nothing interesting ( to me ) is there so I do n't know if it has commercials or not ( it only operates part of the day , the other part is ads with music , but it 's easy to avoid them - just do n't watch that channel )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how this stuff works in the US, but where I live, the cable operator just catches the TV programs off the air or via some cable or satellite (I don't work for a cable company so don't know for sure), converts it to analog and sends both analog and digital versions trough the cable to my home.
There is no difference between a channel that I can get off the air and the same channel on cable (except the reception quality).
The commercials are part of the original program, so if the cable company were to remove them, it would leave a 5-10min gap of nothing where the commercials were.Why use cable then?
Because of the higher reception quality and the ability to see foreign channels that would only be available via satellite.My cable company has a single channel of their own, but nothing interesting (to me) is there so I don't know if it has commercials or not (it only operates part of the day, the other part is ads with music, but it's easy to avoid them - just don't watch that channel)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28525347</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>wujing</author>
	<datestamp>1246395360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.watches-space.com/Zenith-Watches.html" title="watches-space.com" rel="nofollow">Zenith Watches</a> [watches-space.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zenith Watches [ watches-space.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zenith Watches [watches-space.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524229</id>
	<title>No real victory here</title>
	<author>e9th</author>
	<datestamp>1246296600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was no constitutional issue here. Content owners can just go tell Congress to tweak copyright laws a bit and bingo! All fixed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no constitutional issue here .
Content owners can just go tell Congress to tweak copyright laws a bit and bingo !
All fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no constitutional issue here.
Content owners can just go tell Congress to tweak copyright laws a bit and bingo!
All fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523333</id>
	<title>Fair Use!</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1246288440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a very good example of fair use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a very good example of fair use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a very good example of fair use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523497</id>
	<title>No win for the consumer</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1246289760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No matter which party prevailed in this case, the average citizen wouldn't win.  Both parties are only interested in making money, and as much of it as they can get away with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter which party prevailed in this case , the average citizen would n't win .
Both parties are only interested in making money , and as much of it as they can get away with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter which party prevailed in this case, the average citizen wouldn't win.
Both parties are only interested in making money, and as much of it as they can get away with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524945</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Glendale2x</author>
	<datestamp>1246304400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you from the US? There's no such thing as free rebroadcasting here. You're not paying for "their" content; they don't have any content. (Okay, maybe the lame help I've never seen a remote control before channel and local public access stuff is theirs, but by and large the content is licensed to them by others.) The cable companies are paying for rebroadcast rights for other people's content and passing that cost on to you. Also, unlike over the air broadcasting, cable networks actually cost money to maintain. Local cable companies inject local ads (and yeah, they get money from those) but if you ever watch Dish or DirecTV you'll notice the advertising is completely different because there's no local cut away. "Must carry" stations are different story. As far as HBO, Showtime, etc. I agree - you *are* paying for the content in that case. However, since I haven't had cable in years, nor have I ever subscribed to premium channels when I did, I don't know if they run ads on them.</p><p>I'm in no way defending their pricing which I think is horribly expensive in my area, but licensing is what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you from the US ?
There 's no such thing as free rebroadcasting here .
You 're not paying for " their " content ; they do n't have any content .
( Okay , maybe the lame help I 've never seen a remote control before channel and local public access stuff is theirs , but by and large the content is licensed to them by others .
) The cable companies are paying for rebroadcast rights for other people 's content and passing that cost on to you .
Also , unlike over the air broadcasting , cable networks actually cost money to maintain .
Local cable companies inject local ads ( and yeah , they get money from those ) but if you ever watch Dish or DirecTV you 'll notice the advertising is completely different because there 's no local cut away .
" Must carry " stations are different story .
As far as HBO , Showtime , etc .
I agree - you * are * paying for the content in that case .
However , since I have n't had cable in years , nor have I ever subscribed to premium channels when I did , I do n't know if they run ads on them.I 'm in no way defending their pricing which I think is horribly expensive in my area , but licensing is what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you from the US?
There's no such thing as free rebroadcasting here.
You're not paying for "their" content; they don't have any content.
(Okay, maybe the lame help I've never seen a remote control before channel and local public access stuff is theirs, but by and large the content is licensed to them by others.
) The cable companies are paying for rebroadcast rights for other people's content and passing that cost on to you.
Also, unlike over the air broadcasting, cable networks actually cost money to maintain.
Local cable companies inject local ads (and yeah, they get money from those) but if you ever watch Dish or DirecTV you'll notice the advertising is completely different because there's no local cut away.
"Must carry" stations are different story.
As far as HBO, Showtime, etc.
I agree - you *are* paying for the content in that case.
However, since I haven't had cable in years, nor have I ever subscribed to premium channels when I did, I don't know if they run ads on them.I'm in no way defending their pricing which I think is horribly expensive in my area, but licensing is what it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28528079</id>
	<title>Re:Thoughts from the consumer side.</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1246375800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the Cablevision opinion discusses this hypo and distinguishes it based on whether there are copies made for each viewer or just one copy multiple members of the public share.</p><p>In the first case (what happened in this case), it's not a "public" performance and thus doesn't implicate the public performance right of copyright owners. However, the latter instance (your pointer hypothetical) <b>is</b> a public performance, and is thus presumptively a direct infringement of copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the Cablevision opinion discusses this hypo and distinguishes it based on whether there are copies made for each viewer or just one copy multiple members of the public share.In the first case ( what happened in this case ) , it 's not a " public " performance and thus does n't implicate the public performance right of copyright owners .
However , the latter instance ( your pointer hypothetical ) is a public performance , and is thus presumptively a direct infringement of copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the Cablevision opinion discusses this hypo and distinguishes it based on whether there are copies made for each viewer or just one copy multiple members of the public share.In the first case (what happened in this case), it's not a "public" performance and thus doesn't implicate the public performance right of copyright owners.
However, the latter instance (your pointer hypothetical) is a public performance, and is thus presumptively a direct infringement of copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524541</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Arcady13</author>
	<datestamp>1246299480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nine minutes of ads would be great. That's what you got in 1969 on a one hour show. In 2009, you get 18 minutes of ads per hour. Yes, your "hour-long drama" is really 42 minutes. And your re-run of Star Trek TOS is missing 9 minutes of material, not including the "previously on" and "coming next week" spots that are also cut.
<br> <br>
By 2039, the show will be 9 minutes long and you'll have 51 minutes of ads. And fast-forward will be illegal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nine minutes of ads would be great .
That 's what you got in 1969 on a one hour show .
In 2009 , you get 18 minutes of ads per hour .
Yes , your " hour-long drama " is really 42 minutes .
And your re-run of Star Trek TOS is missing 9 minutes of material , not including the " previously on " and " coming next week " spots that are also cut .
By 2039 , the show will be 9 minutes long and you 'll have 51 minutes of ads .
And fast-forward will be illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nine minutes of ads would be great.
That's what you got in 1969 on a one hour show.
In 2009, you get 18 minutes of ads per hour.
Yes, your "hour-long drama" is really 42 minutes.
And your re-run of Star Trek TOS is missing 9 minutes of material, not including the "previously on" and "coming next week" spots that are also cut.
By 2039, the show will be 9 minutes long and you'll have 51 minutes of ads.
And fast-forward will be illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527039</id>
	<title>It's not all about commercials!</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1246371000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...new digital video recording system that could make it even easier for viewers to bypass commercials.</p></div></blockquote><p>Skipping commercials is NOT the only reason to use a DVR. While that may be a great feature, for my family, it's secondary to time-shifting and an integrated, searchable on-screen program guide. Being able to find the shows we want to watch, record them, and watch them in any order when WE want to really is the key to good DVRs.</p><p>I've been using DVRs since mid 1999 when the first ReplayTV boxes came out. Since then, I've used ReplayTV DVRs, a Charter Cable DVR, a MOXI HD DVR, a SageTV PC-based DVR, and now a Dish Network HD DVR. And over the years, we have discovered that commercial skipping, while nice, really isn't that important to us as some of the other DVR features.</p><p>For example, we actually found that eliminating commercials completely was really NOT the most desirable. With the aid of some nice add-ons to our SageTV box, we had the ability to completely eliminate virtually all commercials from recorded content. We would be watching a recording of say, "Star Trek: The Next Generation", and when a commercial break would begin, SageTV would automagically skip over the commercials resuming the show. It was seamless and very accurate. The problem was that over time, we discovered that we had become WAY out of touch with things like what new shows or specials were coming up, what movies were at or coming to the theater, what local news alerts were going on, and yes, even missing out on some legitimately good commercials. Our Dish Network DVR has no commercial elimination, just a forward-skip button, so while we do continue to skip many ciommercials, we don't eliminate them completely.</p><p>So commercial skipping really is not the core reason for us to continue to use a DVR.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...new digital video recording system that could make it even easier for viewers to bypass commercials.Skipping commercials is NOT the only reason to use a DVR .
While that may be a great feature , for my family , it 's secondary to time-shifting and an integrated , searchable on-screen program guide .
Being able to find the shows we want to watch , record them , and watch them in any order when WE want to really is the key to good DVRs.I 've been using DVRs since mid 1999 when the first ReplayTV boxes came out .
Since then , I 've used ReplayTV DVRs , a Charter Cable DVR , a MOXI HD DVR , a SageTV PC-based DVR , and now a Dish Network HD DVR .
And over the years , we have discovered that commercial skipping , while nice , really is n't that important to us as some of the other DVR features.For example , we actually found that eliminating commercials completely was really NOT the most desirable .
With the aid of some nice add-ons to our SageTV box , we had the ability to completely eliminate virtually all commercials from recorded content .
We would be watching a recording of say , " Star Trek : The Next Generation " , and when a commercial break would begin , SageTV would automagically skip over the commercials resuming the show .
It was seamless and very accurate .
The problem was that over time , we discovered that we had become WAY out of touch with things like what new shows or specials were coming up , what movies were at or coming to the theater , what local news alerts were going on , and yes , even missing out on some legitimately good commercials .
Our Dish Network DVR has no commercial elimination , just a forward-skip button , so while we do continue to skip many ciommercials , we do n't eliminate them completely.So commercial skipping really is not the core reason for us to continue to use a DVR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...new digital video recording system that could make it even easier for viewers to bypass commercials.Skipping commercials is NOT the only reason to use a DVR.
While that may be a great feature, for my family, it's secondary to time-shifting and an integrated, searchable on-screen program guide.
Being able to find the shows we want to watch, record them, and watch them in any order when WE want to really is the key to good DVRs.I've been using DVRs since mid 1999 when the first ReplayTV boxes came out.
Since then, I've used ReplayTV DVRs, a Charter Cable DVR, a MOXI HD DVR, a SageTV PC-based DVR, and now a Dish Network HD DVR.
And over the years, we have discovered that commercial skipping, while nice, really isn't that important to us as some of the other DVR features.For example, we actually found that eliminating commercials completely was really NOT the most desirable.
With the aid of some nice add-ons to our SageTV box, we had the ability to completely eliminate virtually all commercials from recorded content.
We would be watching a recording of say, "Star Trek: The Next Generation", and when a commercial break would begin, SageTV would automagically skip over the commercials resuming the show.
It was seamless and very accurate.
The problem was that over time, we discovered that we had become WAY out of touch with things like what new shows or specials were coming up, what movies were at or coming to the theater, what local news alerts were going on, and yes, even missing out on some legitimately good commercials.
Our Dish Network DVR has no commercial elimination, just a forward-skip button, so while we do continue to skip many ciommercials, we don't eliminate them completely.So commercial skipping really is not the core reason for us to continue to use a DVR.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523037</id>
	<title>Heaven forbid you record a show off of tv!</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1246286460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yikes you mean you can record a show off of tv and watch it at a different location? Wow what an innovation... oh, wait, I used to do that with Video Tape (VHS) all the time... time shifting shows too... location shifting them is no different...</p><p>Before you know it you brain cells will have to pay a fee for SEEING a show. Oh wait, that's known as a movie theater...</p><p>Before you know it you'll have to pay a fee every time you REMEMBER a show you saw on TV. Now that's scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yikes you mean you can record a show off of tv and watch it at a different location ?
Wow what an innovation... oh , wait , I used to do that with Video Tape ( VHS ) all the time... time shifting shows too... location shifting them is no different...Before you know it you brain cells will have to pay a fee for SEEING a show .
Oh wait , that 's known as a movie theater...Before you know it you 'll have to pay a fee every time you REMEMBER a show you saw on TV .
Now that 's scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yikes you mean you can record a show off of tv and watch it at a different location?
Wow what an innovation... oh, wait, I used to do that with Video Tape (VHS) all the time... time shifting shows too... location shifting them is no different...Before you know it you brain cells will have to pay a fee for SEEING a show.
Oh wait, that's known as a movie theater...Before you know it you'll have to pay a fee every time you REMEMBER a show you saw on TV.
Now that's scary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523539</id>
	<title>Re:Thoughts from the consumer side.</title>
	<author>sprior</author>
	<datestamp>1246290120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More predictions.  The cable companies are going to end up recording one of everything so "recording" something on the DVR is just a matter of keeping a pointer, so the next big fight is going to happen when a cable company allows you to "record" a show after it has already ended and the content producers cry foul.</p><p>And more control will be exercised as to how long you can keep a recording.  Those Battlestar Galactica episodes you've been keeping on your DVR for 6 months?  Um, no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More predictions .
The cable companies are going to end up recording one of everything so " recording " something on the DVR is just a matter of keeping a pointer , so the next big fight is going to happen when a cable company allows you to " record " a show after it has already ended and the content producers cry foul.And more control will be exercised as to how long you can keep a recording .
Those Battlestar Galactica episodes you 've been keeping on your DVR for 6 months ?
Um , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More predictions.
The cable companies are going to end up recording one of everything so "recording" something on the DVR is just a matter of keeping a pointer, so the next big fight is going to happen when a cable company allows you to "record" a show after it has already ended and the content producers cry foul.And more control will be exercised as to how long you can keep a recording.
Those Battlestar Galactica episodes you've been keeping on your DVR for 6 months?
Um, no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523411</id>
	<title>Ad-skipping as a priority</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246288860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I could maybe see ad-skipping becoming slightly less of a priority now that Billy Mays is gone...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I could maybe see ad-skipping becoming slightly less of a priority now that Billy Mays is gone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I could maybe see ad-skipping becoming slightly less of a priority now that Billy Mays is gone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28525875</id>
	<title>No, they did not allow it</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1246359600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they did not allow it. Nor did they disallow it. They declined to hear the case. In all but a few situations, the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and can decline to hear a case for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they want to wait until multiple circuits have considered an issue. Sometimes they think the time is ripe for the Court to settle an issue, but the particular case up for review is not a good vehicle for that review, and so waits for a better case. Sometimes they just don't think the case is important enough compared to the other cases competing for their time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they did not allow it .
Nor did they disallow it .
They declined to hear the case .
In all but a few situations , the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction , and can decline to hear a case for a variety of reasons .
Sometimes they want to wait until multiple circuits have considered an issue .
Sometimes they think the time is ripe for the Court to settle an issue , but the particular case up for review is not a good vehicle for that review , and so waits for a better case .
Sometimes they just do n't think the case is important enough compared to the other cases competing for their time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they did not allow it.
Nor did they disallow it.
They declined to hear the case.
In all but a few situations, the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and can decline to hear a case for a variety of reasons.
Sometimes they want to wait until multiple circuits have considered an issue.
Sometimes they think the time is ripe for the Court to settle an issue, but the particular case up for review is not a good vehicle for that review, and so waits for a better case.
Sometimes they just don't think the case is important enough compared to the other cases competing for their time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523167</id>
	<title>Remote-storage DVR - the torrentspace...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246287480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good, my remote-storage DVR is called "The Pirate Bay."  Glad that's all cleared up then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good , my remote-storage DVR is called " The Pirate Bay .
" Glad that 's all cleared up then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good, my remote-storage DVR is called "The Pirate Bay.
"  Glad that's all cleared up then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526193</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1246363920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you talking about? Cable started out as CATV, which stood for Community Antenna TV back in 1948 when it started, to share one antenna for many sets, typically in a housing development or apartment complex, then it evolved into what we now know as cable TV. There was never a time when CATV or Cable TV were commercial-free, since it always carried broadcast TV stations which were commercial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
Cable started out as CATV , which stood for Community Antenna TV back in 1948 when it started , to share one antenna for many sets , typically in a housing development or apartment complex , then it evolved into what we now know as cable TV .
There was never a time when CATV or Cable TV were commercial-free , since it always carried broadcast TV stations which were commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?
Cable started out as CATV, which stood for Community Antenna TV back in 1948 when it started, to share one antenna for many sets, typically in a housing development or apartment complex, then it evolved into what we now know as cable TV.
There was never a time when CATV or Cable TV were commercial-free, since it always carried broadcast TV stations which were commercial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523185</id>
	<title>Not that I disagree with the ruling, but...</title>
	<author>nebaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246287540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article...<br><i>Movie studios, TV networks and cable TV channels had argued that the service is more akin to video-on-demand, for which they negotiate licensing fees with cable providers.</i></p><p>Isn't this exactly what video-on-demand is?  Downloading a movie locally that is held at the cable company's location?  (DirecTV acts that way with their DVR.  You have to download it).  If so, the ruling may mean license fees are unneeded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article...Movie studios , TV networks and cable TV channels had argued that the service is more akin to video-on-demand , for which they negotiate licensing fees with cable providers.Is n't this exactly what video-on-demand is ?
Downloading a movie locally that is held at the cable company 's location ?
( DirecTV acts that way with their DVR .
You have to download it ) .
If so , the ruling may mean license fees are unneeded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article...Movie studios, TV networks and cable TV channels had argued that the service is more akin to video-on-demand, for which they negotiate licensing fees with cable providers.Isn't this exactly what video-on-demand is?
Downloading a movie locally that is held at the cable company's location?
(DirecTV acts that way with their DVR.
You have to download it).
If so, the ruling may mean license fees are unneeded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28532145</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Horsehockey</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1246388820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a practical matter, in this case, the Supreme Court has "allowed" Cablevision to proceed with its online DVR program. <br> <br>Judge Chin "forbade" it; the Second Circuit "allowed" it; and the Supreme Court "allowed" the Second Circuit decision to be the final word.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a practical matter , in this case , the Supreme Court has " allowed " Cablevision to proceed with its online DVR program .
Judge Chin " forbade " it ; the Second Circuit " allowed " it ; and the Supreme Court " allowed " the Second Circuit decision to be the final word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a practical matter, in this case, the Supreme Court has "allowed" Cablevision to proceed with its online DVR program.
Judge Chin "forbade" it; the Second Circuit "allowed" it; and the Supreme Court "allowed" the Second Circuit decision to be the final word.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523265</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1246288140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can just quit cable if you don't like.  If there are enough people like you then things will change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can just quit cable if you do n't like .
If there are enough people like you then things will change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can just quit cable if you don't like.
If there are enough people like you then things will change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524357</id>
	<title>Re:No win for the consumer</title>
	<author>Sp1n3rGy</author>
	<datestamp>1246297740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is capitalism so unpopular?</p><p>If I'm evil for trying to turn a buck, then the US is in a shameful state for sure.</p><p>I guess you are right. Let's move to China where... wait... umm, they like the Benjamins as well. Russia? Ohh wait, that was almost 20 years ago. How about the moon? Yeah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is capitalism so unpopular ? If I 'm evil for trying to turn a buck , then the US is in a shameful state for sure.I guess you are right .
Let 's move to China where... wait... umm , they like the Benjamins as well .
Russia ? Ohh wait , that was almost 20 years ago .
How about the moon ?
Yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is capitalism so unpopular?If I'm evil for trying to turn a buck, then the US is in a shameful state for sure.I guess you are right.
Let's move to China where... wait... umm, they like the Benjamins as well.
Russia? Ohh wait, that was almost 20 years ago.
How about the moon?
Yeah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523701</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246291620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think more or less, this is how it works...</p><p>People create TV shows.<br>These people license out their shows to TV networks.<br>These TV networks license out their networks to TV providers (cable, satellite, Internet, etc.)<br>These TV providers then sell their service to the consumer.</p><p>But, the ads, yes, could be seen as keeping the cost of service low. Why do we expect HBO costs like what, $15/month?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think more or less , this is how it works...People create TV shows.These people license out their shows to TV networks.These TV networks license out their networks to TV providers ( cable , satellite , Internet , etc .
) These TV providers then sell their service to the consumer.But , the ads , yes , could be seen as keeping the cost of service low .
Why do we expect HBO costs like what , $ 15/month ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think more or less, this is how it works...People create TV shows.These people license out their shows to TV networks.These TV networks license out their networks to TV providers (cable, satellite, Internet, etc.
)These TV providers then sell their service to the consumer.But, the ads, yes, could be seen as keeping the cost of service low.
Why do we expect HBO costs like what, $15/month?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527485</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite "free license" for cable operators...</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1246372980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I read this right the cable operators are in for one hell of a bill in both storage and replication hardware to create duplicate copies for each user request. Storage is cheap, but since there are also legal (and relatively short) limits on how long you can buffer something before it counts as a copy this tends to complicate scalable data replication. Not impossible, just adds extra cost and complexity. Which no doubt will be passed on.</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe, and maybe not.  The reason the court distinguished transmissions made from a single copy and transmissions made from multiple copies is that "...the source material of the transmission-limit[s] the potential audience of a transmission in this case and [is] therefore germane in determining whether that transmission is made 'to the public'".  Since it is the effect of having unique copies assigned to a particular customer, and not the actual mechanical fact which is at issue, it's conceivable that a court would rule that a system which behaved as if there were multiple copies, even when only one physical copy existed, would also not be infringing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I read this right the cable operators are in for one hell of a bill in both storage and replication hardware to create duplicate copies for each user request .
Storage is cheap , but since there are also legal ( and relatively short ) limits on how long you can buffer something before it counts as a copy this tends to complicate scalable data replication .
Not impossible , just adds extra cost and complexity .
Which no doubt will be passed on.Maybe , and maybe not .
The reason the court distinguished transmissions made from a single copy and transmissions made from multiple copies is that " ...the source material of the transmission-limit [ s ] the potential audience of a transmission in this case and [ is ] therefore germane in determining whether that transmission is made 'to the public ' " .
Since it is the effect of having unique copies assigned to a particular customer , and not the actual mechanical fact which is at issue , it 's conceivable that a court would rule that a system which behaved as if there were multiple copies , even when only one physical copy existed , would also not be infringing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I read this right the cable operators are in for one hell of a bill in both storage and replication hardware to create duplicate copies for each user request.
Storage is cheap, but since there are also legal (and relatively short) limits on how long you can buffer something before it counts as a copy this tends to complicate scalable data replication.
Not impossible, just adds extra cost and complexity.
Which no doubt will be passed on.Maybe, and maybe not.
The reason the court distinguished transmissions made from a single copy and transmissions made from multiple copies is that "...the source material of the transmission-limit[s] the potential audience of a transmission in this case and [is] therefore germane in determining whether that transmission is made 'to the public'".
Since it is the effect of having unique copies assigned to a particular customer, and not the actual mechanical fact which is at issue, it's conceivable that a court would rule that a system which behaved as if there were multiple copies, even when only one physical copy existed, would also not be infringing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28537067</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246369560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I dont watch TV anymore.  I will not pay for a service and get ads.  They are mutually exclusive.  This is one of the reasons why Internet Piracy (with regards to Video Media) is not only done but is acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I dont watch TV anymore .
I will not pay for a service and get ads .
They are mutually exclusive .
This is one of the reasons why Internet Piracy ( with regards to Video Media ) is not only done but is acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I dont watch TV anymore.
I will not pay for a service and get ads.
They are mutually exclusive.
This is one of the reasons why Internet Piracy (with regards to Video Media) is not only done but is acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523183</id>
	<title>The content providers won but don't know it</title>
	<author>speedlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1246287540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the content providers sue the cable company for remote caching of shows.

They really won this.  Now, if the show is on a server somewhere, things like ad skip can't be disabled.  There's no web page of hacks and work arounds for the "cable box".  While the cable company was looking at this as two million remote boxes in homes versus a server farm, the content providers, stuck in 1965 where they played and you watched when they said to, freaked.

They will figure out they won this as soon as they charge 5 cents per delayed broadcast...all passed on to the viewer, of course.

Oh yes, that "dvr" fee is not going away, even if the DVR does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the content providers sue the cable company for remote caching of shows .
They really won this .
Now , if the show is on a server somewhere , things like ad skip ca n't be disabled .
There 's no web page of hacks and work arounds for the " cable box " .
While the cable company was looking at this as two million remote boxes in homes versus a server farm , the content providers , stuck in 1965 where they played and you watched when they said to , freaked .
They will figure out they won this as soon as they charge 5 cents per delayed broadcast...all passed on to the viewer , of course .
Oh yes , that " dvr " fee is not going away , even if the DVR does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the content providers sue the cable company for remote caching of shows.
They really won this.
Now, if the show is on a server somewhere, things like ad skip can't be disabled.
There's no web page of hacks and work arounds for the "cable box".
While the cable company was looking at this as two million remote boxes in homes versus a server farm, the content providers, stuck in 1965 where they played and you watched when they said to, freaked.
They will figure out they won this as soon as they charge 5 cents per delayed broadcast...all passed on to the viewer, of course.
Oh yes, that "dvr" fee is not going away, even if the DVR does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523287</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Cylix</author>
	<datestamp>1246288260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually,</p><p>Cable companies can and do pay for non-premium networks. The idea is fairly straight forward. If you need more viewers and your product is not so much in demand you might not charge for the product. More often then not these "less demanded" networks are packaged together with more appealing networks. Common sense comes into play here... if you can get someone to pay for your product then you will most likely elect to produce additional revenue where possible.</p><p>This applies to both network and broadcast television.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually,Cable companies can and do pay for non-premium networks .
The idea is fairly straight forward .
If you need more viewers and your product is not so much in demand you might not charge for the product .
More often then not these " less demanded " networks are packaged together with more appealing networks .
Common sense comes into play here... if you can get someone to pay for your product then you will most likely elect to produce additional revenue where possible.This applies to both network and broadcast television .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually,Cable companies can and do pay for non-premium networks.
The idea is fairly straight forward.
If you need more viewers and your product is not so much in demand you might not charge for the product.
More often then not these "less demanded" networks are packaged together with more appealing networks.
Common sense comes into play here... if you can get someone to pay for your product then you will most likely elect to produce additional revenue where possible.This applies to both network and broadcast television.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28525527</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>bentcd</author>
	<datestamp>1246354560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee</p></div><p>No, you're not. You are paying for 40\% of their content via the subscription fee.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>so why should I even have ads?</p></div><p>To cover the remaining 60\%.</p><p>(Numbers are examples only. Actual percentages may vary from network to network.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice .
I mean , I 'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription feeNo , you 're not .
You are paying for 40 \ % of their content via the subscription fee.so why should I even have ads ? To cover the remaining 60 \ % .
( Numbers are examples only .
Actual percentages may vary from network to network .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice.
I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription feeNo, you're not.
You are paying for 40\% of their content via the subscription fee.so why should I even have ads?To cover the remaining 60\%.
(Numbers are examples only.
Actual percentages may vary from network to network.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526561</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1246367820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other difference is who the money goes to, surely?</p><p>For TV, you pay the cable/satellite TV supplier, they pay the 3rd party channels (I presume), you watch the content, the content has adverts, the advert money goes to the channel, the content creator just sees the purchase price of the show by the channel.</p><p>For the Internet you pay the provider of the pipes (or at least your account on the pipes), they pay sod all to the website owners, you view the content, the content sometimes has adverts, the money goes to the content creator (assuming it is self-hosted or most magazine-type websites).</p><p>The only place it starts to get similar is places like YouTube, where YouTube changes from "content" to "channel" and the content creators see the purchase price (which used to be "sod all"), although that may be changing with some of the "ad sharing" ideas I've seen mentioned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other difference is who the money goes to , surely ? For TV , you pay the cable/satellite TV supplier , they pay the 3rd party channels ( I presume ) , you watch the content , the content has adverts , the advert money goes to the channel , the content creator just sees the purchase price of the show by the channel.For the Internet you pay the provider of the pipes ( or at least your account on the pipes ) , they pay sod all to the website owners , you view the content , the content sometimes has adverts , the money goes to the content creator ( assuming it is self-hosted or most magazine-type websites ) .The only place it starts to get similar is places like YouTube , where YouTube changes from " content " to " channel " and the content creators see the purchase price ( which used to be " sod all " ) , although that may be changing with some of the " ad sharing " ideas I 've seen mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other difference is who the money goes to, surely?For TV, you pay the cable/satellite TV supplier, they pay the 3rd party channels (I presume), you watch the content, the content has adverts, the advert money goes to the channel, the content creator just sees the purchase price of the show by the channel.For the Internet you pay the provider of the pipes (or at least your account on the pipes), they pay sod all to the website owners, you view the content, the content sometimes has adverts, the money goes to the content creator (assuming it is self-hosted or most magazine-type websites).The only place it starts to get similar is places like YouTube, where YouTube changes from "content" to "channel" and the content creators see the purchase price (which used to be "sod all"), although that may be changing with some of the "ad sharing" ideas I've seen mentioned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526411</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1246366200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm... that preview thing does its job. I was going to write: "There is quite a big difference in the costs. In the case of cable the revenue from the ads is going to the access provider - so you are paying the same person twice for the content. In the case of internet you are paying for access, and then you are paying the content provider."</p><p>But I'm sitting watching an ad-free channel on cable right now and I realise that I'm talking complete crap. The revenue goes to the channel, and they are often different. So for third-party channels you are completely correct, and it's only in the case of channels that the cable company owns (ie Virgin1 or Sky depending on who you are connected to) that the situation is different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... that preview thing does its job .
I was going to write : " There is quite a big difference in the costs .
In the case of cable the revenue from the ads is going to the access provider - so you are paying the same person twice for the content .
In the case of internet you are paying for access , and then you are paying the content provider .
" But I 'm sitting watching an ad-free channel on cable right now and I realise that I 'm talking complete crap .
The revenue goes to the channel , and they are often different .
So for third-party channels you are completely correct , and it 's only in the case of channels that the cable company owns ( ie Virgin1 or Sky depending on who you are connected to ) that the situation is different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... that preview thing does its job.
I was going to write: "There is quite a big difference in the costs.
In the case of cable the revenue from the ads is going to the access provider - so you are paying the same person twice for the content.
In the case of internet you are paying for access, and then you are paying the content provider.
"But I'm sitting watching an ad-free channel on cable right now and I realise that I'm talking complete crap.
The revenue goes to the channel, and they are often different.
So for third-party channels you are completely correct, and it's only in the case of channels that the cable company owns (ie Virgin1 or Sky depending on who you are connected to) that the situation is different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28529083</id>
	<title>What century do you think you are in?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246379580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you've proposed is market-based capitalism.  In the USA, we killed that when we elected Reagan, and Obama isn't going to bring it back (for a while it looked like he might, but then he got elected and saw how great it actually is to be fuehrer).</p><blockquote><div><p>I wouldn't charge for the service, I'd offer it as a differentiator and try and use it to increase adoption rates along existing cable runs, improving revenue per passed house.</p></div></blockquote><p>You need a time machine.  What makes money today is bribing politicians to strengthen monopolies or to reduce your labor and material costs, not providing better service and outcompeting other entrepreneurs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 've proposed is market-based capitalism .
In the USA , we killed that when we elected Reagan , and Obama is n't going to bring it back ( for a while it looked like he might , but then he got elected and saw how great it actually is to be fuehrer ) .I would n't charge for the service , I 'd offer it as a differentiator and try and use it to increase adoption rates along existing cable runs , improving revenue per passed house.You need a time machine .
What makes money today is bribing politicians to strengthen monopolies or to reduce your labor and material costs , not providing better service and outcompeting other entrepreneurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you've proposed is market-based capitalism.
In the USA, we killed that when we elected Reagan, and Obama isn't going to bring it back (for a while it looked like he might, but then he got elected and saw how great it actually is to be fuehrer).I wouldn't charge for the service, I'd offer it as a differentiator and try and use it to increase adoption rates along existing cable runs, improving revenue per passed house.You need a time machine.
What makes money today is bribing politicians to strengthen monopolies or to reduce your labor and material costs, not providing better service and outcompeting other entrepreneurs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524279</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246297080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where did you come up with "That's how Cable started out -- free of commercials."?<br>Cable started as a means to deliver TV to rural areas where reception by antenna was poor or impossible.<br>It was network TV (with commercials) that was rebroadcast over cable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where did you come up with " That 's how Cable started out -- free of commercials .
" ? Cable started as a means to deliver TV to rural areas where reception by antenna was poor or impossible.It was network TV ( with commercials ) that was rebroadcast over cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where did you come up with "That's how Cable started out -- free of commercials.
"?Cable started as a means to deliver TV to rural areas where reception by antenna was poor or impossible.It was network TV (with commercials) that was rebroadcast over cable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523201</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246287660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads?</p></div><p>You're not paying twice for the same thing; you're paying for two different things.  Cable companies do not pay networks to rebroadcast their signals, so your cable bill does not cover the cost of producing TV shows.  What your cable bill pays for is the service they provide: installation and maintenance of the cables that go to your home, etc.</p><p>The exception to this rule is premium channels, where a portion of your fee does go to the network, which is why you don't see commercials on the movie channels, for instance, and why they're more expensive than basic cable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice .
I mean , I 'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads ? You 're not paying twice for the same thing ; you 're paying for two different things .
Cable companies do not pay networks to rebroadcast their signals , so your cable bill does not cover the cost of producing TV shows .
What your cable bill pays for is the service they provide : installation and maintenance of the cables that go to your home , etc.The exception to this rule is premium channels , where a portion of your fee does go to the network , which is why you do n't see commercials on the movie channels , for instance , and why they 're more expensive than basic cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice.
I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads?You're not paying twice for the same thing; you're paying for two different things.
Cable companies do not pay networks to rebroadcast their signals, so your cable bill does not cover the cost of producing TV shows.
What your cable bill pays for is the service they provide: installation and maintenance of the cables that go to your home, etc.The exception to this rule is premium channels, where a portion of your fee does go to the network, which is why you don't see commercials on the movie channels, for instance, and why they're more expensive than basic cable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28532099</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Horsehockey</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1246388700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>having read the opinion and cited its reasoning extensively in a law review article I just authored</p></div><p> <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/cartoonnetwork\_csc\_080804SecondCircuitDecis.pdf" title="beckermanlegal.com">Here</a> [beckermanlegal.com]'s a copy of the decision for those of you who might not have read it.<br> <br>As to the reporting of it, most reporters usually report it that way. Lawyers (and law students) know that a denial of certiorari is not an affirmance, but merely a decision not to review the decision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>having read the opinion and cited its reasoning extensively in a law review article I just authored Here [ beckermanlegal.com ] 's a copy of the decision for those of you who might not have read it .
As to the reporting of it , most reporters usually report it that way .
Lawyers ( and law students ) know that a denial of certiorari is not an affirmance , but merely a decision not to review the decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>having read the opinion and cited its reasoning extensively in a law review article I just authored Here [beckermanlegal.com]'s a copy of the decision for those of you who might not have read it.
As to the reporting of it, most reporters usually report it that way.
Lawyers (and law students) know that a denial of certiorari is not an affirmance, but merely a decision not to review the decision.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523065</id>
	<title>Emad &amp; Eric: Iranain Hackers &amp; Cyber-Buddi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246286640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From: <a href="mailto:emad.elharaty@gmail.com" title="mailto" rel="nofollow">emad.elharaty@gmail.com</a> [mailto] <br>To: <a href="mailto:esr@catb.org" title="mailto" rel="nofollow">esr@catb.org</a> [mailto] <br>Date: JUN 20 2009 16:27<br>Subject: IRANIAN HACKER COMMUNIQU&#x00C9;</p><p>Eric,</p><p>It's Emad.</p><p>I know we haven't spoken since that whole <a href="http://www.trollaxor.com/2005/08/why-slashdot-fired-michael.html" title="trollaxor.com" rel="nofollow">Michael incident</a> [trollaxor.com], but I think we should put our heads together about these Iranian hackers.</p><p>Meet me at the <a href="http://www.flyingj.com/flyingjPortalWebProject/flyingjPortal.portal?\_nfpb=true&amp;\_windowLabel=locationAmenities\_1\_4&amp;locationAmenities\_1\_4\_actionOverride=\%2Fflyingj\%2Flocation\%2FlocationAmenitiesPageFlow\%2FgetLocationAmenitiesByTradePartnerId&amp;\_pageLabel=flyingjPortal\_portal\_page\_61&amp;locationAmenities\_1\_4tradePartnerId=40208" title="flyingj.com" rel="nofollow">Carney's Point Flying J</a> [flyingj.com] at 10 PM. Get shower stall 16 and wait for me. I'll be wearing a Slashdot t-shirt and drinking Bawls.</p><p>Don't be late. The future of Iranian hackers depends on it. So does the security of America too I guess, and gun ownership or something.</p><p>Emad</p><p> <a href="http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/06/eric-emad-iranian-hackers-cyber-buddies.html" title="trollaxor.com" rel="nofollow">Read more</a> [trollaxor.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From : emad.elharaty @ gmail.com [ mailto ] To : esr @ catb.org [ mailto ] Date : JUN 20 2009 16 : 27Subject : IRANIAN HACKER COMMUNIQU   Eric,It 's Emad.I know we have n't spoken since that whole Michael incident [ trollaxor.com ] , but I think we should put our heads together about these Iranian hackers.Meet me at the Carney 's Point Flying J [ flyingj.com ] at 10 PM .
Get shower stall 16 and wait for me .
I 'll be wearing a Slashdot t-shirt and drinking Bawls.Do n't be late .
The future of Iranian hackers depends on it .
So does the security of America too I guess , and gun ownership or something.Emad Read more [ trollaxor.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From: emad.elharaty@gmail.com [mailto] To: esr@catb.org [mailto] Date: JUN 20 2009 16:27Subject: IRANIAN HACKER COMMUNIQUÉEric,It's Emad.I know we haven't spoken since that whole Michael incident [trollaxor.com], but I think we should put our heads together about these Iranian hackers.Meet me at the Carney's Point Flying J [flyingj.com] at 10 PM.
Get shower stall 16 and wait for me.
I'll be wearing a Slashdot t-shirt and drinking Bawls.Don't be late.
The future of Iranian hackers depends on it.
So does the security of America too I guess, and gun ownership or something.Emad Read more [trollaxor.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523281</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246288260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the Cable Company (e.g. Time-Warner) is charging your for *access* to Content Providers (e.g. TBS) who sell ads. Time-Warner gets paid for the access, TBS gets paid for the ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the Cable Company ( e.g .
Time-Warner ) is charging your for * access * to Content Providers ( e.g .
TBS ) who sell ads .
Time-Warner gets paid for the access , TBS gets paid for the ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the Cable Company (e.g.
Time-Warner) is charging your for *access* to Content Providers (e.g.
TBS) who sell ads.
Time-Warner gets paid for the access, TBS gets paid for the ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523769</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246292280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? They do <em>both</em> in the US? WTF?</p><p>I thought the <em>point</em> of pay-TV was, that there were absolutely no ads. Why else would I pay them anything?</p><p>Oh, well, I'm a bit out of what's new in that branch. I haven't had a TV since 2003/4, and I don't know why I would want one.<br>Even Slashdot is better than sitting in front of the TV. I could not stand not being able to comment on a show. I can't even stand it on the sites of traditional news companies. I just stop reading them, because it feels so top-down of them, to only declare, and not hear.</p><p>Has anyone else had that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
They do both in the US ?
WTF ? I thought the point of pay-TV was , that there were absolutely no ads .
Why else would I pay them anything ? Oh , well , I 'm a bit out of what 's new in that branch .
I have n't had a TV since 2003/4 , and I do n't know why I would want one.Even Slashdot is better than sitting in front of the TV .
I could not stand not being able to comment on a show .
I ca n't even stand it on the sites of traditional news companies .
I just stop reading them , because it feels so top-down of them , to only declare , and not hear.Has anyone else had that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
They do both in the US?
WTF?I thought the point of pay-TV was, that there were absolutely no ads.
Why else would I pay them anything?Oh, well, I'm a bit out of what's new in that branch.
I haven't had a TV since 2003/4, and I don't know why I would want one.Even Slashdot is better than sitting in front of the TV.
I could not stand not being able to comment on a show.
I can't even stand it on the sites of traditional news companies.
I just stop reading them, because it feels so top-down of them, to only declare, and not hear.Has anyone else had that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524073</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246295100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obligatory hosts file reply:

<p>Get this, <a href="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm" title="mvps.org">http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm</a> [mvps.org] don't forget to go Start-&gt;Run-&gt;services.msc -&gt; shut off dns client.

</p><p>The only ads you'll see are the ones served from the site you're on. Helps protect against phishing sites too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory hosts file reply : Get this , http : //www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [ mvps.org ] do n't forget to go Start- &gt; Run- &gt; services.msc - &gt; shut off dns client .
The only ads you 'll see are the ones served from the site you 're on .
Helps protect against phishing sites too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory hosts file reply:

Get this, http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] don't forget to go Start-&gt;Run-&gt;services.msc -&gt; shut off dns client.
The only ads you'll see are the ones served from the site you're on.
Helps protect against phishing sites too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</id>
	<title>I don't get...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246286400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads? Either get rid of the licensing fees or get rid of the ads. This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page. I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of the program, but why do they think they need to have 9 minutes of ads for every show when I'm already paying for their content?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice .
I mean , I 'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads ?
Either get rid of the licensing fees or get rid of the ads .
This is like paying for a " premium " website only to get hit by pop ups on every page .
I mean , I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of the program , but why do they think they need to have 9 minutes of ads for every show when I 'm already paying for their content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice.
I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads?
Either get rid of the licensing fees or get rid of the ads.
This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page.
I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of the program, but why do they think they need to have 9 minutes of ads for every show when I'm already paying for their content?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28529343</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1246380600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice.</p></div> </blockquote><p>They don't think you <em>need</em> to; they think you're <em>willing</em> to.  And millions of people say that the cable companies are correct.  They vote with their wallets every month.  (Are you one of them?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice .
They do n't think you need to ; they think you 're willing to .
And millions of people say that the cable companies are correct .
They vote with their wallets every month .
( Are you one of them ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice.
They don't think you need to; they think you're willing to.
And millions of people say that the cable companies are correct.
They vote with their wallets every month.
(Are you one of them?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523297</id>
	<title>Thoughts from the consumer side.</title>
	<author>sprior</author>
	<datestamp>1246288320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the one hand I'm hoping that with a central office based DVR solution we won't be limited by tuners to how many shows we can record - three programs on at the same time?  No problem!  Set a recording from one cable box and want to watch it in another room?  No problem!</p><p>However, if the new central DVR service is run through their existing Pay Per View software then the user interface (at least on Comcast) is just awful.  Based on how laggy the remote is with PPV I think this is also the death of channel skipping - the control is just too sloppy to do it well, and you can bet your life the content producers like it that way and it won't get fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand I 'm hoping that with a central office based DVR solution we wo n't be limited by tuners to how many shows we can record - three programs on at the same time ?
No problem !
Set a recording from one cable box and want to watch it in another room ?
No problem ! However , if the new central DVR service is run through their existing Pay Per View software then the user interface ( at least on Comcast ) is just awful .
Based on how laggy the remote is with PPV I think this is also the death of channel skipping - the control is just too sloppy to do it well , and you can bet your life the content producers like it that way and it wo n't get fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand I'm hoping that with a central office based DVR solution we won't be limited by tuners to how many shows we can record - three programs on at the same time?
No problem!
Set a recording from one cable box and want to watch it in another room?
No problem!However, if the new central DVR service is run through their existing Pay Per View software then the user interface (at least on Comcast) is just awful.
Based on how laggy the remote is with PPV I think this is also the death of channel skipping - the control is just too sloppy to do it well, and you can bet your life the content producers like it that way and it won't get fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523837</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1246293120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not exactly.</p><p>Must Carry channels are local broadcasters who might be locked out of the cable system had not they gotten together and lobbied congress to force cable companies to carry them.</p><p>Without must carry rules, many subscribers in small markets would have to (and would probably gladly) forgo local programming.</p><p>In exchange for forcing their way onto the cable system, they must provide their signal free of charge to the cable providers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not exactly.Must Carry channels are local broadcasters who might be locked out of the cable system had not they gotten together and lobbied congress to force cable companies to carry them.Without must carry rules , many subscribers in small markets would have to ( and would probably gladly ) forgo local programming.In exchange for forcing their way onto the cable system , they must provide their signal free of charge to the cable providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not exactly.Must Carry channels are local broadcasters who might be locked out of the cable system had not they gotten together and lobbied congress to force cable companies to carry them.Without must carry rules, many subscribers in small markets would have to (and would probably gladly) forgo local programming.In exchange for forcing their way onto the cable system, they must provide their signal free of charge to the cable providers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524581</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>sub67</author>
	<datestamp>1246299900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding is that it isn't so much the cable operators as it is the broadcasters that insert advertisements. Yes, cablecos do, but basically the cable operator pays the broadcaster to show their content. The broadcaster sets aside x minutes of time for advertising. Cable company says "whoa, we're paying you to advertise? fuck that.". Broadcaster then offers a portion of the time they've set aside for advertising to the cable operator and all but the consumer is happy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that it is n't so much the cable operators as it is the broadcasters that insert advertisements .
Yes , cablecos do , but basically the cable operator pays the broadcaster to show their content .
The broadcaster sets aside x minutes of time for advertising .
Cable company says " whoa , we 're paying you to advertise ?
fuck that. " .
Broadcaster then offers a portion of the time they 've set aside for advertising to the cable operator and all but the consumer is happy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that it isn't so much the cable operators as it is the broadcasters that insert advertisements.
Yes, cablecos do, but basically the cable operator pays the broadcaster to show their content.
The broadcaster sets aside x minutes of time for advertising.
Cable company says "whoa, we're paying you to advertise?
fuck that.".
Broadcaster then offers a portion of the time they've set aside for advertising to the cable operator and all but the consumer is happy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28528419</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1246377180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why do people pay for cell phone service / a data plan, and then pay to download ring tones, wallpapers, etc.? paying for bandwidth and content isn't unique to cable TV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why do people pay for cell phone service / a data plan , and then pay to download ring tones , wallpapers , etc. ?
paying for bandwidth and content is n't unique to cable TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why do people pay for cell phone service / a data plan, and then pay to download ring tones, wallpapers, etc.?
paying for bandwidth and content isn't unique to cable TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523461</id>
	<title>Why is this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246289460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... tagged "no thigh court"?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... tagged " no thigh court " ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... tagged "no thigh court"?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523767</id>
	<title>A few thoughts...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246292280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one has mentioned "Betamax decision" yet, have they?</p><p>The Betamax decision primarily dealt with timeshifting, this is space- and time-shifting, is it not?</p><p>The only issue is whether this will be harmful or not. While VCRs weren't necessarily harmful, because people kept watching TV as much as they'd normally have done, will this be harmful in any way?</p><p>Can't it be justified that as long as the commercial time is being sold at the current price rates it currently is sold at, it won't have a negative affect on sponsors?</p><p>Make commercial viewing more enjoyable. Shorter and less frequent commercial breaks. Perhaps bumps, like what Cartoon Network's Adult Swim does, which is an incentive to sit through them sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has mentioned " Betamax decision " yet , have they ? The Betamax decision primarily dealt with timeshifting , this is space- and time-shifting , is it not ? The only issue is whether this will be harmful or not .
While VCRs were n't necessarily harmful , because people kept watching TV as much as they 'd normally have done , will this be harmful in any way ? Ca n't it be justified that as long as the commercial time is being sold at the current price rates it currently is sold at , it wo n't have a negative affect on sponsors ? Make commercial viewing more enjoyable .
Shorter and less frequent commercial breaks .
Perhaps bumps , like what Cartoon Network 's Adult Swim does , which is an incentive to sit through them sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has mentioned "Betamax decision" yet, have they?The Betamax decision primarily dealt with timeshifting, this is space- and time-shifting, is it not?The only issue is whether this will be harmful or not.
While VCRs weren't necessarily harmful, because people kept watching TV as much as they'd normally have done, will this be harmful in any way?Can't it be justified that as long as the commercial time is being sold at the current price rates it currently is sold at, it won't have a negative affect on sponsors?Make commercial viewing more enjoyable.
Shorter and less frequent commercial breaks.
Perhaps bumps, like what Cartoon Network's Adult Swim does, which is an incentive to sit through them sometimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527207</id>
	<title>Re:MythTV is awesome</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1246371720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use MythTV exclusively for my TV viewing, and I don't even strip out the commercials.  Every now and then, there is a good or interesting commercial that I want to see.  I do, however, skip through the commercials quickly.  It takes my eye a tiny fraction of a second to tell me that I just skipped over something that might be interesting, so I'll go back and check it out.  So instead of sitting through an intolerable five minutes of commercials every ten minutes, I sit through about four seconds of commercial material every ten minutes while I fast forward to the continuation of the show I'm watching.</p><p>On a related subject, Hulu is starting to become intolerable as well.  When I first started using Hulu several months ago, the average commercial length was about 15 seconds every 15-20 minutes.  Now it's 30 seconds every 10-15 minutes.  Pretty soon, Hulu is going to be just as bad as broadcast and cable TV.  The greed has begun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use MythTV exclusively for my TV viewing , and I do n't even strip out the commercials .
Every now and then , there is a good or interesting commercial that I want to see .
I do , however , skip through the commercials quickly .
It takes my eye a tiny fraction of a second to tell me that I just skipped over something that might be interesting , so I 'll go back and check it out .
So instead of sitting through an intolerable five minutes of commercials every ten minutes , I sit through about four seconds of commercial material every ten minutes while I fast forward to the continuation of the show I 'm watching.On a related subject , Hulu is starting to become intolerable as well .
When I first started using Hulu several months ago , the average commercial length was about 15 seconds every 15-20 minutes .
Now it 's 30 seconds every 10-15 minutes .
Pretty soon , Hulu is going to be just as bad as broadcast and cable TV .
The greed has begun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use MythTV exclusively for my TV viewing, and I don't even strip out the commercials.
Every now and then, there is a good or interesting commercial that I want to see.
I do, however, skip through the commercials quickly.
It takes my eye a tiny fraction of a second to tell me that I just skipped over something that might be interesting, so I'll go back and check it out.
So instead of sitting through an intolerable five minutes of commercials every ten minutes, I sit through about four seconds of commercial material every ten minutes while I fast forward to the continuation of the show I'm watching.On a related subject, Hulu is starting to become intolerable as well.
When I first started using Hulu several months ago, the average commercial length was about 15 seconds every 15-20 minutes.
Now it's 30 seconds every 10-15 minutes.
Pretty soon, Hulu is going to be just as bad as broadcast and cable TV.
The greed has begun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523283</id>
	<title>MythTV is awesome</title>
	<author>drewzhrodague</author>
	<datestamp>1246288260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>MythTV works for me. It already eats the commercials from the recorded shows, and with simple scripts, I can encode old Star Trek shows onto my iPhone.

If you haven't used it recently, I suggest taking a look. <a href="http://www.mythtv.org/" title="mythtv.org">MythTV</a> [mythtv.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>MythTV works for me .
It already eats the commercials from the recorded shows , and with simple scripts , I can encode old Star Trek shows onto my iPhone .
If you have n't used it recently , I suggest taking a look .
MythTV [ mythtv.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MythTV works for me.
It already eats the commercials from the recorded shows, and with simple scripts, I can encode old Star Trek shows onto my iPhone.
If you haven't used it recently, I suggest taking a look.
MythTV [mythtv.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524669</id>
	<title>Not quite "free license" for cable operators...</title>
	<author>Bad Mamba Jamba</author>
	<datestamp>1246300740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a legal expert but the flood gates aren't quite wide open.  Referring to <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/2pet/6invit/2008-0448.pet.ami.inv.pdf" title="usdoj.gov" rel="nofollow">No. 08-448</a> [usdoj.gov] around page 21.<p><div class="quote"><p>The Second Circuit
repeatedly explained that its rejection of petitioners&apos; public-performance claim depended on a range of
factors: not only that each transmission would be sent
to a single recipient, but also that (1) each transmission
would be made using a unique copy of the relevant program;
and (2) each transmission would be made solely to
the person who had previously made that unique copy.
See, e.g., Pet. App. 30a-31a, 36a, 39a, 41a.</p></div><p>
If I read this right the cable operators are in for one hell of a bill in both storage and replication hardware to create duplicate copies for each user request.  Storage is cheap, but since there are also legal (and relatively short) limits on how long you can buffer something before it counts as a copy this tends to complicate scalable data replication.  Not impossible, just adds extra cost and complexity.  Which no doubt will be passed on.</p><p>

But by definition we're consumers and we get to vote with our dollars.  If this service is a value add pay a little more.  If not, don't pay for it.  If you aren't given a choice (i.e. added to your bill anyway) drop cable and go Hulu, Apple, Blockbuster, Netflix, or pick your own provider.  Nobody is holding a gun to your head to subscribe to cable.</p><p>

The value adds I see are data integrity and (if Cablevision does this right) the ability to take my recordings with me if I move.  Or preserve my recordings if my non-DVR box bites the dust,  If you're attached to your content and don't want to invest in your own DVD burner or something this seems worthwhile.  I'm not personally this way, but some people are freaky about their DVR content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a legal expert but the flood gates are n't quite wide open .
Referring to No .
08-448 [ usdoj.gov ] around page 21.The Second Circuit repeatedly explained that its rejection of petitioners&amp;apos ; public-performance claim depended on a range of factors : not only that each transmission would be sent to a single recipient , but also that ( 1 ) each transmission would be made using a unique copy of the relevant program ; and ( 2 ) each transmission would be made solely to the person who had previously made that unique copy .
See , e.g. , Pet .
App. 30a-31a , 36a , 39a , 41a .
If I read this right the cable operators are in for one hell of a bill in both storage and replication hardware to create duplicate copies for each user request .
Storage is cheap , but since there are also legal ( and relatively short ) limits on how long you can buffer something before it counts as a copy this tends to complicate scalable data replication .
Not impossible , just adds extra cost and complexity .
Which no doubt will be passed on .
But by definition we 're consumers and we get to vote with our dollars .
If this service is a value add pay a little more .
If not , do n't pay for it .
If you are n't given a choice ( i.e .
added to your bill anyway ) drop cable and go Hulu , Apple , Blockbuster , Netflix , or pick your own provider .
Nobody is holding a gun to your head to subscribe to cable .
The value adds I see are data integrity and ( if Cablevision does this right ) the ability to take my recordings with me if I move .
Or preserve my recordings if my non-DVR box bites the dust , If you 're attached to your content and do n't want to invest in your own DVD burner or something this seems worthwhile .
I 'm not personally this way , but some people are freaky about their DVR content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a legal expert but the flood gates aren't quite wide open.
Referring to No.
08-448 [usdoj.gov] around page 21.The Second Circuit
repeatedly explained that its rejection of petitioners&amp;apos; public-performance claim depended on a range of
factors: not only that each transmission would be sent
to a single recipient, but also that (1) each transmission
would be made using a unique copy of the relevant program;
and (2) each transmission would be made solely to
the person who had previously made that unique copy.
See, e.g., Pet.
App. 30a-31a, 36a, 39a, 41a.
If I read this right the cable operators are in for one hell of a bill in both storage and replication hardware to create duplicate copies for each user request.
Storage is cheap, but since there are also legal (and relatively short) limits on how long you can buffer something before it counts as a copy this tends to complicate scalable data replication.
Not impossible, just adds extra cost and complexity.
Which no doubt will be passed on.
But by definition we're consumers and we get to vote with our dollars.
If this service is a value add pay a little more.
If not, don't pay for it.
If you aren't given a choice (i.e.
added to your bill anyway) drop cable and go Hulu, Apple, Blockbuster, Netflix, or pick your own provider.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head to subscribe to cable.
The value adds I see are data integrity and (if Cablevision does this right) the ability to take my recordings with me if I move.
Or preserve my recordings if my non-DVR box bites the dust,  If you're attached to your content and don't want to invest in your own DVD burner or something this seems worthwhile.
I'm not personally this way, but some people are freaky about their DVR content.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523621</id>
	<title>Exhibition</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1246290780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the 1980's there was a case pf a video rental store providing a home theater room for renters to play their rented tapes.  A court ruled that this crossed the line into the territory of public exhibition of copyrighted material, and it was disallowed.<p>It is interesting that this case does not cross the line into the territory of retransmission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the 1980 's there was a case pf a video rental store providing a home theater room for renters to play their rented tapes .
A court ruled that this crossed the line into the territory of public exhibition of copyrighted material , and it was disallowed.It is interesting that this case does not cross the line into the territory of retransmission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the 1980's there was a case pf a video rental store providing a home theater room for renters to play their rented tapes.
A court ruled that this crossed the line into the territory of public exhibition of copyrighted material, and it was disallowed.It is interesting that this case does not cross the line into the territory of retransmission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523891</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246293540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The channels without adds usually cost $10 to $20 a month. Your monthly fee for 46 or more channels of nothing worth watching isn't near that high.</p><p>think about that. 40 channels at $10 per month, $400 for nothing you haven't seen already or that doesn't make you tired and want to puke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The channels without adds usually cost $ 10 to $ 20 a month .
Your monthly fee for 46 or more channels of nothing worth watching is n't near that high.think about that .
40 channels at $ 10 per month , $ 400 for nothing you have n't seen already or that does n't make you tired and want to puke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The channels without adds usually cost $10 to $20 a month.
Your monthly fee for 46 or more channels of nothing worth watching isn't near that high.think about that.
40 channels at $10 per month, $400 for nothing you haven't seen already or that doesn't make you tired and want to puke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523831</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>jpallas</author>
	<datestamp>1246293060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why magazine publishers think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the magazine subscription fee so why should I even have ads? Either get rid of the subscription fees or get rid of the ads. This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page. I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of an article, but why do they think they need to have pages of ads for every issue when I'm already paying for their content?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why magazine publishers think that we need to pay for their content twice .
I mean , I 'm already paying for their content via the magazine subscription fee so why should I even have ads ?
Either get rid of the subscription fees or get rid of the ads .
This is like paying for a " premium " website only to get hit by pop ups on every page .
I mean , I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of an article , but why do they think they need to have pages of ads for every issue when I 'm already paying for their content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why magazine publishers think that we need to pay for their content twice.
I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the magazine subscription fee so why should I even have ads?
Either get rid of the subscription fees or get rid of the ads.
This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page.
I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of an article, but why do they think they need to have pages of ads for every issue when I'm already paying for their content?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523325</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Cylix</author>
	<datestamp>1246288440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, a cable company cannot re-transmit at will.</p><p>It requires a re-transmission agreement or the broadcast originator files a "must carry" clause with the cable op.</p><p>Must carry is used in place when the cable company does not carry your broadcast signal and they do not want to negotiate rates.</p><p>A re-transmission agreement is simply a contract with whatever terms and length both parties can agree on. Top rated stations generally opt for cash and services from the cable company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , a cable company can not re-transmit at will.It requires a re-transmission agreement or the broadcast originator files a " must carry " clause with the cable op.Must carry is used in place when the cable company does not carry your broadcast signal and they do not want to negotiate rates.A re-transmission agreement is simply a contract with whatever terms and length both parties can agree on .
Top rated stations generally opt for cash and services from the cable company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, a cable company cannot re-transmit at will.It requires a re-transmission agreement or the broadcast originator files a "must carry" clause with the cable op.Must carry is used in place when the cable company does not carry your broadcast signal and they do not want to negotiate rates.A re-transmission agreement is simply a contract with whatever terms and length both parties can agree on.
Top rated stations generally opt for cash and services from the cable company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523157</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246287360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's how Cable started out -- free of commercials. People got greedy though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how Cable started out -- free of commercials .
People got greedy though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how Cable started out -- free of commercials.
People got greedy though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526263</id>
	<title>I can see it now</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1246364640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cable companies will have DVR farms, one for each channel, sucking up every show, every day, and making, say, the last 24-48 hours of shows available for free, in case you miss a show, but after hearing about it at work/school, you want to watch it. In addition to the default 24-48 hour retention, subscribers will also be able to submit requests for certain shows, and those requested shows will be retained until there is no more interest. The cable company could also update the commercials in their "slots" in each show, to be more current (a show from last month could have commercials currently running instead of historical ones), increasing revenues. If I worked at a Cable Company, I'd have my super-duper 200 channel DVR farm ready to go for this effort.</p><p>It wouldn't bee that big a complex, really, retaining two days of shows for a channel is what, about 50 Gig at "best quality"? From there, 90\% of the shows immediately fall off the servers for lack of interest I suspect, and 1\% may live on for more than 30 days (hit shows, TV movies, specials, etc.). This is the textbook example of the "Long Tail" economy.</p><p>I wouldn't charge for the service, I'd offer it as a differentiator and try and use it to increase adoption rates along existing cable runs, improving revenue per passed house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cable companies will have DVR farms , one for each channel , sucking up every show , every day , and making , say , the last 24-48 hours of shows available for free , in case you miss a show , but after hearing about it at work/school , you want to watch it .
In addition to the default 24-48 hour retention , subscribers will also be able to submit requests for certain shows , and those requested shows will be retained until there is no more interest .
The cable company could also update the commercials in their " slots " in each show , to be more current ( a show from last month could have commercials currently running instead of historical ones ) , increasing revenues .
If I worked at a Cable Company , I 'd have my super-duper 200 channel DVR farm ready to go for this effort.It would n't bee that big a complex , really , retaining two days of shows for a channel is what , about 50 Gig at " best quality " ?
From there , 90 \ % of the shows immediately fall off the servers for lack of interest I suspect , and 1 \ % may live on for more than 30 days ( hit shows , TV movies , specials , etc. ) .
This is the textbook example of the " Long Tail " economy.I would n't charge for the service , I 'd offer it as a differentiator and try and use it to increase adoption rates along existing cable runs , improving revenue per passed house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cable companies will have DVR farms, one for each channel, sucking up every show, every day, and making, say, the last 24-48 hours of shows available for free, in case you miss a show, but after hearing about it at work/school, you want to watch it.
In addition to the default 24-48 hour retention, subscribers will also be able to submit requests for certain shows, and those requested shows will be retained until there is no more interest.
The cable company could also update the commercials in their "slots" in each show, to be more current (a show from last month could have commercials currently running instead of historical ones), increasing revenues.
If I worked at a Cable Company, I'd have my super-duper 200 channel DVR farm ready to go for this effort.It wouldn't bee that big a complex, really, retaining two days of shows for a channel is what, about 50 Gig at "best quality"?
From there, 90\% of the shows immediately fall off the servers for lack of interest I suspect, and 1\% may live on for more than 30 days (hit shows, TV movies, specials, etc.).
This is the textbook example of the "Long Tail" economy.I wouldn't charge for the service, I'd offer it as a differentiator and try and use it to increase adoption rates along existing cable runs, improving revenue per passed house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527999</id>
	<title>Misleading Horsehockey</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1246375500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"High Court <b>Allows</b>"</p><p>What bullshit. Denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court expresses literally <b>zero</b> opinion about the merits of the case. This is another example of the MSM getting Supreme Court procedure wrong. I've seen this "victory" touted elsewhere. It's not a victory except inasmuch as those claiming victory were assured a loss if the Supreme Court granted cert.</p><p>It would be a victory of SCOTUS issued cert and then issued a per curiam opinion affirming the COA decision. That did not happen, and thus the petitioners are (unless I misunderstand the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure) free to repetition for certiorari next term.</p><p>That being said, having read the opinion and cited its reasoning extensively in a law review article I just authored (and will soon be shopping around for publication), I think J. Walker's reasoning was dead-on accurate, particularly on the issue of what "public" means in "public performance."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" High Court Allows " What bullshit .
Denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court expresses literally zero opinion about the merits of the case .
This is another example of the MSM getting Supreme Court procedure wrong .
I 've seen this " victory " touted elsewhere .
It 's not a victory except inasmuch as those claiming victory were assured a loss if the Supreme Court granted cert.It would be a victory of SCOTUS issued cert and then issued a per curiam opinion affirming the COA decision .
That did not happen , and thus the petitioners are ( unless I misunderstand the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ) free to repetition for certiorari next term.That being said , having read the opinion and cited its reasoning extensively in a law review article I just authored ( and will soon be shopping around for publication ) , I think J. Walker 's reasoning was dead-on accurate , particularly on the issue of what " public " means in " public performance .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"High Court Allows"What bullshit.
Denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court expresses literally zero opinion about the merits of the case.
This is another example of the MSM getting Supreme Court procedure wrong.
I've seen this "victory" touted elsewhere.
It's not a victory except inasmuch as those claiming victory were assured a loss if the Supreme Court granted cert.It would be a victory of SCOTUS issued cert and then issued a per curiam opinion affirming the COA decision.
That did not happen, and thus the petitioners are (unless I misunderstand the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure) free to repetition for certiorari next term.That being said, having read the opinion and cited its reasoning extensively in a law review article I just authored (and will soon be shopping around for publication), I think J. Walker's reasoning was dead-on accurate, particularly on the issue of what "public" means in "public performance.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28529083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28531089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28532099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28537067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28525527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28528419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28528079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28529343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28525347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28532145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_29_2240213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28531089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28528079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28528419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28537067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28529343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28525527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523169
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526561
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526411
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523325
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523201
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28525347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28526263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28529083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28524669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28527999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28532099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28532145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_29_2240213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_29_2240213.28523037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
