<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_2225245</id>
	<title>Experimental Fees Settle Royalty War For Internet Radio</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247061420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>S-100 writes <i>"SoundExchange has reached <a href="http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story\_id=020001U6AVC0">an agreement for royalty rates with a consortium of Internet radio broadcasters</a>. The parties are ecstatic that the issue is finally resolved, and that the new rates are below the previous 'death to Internet radio' levels that had previously been imposed by the CARB. According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over!', and other large broadcasters are equally pleased. One unheard-from group is less likely to be pleased: small Internet radio broadcasters.  Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment: $25,000 per year. So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>S-100 writes " SoundExchange has reached an agreement for royalty rates with a consortium of Internet radio broadcasters .
The parties are ecstatic that the issue is finally resolved , and that the new rates are below the previous 'death to Internet radio ' levels that had previously been imposed by the CARB .
According to NewsFactor , Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over !
' , and other large broadcasters are equally pleased .
One unheard-from group is less likely to be pleased : small Internet radio broadcasters .
Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment : $ 25,000 per year .
So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to , as they will no longer afford to operate legally .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>S-100 writes "SoundExchange has reached an agreement for royalty rates with a consortium of Internet radio broadcasters.
The parties are ecstatic that the issue is finally resolved, and that the new rates are below the previous 'death to Internet radio' levels that had previously been imposed by the CARB.
According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over!
', and other large broadcasters are equally pleased.
One unheard-from group is less likely to be pleased: small Internet radio broadcasters.
Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment: $25,000 per year.
So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631303</id>
	<title>Crap Link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't show any text.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't show any text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't show any text.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633535</id>
	<title>Re:What about public domain music?</title>
	<author>johnsie</author>
	<datestamp>1247132880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run a radio station for unsigned artists. These rules don't apply to me because I have a private arrangement with the artists. The days of commercial music are coming to an end because it's too expensive and now the little guys will be getting more airtime.  I think it's good for musicians, but not so good for money hunters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run a radio station for unsigned artists .
These rules do n't apply to me because I have a private arrangement with the artists .
The days of commercial music are coming to an end because it 's too expensive and now the little guys will be getting more airtime .
I think it 's good for musicians , but not so good for money hunters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run a radio station for unsigned artists.
These rules don't apply to me because I have a private arrangement with the artists.
The days of commercial music are coming to an end because it's too expensive and now the little guys will be getting more airtime.
I think it's good for musicians, but not so good for money hunters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28635145</id>
	<title>The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin,</title>
	<author>Tikkun</author>
	<datestamp>1247148120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the more potential working business models will slip through your fingers.<br> <br>

Innovation is made possible by lowering barriers to entry, not raising them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the more potential working business models will slip through your fingers .
Innovation is made possible by lowering barriers to entry , not raising them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the more potential working business models will slip through your fingers.
Innovation is made possible by lowering barriers to entry, not raising them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631831</id>
	<title>Got this email from their CEO (Tim)</title>
	<author>alexfeig</author>
	<datestamp>1247069040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been listening to pandora since it came out - I'm a huge fan. I got this email yesterday... pretty interesting. Apparently I like their free service *too* much:
<br> <br>
I hope this email finds you enjoying a great summer Pandora soundtrack. <br> <br>
I'm writing with some important news. Please forgive the lengthy email; it requires some explaining. <br> <br>
First, I want to let you know that we've reached a resolution to the calamitous Internet radio royalty ruling of 2007. After more than two precarious years, we are finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates &#226;" thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our listeners who voiced an absolute avalanche of support for us on Capitol Hill. We are deeply thankful.
<br> <br>
While we did the best we could to lower the rates, we are going to have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10\% of our users who are our heaviest listeners. Specifically, we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the web. Because we have to pay royalty fees per song and per listener, it makes very heavy listeners hard to support on advertising alone. Most listeners will never hit this cap, but it seems that you might. <br> <br>
We hate the idea of capping anyone's usage, so we've been working to devise an alternative for listeners like you. We've come up with two solutions and we hope that one of them will work for you:<br> <br>

Your first option is to continue listening just as you have been and, if and when you reach the 40 hour limit in a given month, to pay just $0.99 for unlimited listening for the rest of that month. This isn't a subscription. You can pay by credit card and your card will be charged for just that one month. You'll be able to keep listening as much as you'd like for the remainder of the month. We hope this is relatively painless and affordable - the same price as a single song download.<br> <br>
<br> <br>
Your second option is to upgrade to our premium version called Pandora One. Pandora One costs $36 per year. In addition to unlimited monthly listening and no advertising, Pandora One offers very high quality 192 Kbps streams, an elegant desktop application that eliminates the need for a browser, personalized skins for the Pandora player, and a number of other features: <a href="http://www.pandora.com/pandora\_one" title="pandora.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pandora.com/pandora\_one</a> [pandora.com].
<br> <br>
If neither of these options works for you, I hope you'll keep listening to the free version - 40 hours each month will go a long way, especially if you're really careful about hitting pause when you&#226;(TM)re not listening. We&#226;(TM)ll be sure to let you know if you start getting close to the limit, and we&#226;(TM)ve created a counter you can access to see how many hours you&#226;(TM)ve already used each month.
<br> <br>
We&#226;(TM)ll be implementing this change starting this month (July), I&#226;(TM)d welcome your feedback and suggestions. The combination of our usage patterns and the "per song per listener" royalty cost creates a financial reality that we can't ignore...but we very much want you to continue listening for years to come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been listening to pandora since it came out - I 'm a huge fan .
I got this email yesterday... pretty interesting .
Apparently I like their free service * too * much : I hope this email finds you enjoying a great summer Pandora soundtrack .
I 'm writing with some important news .
Please forgive the lengthy email ; it requires some explaining .
First , I want to let you know that we 've reached a resolution to the calamitous Internet radio royalty ruling of 2007 .
After more than two precarious years , we are finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates   " thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our listeners who voiced an absolute avalanche of support for us on Capitol Hill .
We are deeply thankful .
While we did the best we could to lower the rates , we are going to have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10 \ % of our users who are our heaviest listeners .
Specifically , we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the web .
Because we have to pay royalty fees per song and per listener , it makes very heavy listeners hard to support on advertising alone .
Most listeners will never hit this cap , but it seems that you might .
We hate the idea of capping anyone 's usage , so we 've been working to devise an alternative for listeners like you .
We 've come up with two solutions and we hope that one of them will work for you : Your first option is to continue listening just as you have been and , if and when you reach the 40 hour limit in a given month , to pay just $ 0.99 for unlimited listening for the rest of that month .
This is n't a subscription .
You can pay by credit card and your card will be charged for just that one month .
You 'll be able to keep listening as much as you 'd like for the remainder of the month .
We hope this is relatively painless and affordable - the same price as a single song download .
Your second option is to upgrade to our premium version called Pandora One .
Pandora One costs $ 36 per year .
In addition to unlimited monthly listening and no advertising , Pandora One offers very high quality 192 Kbps streams , an elegant desktop application that eliminates the need for a browser , personalized skins for the Pandora player , and a number of other features : http : //www.pandora.com/pandora \ _one [ pandora.com ] .
If neither of these options works for you , I hope you 'll keep listening to the free version - 40 hours each month will go a long way , especially if you 're really careful about hitting pause when you   ( TM ) re not listening .
We   ( TM ) ll be sure to let you know if you start getting close to the limit , and we   ( TM ) ve created a counter you can access to see how many hours you   ( TM ) ve already used each month .
We   ( TM ) ll be implementing this change starting this month ( July ) , I   ( TM ) d welcome your feedback and suggestions .
The combination of our usage patterns and the " per song per listener " royalty cost creates a financial reality that we ca n't ignore...but we very much want you to continue listening for years to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been listening to pandora since it came out - I'm a huge fan.
I got this email yesterday... pretty interesting.
Apparently I like their free service *too* much:
 
I hope this email finds you enjoying a great summer Pandora soundtrack.
I'm writing with some important news.
Please forgive the lengthy email; it requires some explaining.
First, I want to let you know that we've reached a resolution to the calamitous Internet radio royalty ruling of 2007.
After more than two precarious years, we are finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates â" thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our listeners who voiced an absolute avalanche of support for us on Capitol Hill.
We are deeply thankful.
While we did the best we could to lower the rates, we are going to have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10\% of our users who are our heaviest listeners.
Specifically, we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the web.
Because we have to pay royalty fees per song and per listener, it makes very heavy listeners hard to support on advertising alone.
Most listeners will never hit this cap, but it seems that you might.
We hate the idea of capping anyone's usage, so we've been working to devise an alternative for listeners like you.
We've come up with two solutions and we hope that one of them will work for you: 

Your first option is to continue listening just as you have been and, if and when you reach the 40 hour limit in a given month, to pay just $0.99 for unlimited listening for the rest of that month.
This isn't a subscription.
You can pay by credit card and your card will be charged for just that one month.
You'll be able to keep listening as much as you'd like for the remainder of the month.
We hope this is relatively painless and affordable - the same price as a single song download.
Your second option is to upgrade to our premium version called Pandora One.
Pandora One costs $36 per year.
In addition to unlimited monthly listening and no advertising, Pandora One offers very high quality 192 Kbps streams, an elegant desktop application that eliminates the need for a browser, personalized skins for the Pandora player, and a number of other features: http://www.pandora.com/pandora\_one [pandora.com].
If neither of these options works for you, I hope you'll keep listening to the free version - 40 hours each month will go a long way, especially if you're really careful about hitting pause when youâ(TM)re not listening.
Weâ(TM)ll be sure to let you know if you start getting close to the limit, and weâ(TM)ve created a counter you can access to see how many hours youâ(TM)ve already used each month.
Weâ(TM)ll be implementing this change starting this month (July), Iâ(TM)d welcome your feedback and suggestions.
The combination of our usage patterns and the "per song per listener" royalty cost creates a financial reality that we can't ignore...but we very much want you to continue listening for years to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631337</id>
	<title>Podcasts</title>
	<author>Starlon</author>
	<datestamp>1247065620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article seems to be dead. Is this merely music related, or does this include podcasts featuring only news? This is the first I've heard of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems to be dead .
Is this merely music related , or does this include podcasts featuring only news ?
This is the first I 've heard of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems to be dead.
Is this merely music related, or does this include podcasts featuring only news?
This is the first I've heard of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28645361</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption, only if you let them.</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247151780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Webcasters, both large-and-small, found themselves faced with retroactive bills they would have to pay</p></div><p>So they change the law, and then go after people for committing a "crime" for behavior that wasn't illegal before the law was changed? Now, that sounds goddamn unConstitutional to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Webcasters , both large-and-small , found themselves faced with retroactive bills they would have to paySo they change the law , and then go after people for committing a " crime " for behavior that was n't illegal before the law was changed ?
Now , that sounds goddamn unConstitutional to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Webcasters, both large-and-small, found themselves faced with retroactive bills they would have to paySo they change the law, and then go after people for committing a "crime" for behavior that wasn't illegal before the law was changed?
Now, that sounds goddamn unConstitutional to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28639219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631495</id>
	<title>Re:What about public domain music?</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1247066940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Public Domain would have royalties of $0.00 so there would be nothing to cough up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public Domain would have royalties of $ 0.00 so there would be nothing to cough up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public Domain would have royalties of $0.00 so there would be nothing to cough up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632441</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward-Fuck You By the Way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as a small public radio-streaming- station volunteer DJ I would like to say that I resent extremely being made into a shill for<br>Amazon and ITunes and Spinitron which now through federal mandate has the right to collect playlists ( and sell the data )<br>as well as to direct inquiries to 'for profit' music sales sites. Pirate radio was and is the only way to go. We are a local station and<br>'streaming' ( except for vanity ) is of dubious value. Screw these people. I don't expect to be taken seriously on this issue,<br>the lure of the internet is too strong. too sad too bad. It should be about the music and the music alone.      Uncle Willy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as a small public radio-streaming- station volunteer DJ I would like to say that I resent extremely being made into a shill forAmazon and ITunes and Spinitron which now through federal mandate has the right to collect playlists ( and sell the data ) as well as to direct inquiries to 'for profit ' music sales sites .
Pirate radio was and is the only way to go .
We are a local station and'streaming ' ( except for vanity ) is of dubious value .
Screw these people .
I do n't expect to be taken seriously on this issue,the lure of the internet is too strong .
too sad too bad .
It should be about the music and the music alone .
Uncle Willy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as a small public radio-streaming- station volunteer DJ I would like to say that I resent extremely being made into a shill forAmazon and ITunes and Spinitron which now through federal mandate has the right to collect playlists ( and sell the data )as well as to direct inquiries to 'for profit' music sales sites.
Pirate radio was and is the only way to go.
We are a local station and'streaming' ( except for vanity ) is of dubious value.
Screw these people.
I don't expect to be taken seriously on this issue,the lure of the internet is too strong.
too sad too bad.
It should be about the music and the music alone.
Uncle Willy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634367</id>
	<title>Pandora can suck it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247141040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the U.S. We will continue to work diligently to realize the vision of a truly global Pandora, but for the time being we are required to restrict its use. We are very sad to have to do this, but there is no other alternative.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I am deeply, deeply sorry, but Pandora can go fuck themselves
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are deeply , deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints , we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the U.S. We will continue to work diligently to realize the vision of a truly global Pandora , but for the time being we are required to restrict its use .
We are very sad to have to do this , but there is no other alternative .
I am deeply , deeply sorry , but Pandora can go fuck themselves</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the U.S. We will continue to work diligently to realize the vision of a truly global Pandora, but for the time being we are required to restrict its use.
We are very sad to have to do this, but there is no other alternative.
I am deeply, deeply sorry, but Pandora can go fuck themselves

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632277</id>
	<title>Re:$25,000 barrier to entry</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1247073060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, and <i>we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business</i>!'. I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it. <b>Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.</b></p> </div><p>1. This isn't a regulation, it's a cartel whose licensing terms are enforced by [government]<br>2. And this $25K business sounds ripe for anti-trust investigation. How is it not abuse of a monopoly position?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to NewsFactor , Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over , and we do n't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business ! ' .
I may have added that last part , but I 'm sure he was thinking it .
Like most regulations , it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition .
1. This is n't a regulation , it 's a cartel whose licensing terms are enforced by [ government ] 2 .
And this $ 25K business sounds ripe for anti-trust investigation .
How is it not abuse of a monopoly position ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, and we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business!'.
I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it.
Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.
1. This isn't a regulation, it's a cartel whose licensing terms are enforced by [government]2.
And this $25K business sounds ripe for anti-trust investigation.
How is it not abuse of a monopoly position?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634809</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption</title>
	<author>coastwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1247145840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its the creation of a monopoly marketplace that excludes private citizens. American capitalism revolts me in its obsession with money above culture, its no better than all the other criminal states like Iran, China and Burma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the creation of a monopoly marketplace that excludes private citizens .
American capitalism revolts me in its obsession with money above culture , its no better than all the other criminal states like Iran , China and Burma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the creation of a monopoly marketplace that excludes private citizens.
American capitalism revolts me in its obsession with money above culture, its no better than all the other criminal states like Iran, China and Burma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631587</id>
	<title>Play new music, not corporate label rehash.</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1247067540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only does this new deal not cover every country (the Internet has this global presence to it) but this new deal doesn't cover all music which is legally redistributable in the US.  Support artists who aren't signing their copyrights away to the huge few corporate labels, support musicians who share with you under terms that allow you to share further, and you'll find there's a lot of good music out there to be enjoyed.  Small radio stations would do well to stop trying to emulate the major radio stations and develop audiences that appreciate something different and new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only does this new deal not cover every country ( the Internet has this global presence to it ) but this new deal does n't cover all music which is legally redistributable in the US .
Support artists who are n't signing their copyrights away to the huge few corporate labels , support musicians who share with you under terms that allow you to share further , and you 'll find there 's a lot of good music out there to be enjoyed .
Small radio stations would do well to stop trying to emulate the major radio stations and develop audiences that appreciate something different and new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only does this new deal not cover every country (the Internet has this global presence to it) but this new deal doesn't cover all music which is legally redistributable in the US.
Support artists who aren't signing their copyrights away to the huge few corporate labels, support musicians who share with you under terms that allow you to share further, and you'll find there's a lot of good music out there to be enjoyed.
Small radio stations would do well to stop trying to emulate the major radio stations and develop audiences that appreciate something different and new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631301</id>
	<title>NO</title>
	<author>brilanon</author>
	<datestamp>1247065320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the end of [link to small station removed]?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the end of [ link to small station removed ] ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the end of [link to small station removed]?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28638563</id>
	<title>Re:A great opportunity for upstart talent...</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1247162460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great opportunity for upstart talent who can persuade one of the few radio stations that can afford the $25k fee to play their music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great opportunity for upstart talent who can persuade one of the few radio stations that can afford the $ 25k fee to play their music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great opportunity for upstart talent who can persuade one of the few radio stations that can afford the $25k fee to play their music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634123</id>
	<title>Re:worksforme</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247138400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite true.  If you want to distribute some music that is not in the public domain, you need a licence to do so.  You can either get this from the copyright owner, or from SoundExchange.  SoundExchange is the agency responsible for administering the compulsory licensing system for Internet streaming by the Copyright Royalty Board.  </p><p>
If you have an explicit license for everything that you steam then you don't need to interact with the CRB of their proxy at all.  The catch is that SoundExchange is collecting royalties for everything you play if you play a single song without an explicit license.  If you want to play any music from an RIAA label, you need to pay the SoundExchange fees, even if it's just one track an hour (or per year) and all of the rest of what you play is creative commons / public domain / explicitly licensed for your use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite true .
If you want to distribute some music that is not in the public domain , you need a licence to do so .
You can either get this from the copyright owner , or from SoundExchange .
SoundExchange is the agency responsible for administering the compulsory licensing system for Internet streaming by the Copyright Royalty Board .
If you have an explicit license for everything that you steam then you do n't need to interact with the CRB of their proxy at all .
The catch is that SoundExchange is collecting royalties for everything you play if you play a single song without an explicit license .
If you want to play any music from an RIAA label , you need to pay the SoundExchange fees , even if it 's just one track an hour ( or per year ) and all of the rest of what you play is creative commons / public domain / explicitly licensed for your use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite true.
If you want to distribute some music that is not in the public domain, you need a licence to do so.
You can either get this from the copyright owner, or from SoundExchange.
SoundExchange is the agency responsible for administering the compulsory licensing system for Internet streaming by the Copyright Royalty Board.
If you have an explicit license for everything that you steam then you don't need to interact with the CRB of their proxy at all.
The catch is that SoundExchange is collecting royalties for everything you play if you play a single song without an explicit license.
If you want to play any music from an RIAA label, you need to pay the SoundExchange fees, even if it's just one track an hour (or per year) and all of the rest of what you play is creative commons / public domain / explicitly licensed for your use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631345</id>
	<title>goodbye to the small Internet radio station?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the USA maybe. I have a suspicion other countries might have a different notion of how that might work out...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the USA maybe .
I have a suspicion other countries might have a different notion of how that might work out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the USA maybe.
I have a suspicion other countries might have a different notion of how that might work out...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335</id>
	<title>What about public domain music?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just theoretically, what if a station played only music in the public domain? Would they have to cough up the minimum payment? I'm curious whether the fee is for playing music over the internet, or for playing copyrighted music over the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just theoretically , what if a station played only music in the public domain ?
Would they have to cough up the minimum payment ?
I 'm curious whether the fee is for playing music over the internet , or for playing copyrighted music over the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just theoretically, what if a station played only music in the public domain?
Would they have to cough up the minimum payment?
I'm curious whether the fee is for playing music over the internet, or for playing copyrighted music over the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633405</id>
	<title>Social corruption, only if you let them.</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1247131260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who says that an agreement between one set of parties binds others who were <b>not</b> party to the agreement? I fail to see how an agreement between certain parties in this mess affects other parties who are not signatory to the agreement. That doesn't make any sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who says that an agreement between one set of parties binds others who were not party to the agreement ?
I fail to see how an agreement between certain parties in this mess affects other parties who are not signatory to the agreement .
That does n't make any sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who says that an agreement between one set of parties binds others who were not party to the agreement?
I fail to see how an agreement between certain parties in this mess affects other parties who are not signatory to the agreement.
That doesn't make any sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633003</id>
	<title>what about rant radio?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they are in canada. is this anything like socan?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they are in canada .
is this anything like socan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they are in canada.
is this anything like socan?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28635327</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247149140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>$25,000 per year.</i></p><p>Just think - at the going rate of $1.92 million for 24 mp3s, this will entitle the radio station to play approximately 0.3 of an mp3 per year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 25,000 per year.Just think - at the going rate of $ 1.92 million for 24 mp3s , this will entitle the radio station to play approximately 0.3 of an mp3 per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$25,000 per year.Just think - at the going rate of $1.92 million for 24 mp3s, this will entitle the radio station to play approximately 0.3 of an mp3 per year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632037</id>
	<title>Re:What about public domain music?</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1247070780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter if you personally held the copyright to every single piece of audio played on your station. The RIAA will still insist you pay up (or at least file reams of paperwork that no small station can afford to file)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter if you personally held the copyright to every single piece of audio played on your station .
The RIAA will still insist you pay up ( or at least file reams of paperwork that no small station can afford to file )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter if you personally held the copyright to every single piece of audio played on your station.
The RIAA will still insist you pay up (or at least file reams of paperwork that no small station can afford to file)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28649305</id>
	<title>25k fee will create consortiums</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1247238840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few small broadcasters will find a way to have one feed, but create their own aliases to the one URL.  Each will be known by its own offering, but the output will originate from one URL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few small broadcasters will find a way to have one feed , but create their own aliases to the one URL .
Each will be known by its own offering , but the output will originate from one URL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few small broadcasters will find a way to have one feed, but create their own aliases to the one URL.
Each will be known by its own offering, but the output will originate from one URL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632075</id>
	<title>spo86e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">dim. If *BSD is Is also a miserable That FreeBSD is too much formality from the OpenBSD</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>dim .
If * BSD is Is also a miserable That FreeBSD is too much formality from the OpenBSD [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dim.
If *BSD is Is also a miserable That FreeBSD is too much formality from the OpenBSD [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633615</id>
	<title>Re:worksforme</title>
	<author>jabberw0k</author>
	<datestamp>1247133660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonsense! If I write a song, under what law could I possibly have involuntarily and unknowingly entered a contract?  That is theft, and clearly impossible.</p><p>Or are you saying Microsoft has rights to any software I write, too?  That Disney has rights to any screenplays I write?</p><p>Prove it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense !
If I write a song , under what law could I possibly have involuntarily and unknowingly entered a contract ?
That is theft , and clearly impossible.Or are you saying Microsoft has rights to any software I write , too ?
That Disney has rights to any screenplays I write ? Prove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense!
If I write a song, under what law could I possibly have involuntarily and unknowingly entered a contract?
That is theft, and clearly impossible.Or are you saying Microsoft has rights to any software I write, too?
That Disney has rights to any screenplays I write?Prove it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636963</id>
	<title>Re:I see a solution...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247155620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that co-op idea will work (isn't the $25k for each radio stream?) but this, I like</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that co-op idea will work ( is n't the $ 25k for each radio stream ?
) but this , I like</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that co-op idea will work (isn't the $25k for each radio stream?
) but this, I like</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295</id>
	<title>Social corruption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The rich take advantage of the less rich:

<br> <br> <i>"Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment: $25,000 per year. So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rich take advantage of the less rich : " Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment : $ 25,000 per year .
So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to , as they will no longer afford to operate legally .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rich take advantage of the less rich:

  "Buried in the details are a new minimum royalty payment: $25,000 per year.
So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631353</id>
	<title>Is this just in the US?</title>
	<author>1mck</author>
	<datestamp>1247065740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this only pertain to the US, or is it all over the world?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this only pertain to the US , or is it all over the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this only pertain to the US, or is it all over the world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636727</id>
	<title>Re:Ambiguous, too</title>
	<author>H310iSe</author>
	<datestamp>1247154720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is very true, the actual source materials about this agreement are scarce right now, I'm holding out hope that there will be some exemptions for 501.c and educational institutions at least.</p><p>BTW in 2004, the minimum was $500.  2009 - $25,000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is very true , the actual source materials about this agreement are scarce right now , I 'm holding out hope that there will be some exemptions for 501.c and educational institutions at least.BTW in 2004 , the minimum was $ 500 .
2009 - $ 25,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is very true, the actual source materials about this agreement are scarce right now, I'm holding out hope that there will be some exemptions for 501.c and educational institutions at least.BTW in 2004, the minimum was $500.
2009 - $25,000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632241</id>
	<title>Two words...Media PC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just some food for thought...but alot of people are already paying for music.  I know I am...My Dish Network service comes with 'most' of the Sirius channels.  I have a small ~$200 media PC setup to stream TV2 for both video and audio.  It has a small web interface that i built that lets me switch channels on the dish box.  I have three streams...one for highBW video/audio (512Kbps), one for low res video/audio (128Kbps), and one for audio only (96Kbps).  With this $200 box, I stream out all the TV/Radio that i am already paying for for use on my laptop/blackberry..and um yes...work (music only...I promise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D)</p><p>So why am i talking about a media PC on this thread?</p><p>People who actualy use these 'free' internet radio site are probably paying for the music they love already(cable/dish/etc...).  For the price of a low end ipod and some time...anyone can take that power away from the record commpanies.  SlingBox is another example...but the PC (Actualy...i hate calling them PCs lately because of the stupid MS comercials...so lets say...Penguin...New phrase "It's a Penguin"...that would be a good comercial...lol...anyways i digress) is more versital.</p><p>People talk about how they 'hate' the record companies...my advice...there are ways of fighting back without lawyers or HUGE money involved....Help me lead the revolution 1 Media PC at a time.</p><p>Adam - (PS. I have been trying to create a slashdot ID FOREVER...I never get the 'conformation email'...i have contacted help..none...so this is my way of posing non-Anonymous Coward)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just some food for thought...but alot of people are already paying for music .
I know I am...My Dish Network service comes with 'most ' of the Sirius channels .
I have a small ~ $ 200 media PC setup to stream TV2 for both video and audio .
It has a small web interface that i built that lets me switch channels on the dish box .
I have three streams...one for highBW video/audio ( 512Kbps ) , one for low res video/audio ( 128Kbps ) , and one for audio only ( 96Kbps ) .
With this $ 200 box , I stream out all the TV/Radio that i am already paying for for use on my laptop/blackberry..and um yes...work ( music only...I promise : D ) So why am i talking about a media PC on this thread ? People who actualy use these 'free ' internet radio site are probably paying for the music they love already ( cable/dish/etc... ) .
For the price of a low end ipod and some time...anyone can take that power away from the record commpanies .
SlingBox is another example...but the PC ( Actualy...i hate calling them PCs lately because of the stupid MS comercials...so lets say...Penguin...New phrase " It 's a Penguin " ...that would be a good comercial...lol...anyways i digress ) is more versital.People talk about how they 'hate ' the record companies...my advice...there are ways of fighting back without lawyers or HUGE money involved....Help me lead the revolution 1 Media PC at a time.Adam - ( PS .
I have been trying to create a slashdot ID FOREVER...I never get the 'conformation email'...i have contacted help..none...so this is my way of posing non-Anonymous Coward )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just some food for thought...but alot of people are already paying for music.
I know I am...My Dish Network service comes with 'most' of the Sirius channels.
I have a small ~$200 media PC setup to stream TV2 for both video and audio.
It has a small web interface that i built that lets me switch channels on the dish box.
I have three streams...one for highBW video/audio (512Kbps), one for low res video/audio (128Kbps), and one for audio only (96Kbps).
With this $200 box, I stream out all the TV/Radio that i am already paying for for use on my laptop/blackberry..and um yes...work (music only...I promise :D)So why am i talking about a media PC on this thread?People who actualy use these 'free' internet radio site are probably paying for the music they love already(cable/dish/etc...).
For the price of a low end ipod and some time...anyone can take that power away from the record commpanies.
SlingBox is another example...but the PC (Actualy...i hate calling them PCs lately because of the stupid MS comercials...so lets say...Penguin...New phrase "It's a Penguin"...that would be a good comercial...lol...anyways i digress) is more versital.People talk about how they 'hate' the record companies...my advice...there are ways of fighting back without lawyers or HUGE money involved....Help me lead the revolution 1 Media PC at a time.Adam - (PS.
I have been trying to create a slashdot ID FOREVER...I never get the 'conformation email'...i have contacted help..none...so this is my way of posing non-Anonymous Coward)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28641945</id>
	<title>Re:What are they paying now?</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1247132640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What are smaller broadcasters required to pay now?</i></p><p>Small webcasters can still use the old fee system. The old fess that was exterminating small webcasters and threatening to bankrupt large webcasters, was a certain fee per song per listener, with a $500 minimum. Under that old system a tiny college radio webcaster could only average of TWO listeners at a time at the $500 fee, and having to pay about $250 per year extra for each concurrent listener above 2. A webcaster like Pandora.com with their huger listener base was going to be hit for probably over $20 million per year.</p><p>Under the new option a major webcaster like Pandora is going to pay less than half that - about $10 million per year - but the minimum buy in for that pricing system is $25,000. The $10 million rate for a "big" webcaster like Pandora is harsh but survivable if they start limiting or billing their heaviest listeners. Small webcasters could get by pretty well if they could combine the old-option $500 minimum with the new-option billing system, but the $25,000 minimum was explicitly put in place to prohibit that. Small webcasters still gets exterminated by the $250 per year per average-listener royalty rate. Imagine in your local normal-radio broadcaster had to pay $250 per year per listener - most radio stations would be obliterated if they got hit with these staggering bills. The royalty rate for normal radio stations is not $250 per listener.... it is $zero. Only webradio has to pay these music royalties.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are smaller broadcasters required to pay now ? Small webcasters can still use the old fee system .
The old fess that was exterminating small webcasters and threatening to bankrupt large webcasters , was a certain fee per song per listener , with a $ 500 minimum .
Under that old system a tiny college radio webcaster could only average of TWO listeners at a time at the $ 500 fee , and having to pay about $ 250 per year extra for each concurrent listener above 2 .
A webcaster like Pandora.com with their huger listener base was going to be hit for probably over $ 20 million per year.Under the new option a major webcaster like Pandora is going to pay less than half that - about $ 10 million per year - but the minimum buy in for that pricing system is $ 25,000 .
The $ 10 million rate for a " big " webcaster like Pandora is harsh but survivable if they start limiting or billing their heaviest listeners .
Small webcasters could get by pretty well if they could combine the old-option $ 500 minimum with the new-option billing system , but the $ 25,000 minimum was explicitly put in place to prohibit that .
Small webcasters still gets exterminated by the $ 250 per year per average-listener royalty rate .
Imagine in your local normal-radio broadcaster had to pay $ 250 per year per listener - most radio stations would be obliterated if they got hit with these staggering bills .
The royalty rate for normal radio stations is not $ 250 per listener.... it is $ zero .
Only webradio has to pay these music royalties.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are smaller broadcasters required to pay now?Small webcasters can still use the old fee system.
The old fess that was exterminating small webcasters and threatening to bankrupt large webcasters, was a certain fee per song per listener, with a $500 minimum.
Under that old system a tiny college radio webcaster could only average of TWO listeners at a time at the $500 fee, and having to pay about $250 per year extra for each concurrent listener above 2.
A webcaster like Pandora.com with their huger listener base was going to be hit for probably over $20 million per year.Under the new option a major webcaster like Pandora is going to pay less than half that - about $10 million per year - but the minimum buy in for that pricing system is $25,000.
The $10 million rate for a "big" webcaster like Pandora is harsh but survivable if they start limiting or billing their heaviest listeners.
Small webcasters could get by pretty well if they could combine the old-option $500 minimum with the new-option billing system, but the $25,000 minimum was explicitly put in place to prohibit that.
Small webcasters still gets exterminated by the $250 per year per average-listener royalty rate.
Imagine in your local normal-radio broadcaster had to pay $250 per year per listener - most radio stations would be obliterated if they got hit with these staggering bills.
The royalty rate for normal radio stations is not $250 per listener.... it is $zero.
Only webradio has to pay these music royalties.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634653</id>
	<title>Keeping my boombox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247144460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm hoping the radio I listen to will just bleep out the songs online so then when a storm is breaking I know whether or not a tornado is hitting me.</p><p>Only if I had bought a HD radio! Now I'm stuck listening to analog, oh nooooes.  At least I can still sling it over my shoulder and jive down the street...with a long extension cord since they don't make D batteries anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping the radio I listen to will just bleep out the songs online so then when a storm is breaking I know whether or not a tornado is hitting me.Only if I had bought a HD radio !
Now I 'm stuck listening to analog , oh nooooes .
At least I can still sling it over my shoulder and jive down the street...with a long extension cord since they do n't make D batteries anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping the radio I listen to will just bleep out the songs online so then when a storm is breaking I know whether or not a tornado is hitting me.Only if I had bought a HD radio!
Now I'm stuck listening to analog, oh nooooes.
At least I can still sling it over my shoulder and jive down the street...with a long extension cord since they don't make D batteries anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632125</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption</title>
	<author>GigsVT</author>
	<datestamp>1247071500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...using the coercive power of government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...using the coercive power of government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...using the coercive power of government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28637587</id>
	<title>Re:worksforme</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1247158080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand the issues, that's a problem for the artists, not the broadcasters. SoundExchange can collect royalties and issue statutory licenses for any artist, whether or not the artist registers to receive royalties from them, but broadcasters are free to ignore SoundExchange if they so choose. Such broadcasters must negotiate with the copyright holders on their own for the necessary licenses to operate legally.</p><p>For example, it shouldn't be necessary to deal with SoundExchange if you only play Creative Commons music, as you already have a license and don't require the higher-cost statutory licenses they're offering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand the issues , that 's a problem for the artists , not the broadcasters .
SoundExchange can collect royalties and issue statutory licenses for any artist , whether or not the artist registers to receive royalties from them , but broadcasters are free to ignore SoundExchange if they so choose .
Such broadcasters must negotiate with the copyright holders on their own for the necessary licenses to operate legally.For example , it should n't be necessary to deal with SoundExchange if you only play Creative Commons music , as you already have a license and do n't require the higher-cost statutory licenses they 're offering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand the issues, that's a problem for the artists, not the broadcasters.
SoundExchange can collect royalties and issue statutory licenses for any artist, whether or not the artist registers to receive royalties from them, but broadcasters are free to ignore SoundExchange if they so choose.
Such broadcasters must negotiate with the copyright holders on their own for the necessary licenses to operate legally.For example, it shouldn't be necessary to deal with SoundExchange if you only play Creative Commons music, as you already have a license and don't require the higher-cost statutory licenses they're offering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631347</id>
	<title>Strange agreement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Following the link I see that the agreement consists of... an add for a printer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Following the link I see that the agreement consists of... an add for a printer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following the link I see that the agreement consists of... an add for a printer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633225</id>
	<title>Will keep going until shutdown.</title>
	<author>VertigoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247171880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a DJ on a small shoutcast station I can tell you that we have no plans to stop broadcasting.  We have a maximum capacity of 250 listeners, though I think we average around 70.

Yep, we are going to stay on the air until they force us to shutdown.  We might be small enough to fly under the radar for some time.  I think that might be the case with a lot of the small home based stations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a DJ on a small shoutcast station I can tell you that we have no plans to stop broadcasting .
We have a maximum capacity of 250 listeners , though I think we average around 70 .
Yep , we are going to stay on the air until they force us to shutdown .
We might be small enough to fly under the radar for some time .
I think that might be the case with a lot of the small home based stations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a DJ on a small shoutcast station I can tell you that we have no plans to stop broadcasting.
We have a maximum capacity of 250 listeners, though I think we average around 70.
Yep, we are going to stay on the air until they force us to shutdown.
We might be small enough to fly under the radar for some time.
I think that might be the case with a lot of the small home based stations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636981</id>
	<title>Re:worksforme</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247155680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SoundExchange doesn't actually have a website anymore so I can't link to any direct information, but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange" title="wikipedia.org">here is Wikipedia's article</a> [wikipedia.org],</p><p><div class="quote"><p>SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties for all artists and copyright owners covered under the statutory licenses; <b>these parties do not need to be members of SoundExchange for royalties to be collected on their behalf</b> and distributed to them."</p></div><p>So let's say you sing into your computer microphone your own song, so it is 100\% written and performed by you, then let an Internet radio station play it. SoundExchange will collect royalties for it and there is no way to opt-out of this. That's right, it is required to pay them for something you created.</p><p>Supposedly if you register with them they might give you a cut, but only after they take out an "administrative fee".</p><p>Yeah, it's total bullshit. It really <i>is</i> stealing. That's how fucked up copyright is in the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SoundExchange does n't actually have a website anymore so I ca n't link to any direct information , but here is Wikipedia 's article [ wikipedia.org ] ,SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties for all artists and copyright owners covered under the statutory licenses ; these parties do not need to be members of SoundExchange for royalties to be collected on their behalf and distributed to them .
" So let 's say you sing into your computer microphone your own song , so it is 100 \ % written and performed by you , then let an Internet radio station play it .
SoundExchange will collect royalties for it and there is no way to opt-out of this .
That 's right , it is required to pay them for something you created.Supposedly if you register with them they might give you a cut , but only after they take out an " administrative fee " .Yeah , it 's total bullshit .
It really is stealing .
That 's how fucked up copyright is in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SoundExchange doesn't actually have a website anymore so I can't link to any direct information, but here is Wikipedia's article [wikipedia.org],SoundExchange collects and distributes royalties for all artists and copyright owners covered under the statutory licenses; these parties do not need to be members of SoundExchange for royalties to be collected on their behalf and distributed to them.
"So let's say you sing into your computer microphone your own song, so it is 100\% written and performed by you, then let an Internet radio station play it.
SoundExchange will collect royalties for it and there is no way to opt-out of this.
That's right, it is required to pay them for something you created.Supposedly if you register with them they might give you a cut, but only after they take out an "administrative fee".Yeah, it's total bullshit.
It really is stealing.
That's how fucked up copyright is in the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633015</id>
	<title>Re:BILLY MAYS HERE...</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1247082360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I approve of this forced Slashdot meme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I approve of this forced Slashdot meme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I approve of this forced Slashdot meme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632511</id>
	<title>I think...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you host offshore they have no jurisdiction.....just a thought</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you host offshore they have no jurisdiction.....just a thought</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you host offshore they have no jurisdiction.....just a thought</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28639631</id>
	<title>Re:worksforme</title>
	<author>djMouton</author>
	<datestamp>1247166540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can testify as a 100\% independent, Cakewalk-in-the-bedroom, self-releasing musician that I submitted a form at soundexchange.com back in 2008 and was kind of shocked when they later sent me a (very small) "Webcast Royalty Statement". Despite the copious OpenMusic / Creative Commons language on my website and CDs.</p><p>They're everywhere, man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can testify as a 100 \ % independent , Cakewalk-in-the-bedroom , self-releasing musician that I submitted a form at soundexchange.com back in 2008 and was kind of shocked when they later sent me a ( very small ) " Webcast Royalty Statement " .
Despite the copious OpenMusic / Creative Commons language on my website and CDs.They 're everywhere , man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can testify as a 100\% independent, Cakewalk-in-the-bedroom, self-releasing musician that I submitted a form at soundexchange.com back in 2008 and was kind of shocked when they later sent me a (very small) "Webcast Royalty Statement".
Despite the copious OpenMusic / Creative Commons language on my website and CDs.They're everywhere, man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28649961</id>
	<title>They've got it all wrong</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247241420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Artists (read: labels) should pay internet radio to play their songs.  A song is a commercial.  Paying to listen to commercials is stupid in the extreme.  Take a page from broadcast TV.  They charge us in the form of making us watch/skip commercials.  The content is free to the viewer.  HBO is the other correct model.  You pay to watch it, but they don't have commercials (beyond telling you about other content).</p><p>That's the way it SHOULD be.</p><p>Basic cable fucks us coming and going by charging us for content AND making us watch/skip commercials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Artists ( read : labels ) should pay internet radio to play their songs .
A song is a commercial .
Paying to listen to commercials is stupid in the extreme .
Take a page from broadcast TV .
They charge us in the form of making us watch/skip commercials .
The content is free to the viewer .
HBO is the other correct model .
You pay to watch it , but they do n't have commercials ( beyond telling you about other content ) .That 's the way it SHOULD be.Basic cable fucks us coming and going by charging us for content AND making us watch/skip commercials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artists (read: labels) should pay internet radio to play their songs.
A song is a commercial.
Paying to listen to commercials is stupid in the extreme.
Take a page from broadcast TV.
They charge us in the form of making us watch/skip commercials.
The content is free to the viewer.
HBO is the other correct model.
You pay to watch it, but they don't have commercials (beyond telling you about other content).That's the way it SHOULD be.Basic cable fucks us coming and going by charging us for content AND making us watch/skip commercials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631901</id>
	<title>Jamendo...anyone?</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1247069580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Creative Commons music for the people who tire of Pandora...
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.jamendo.com/en/" title="jamendo.com">http://www.jamendo.com/en/</a> [jamendo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Creative Commons music for the people who tire of Pandora.. . http : //www.jamendo.com/en/ [ jamendo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creative Commons music for the people who tire of Pandora...
 
http://www.jamendo.com/en/ [jamendo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632555</id>
	<title>Re:$25,000 barrier to entry</title>
	<author>BlueStrat</author>
	<datestamp>1247076540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, and we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business!'. I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it. Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.</i></p><p><i>1. This isn't a regulation, it's a cartel whose licensing terms are enforced by [government]<br>2. And this $25K business sounds ripe for anti-trust investigation. <b>How is it not abuse of a monopoly position?</b> </i></p><p>That's easy.</p><p>Because many of the same people who were instrumental in putting this in place and that stand to gain from it also just happen to be the ones that would also be instrumental in deciding if it's fair or not.</p><p>Wagers on their decision?</p><p>Strat</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to NewsFactor , Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over , and we do n't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business ! ' .
I may have added that last part , but I 'm sure he was thinking it .
Like most regulations , it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.1 .
This is n't a regulation , it 's a cartel whose licensing terms are enforced by [ government ] 2 .
And this $ 25K business sounds ripe for anti-trust investigation .
How is it not abuse of a monopoly position ?
That 's easy.Because many of the same people who were instrumental in putting this in place and that stand to gain from it also just happen to be the ones that would also be instrumental in deciding if it 's fair or not.Wagers on their decision ? Strat  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, and we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business!'.
I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it.
Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.1.
This isn't a regulation, it's a cartel whose licensing terms are enforced by [government]2.
And this $25K business sounds ripe for anti-trust investigation.
How is it not abuse of a monopoly position?
That's easy.Because many of the same people who were instrumental in putting this in place and that stand to gain from it also just happen to be the ones that would also be instrumental in deciding if it's fair or not.Wagers on their decision?Strat
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631913</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now you see the evils of capitalism and the free market.  The only vialble solution would be a worldwide communist revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you see the evils of capitalism and the free market .
The only vialble solution would be a worldwide communist revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you see the evils of capitalism and the free market.
The only vialble solution would be a worldwide communist revolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636051</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon?</title>
	<author>FredFredrickson</author>
	<datestamp>1247152440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A Few Years back I started an artist supported internet radio station. It was actually pretty cool- I programmed an interface to allow any indie artist to sign up, upload tracks. I'd review them, and add them to my lineup if they were good (Good being high enough quality to include in the stream, I wasn't terribly picky).
<br> <br>Anyhow, it was really cool and started to get popular. And best of all, I had permission from all the real copyright holders, with no need for much leg work.<br> <br>Anyway, the server running it died, and I never got around to fixing it. It was fun while it lasted, but it was a full time job. The site for the station is still up- dead and unused: <a href="http://radio.fredrickville.com/" title="fredrickville.com">Fredrickville Radio</a> [fredrickville.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Few Years back I started an artist supported internet radio station .
It was actually pretty cool- I programmed an interface to allow any indie artist to sign up , upload tracks .
I 'd review them , and add them to my lineup if they were good ( Good being high enough quality to include in the stream , I was n't terribly picky ) .
Anyhow , it was really cool and started to get popular .
And best of all , I had permission from all the real copyright holders , with no need for much leg work .
Anyway , the server running it died , and I never got around to fixing it .
It was fun while it lasted , but it was a full time job .
The site for the station is still up- dead and unused : Fredrickville Radio [ fredrickville.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Few Years back I started an artist supported internet radio station.
It was actually pretty cool- I programmed an interface to allow any indie artist to sign up, upload tracks.
I'd review them, and add them to my lineup if they were good (Good being high enough quality to include in the stream, I wasn't terribly picky).
Anyhow, it was really cool and started to get popular.
And best of all, I had permission from all the real copyright holders, with no need for much leg work.
Anyway, the server running it died, and I never got around to fixing it.
It was fun while it lasted, but it was a full time job.
The site for the station is still up- dead and unused: Fredrickville Radio [fredrickville.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633267</id>
	<title>Re:$25,000 is not much for small businesses</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1247172420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whats the point of a loan if you can't pay the interest? Oh, your an American business, sorry, carry on...After all what could possibly go wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats the point of a loan if you ca n't pay the interest ?
Oh , your an American business , sorry , carry on...After all what could possibly go wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats the point of a loan if you can't pay the interest?
Oh, your an American business, sorry, carry on...After all what could possibly go wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28641971</id>
	<title>When did music become so valuable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247132760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just not that valuable people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just not that valuable people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just not that valuable people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631487</id>
	<title>$25,000 is not much for small businesses</title>
	<author>panoptical2</author>
	<datestamp>1247066820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guys... It's not that hard to get a small business loan of $25,000, if you present to the bank that you have the know-how (and a business degree would help). Plus from the TFA of a related story...<p><div class="quote"><p>All webcasters would pay a minimum fee of $25,000 for legal access to the music they stream, but that money could be applied to what they owe in royalties, making it more of a down payment.</p></div><p>

In other words, this is $25,000 that they would be normally paying anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys... It 's not that hard to get a small business loan of $ 25,000 , if you present to the bank that you have the know-how ( and a business degree would help ) .
Plus from the TFA of a related story...All webcasters would pay a minimum fee of $ 25,000 for legal access to the music they stream , but that money could be applied to what they owe in royalties , making it more of a down payment .
In other words , this is $ 25,000 that they would be normally paying anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys... It's not that hard to get a small business loan of $25,000, if you present to the bank that you have the know-how (and a business degree would help).
Plus from the TFA of a related story...All webcasters would pay a minimum fee of $25,000 for legal access to the music they stream, but that money could be applied to what they owe in royalties, making it more of a down payment.
In other words, this is $25,000 that they would be normally paying anyway.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631513</id>
	<title>Re:What about public domain music? (Podsafe)</title>
	<author>FiskeBoller</author>
	<datestamp>1247067000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought this might be addressed by the concept of "Podsafe" music which allows for free play over web (under Creative Commons license). However, it's not clear to me that Podsafe is always a guarantee for all types of web transmission.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podsafe" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podsafe</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought this might be addressed by the concept of " Podsafe " music which allows for free play over web ( under Creative Commons license ) .
However , it 's not clear to me that Podsafe is always a guarantee for all types of web transmission .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podsafe [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought this might be addressed by the concept of "Podsafe" music which allows for free play over web (under Creative Commons license).
However, it's not clear to me that Podsafe is always a guarantee for all types of web transmission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podsafe [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632335</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about smaller internet radio stations</title>
	<author>iksbob</author>
	<datestamp>1247073660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the point of traditional radio stations seems to me that you can listen to X genre in Y area</p></div></blockquote><p>
The point of traditional radio stations is to cover costs (and preferably make a profit) with revenue from advertisers by distributing their material to the populace. The populace generally isn't interested in listening to advertisements all day long, so the radio stations must provide material the populace <i>is</i> interested in, with advertisements thrown in periodically.
Range "Y" is an artifact of radio broadcasting and power limitations imposed by the FCC to allow wider use of radio spectrum. I agree that the internet's nearly infinite supply of spectrum eliminates the need for any kind of range limitations. Genre "X" limitations are similarly a radio spectrum issue and need not exist on the internet.</p><blockquote><div><p>Why do we need a large station like last.fm alongside a smaller internet radio station? What can the small one offer that the larger cannot if they are both free?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Try turning that around: "What can the large one offer that the smaller one cannot if they are both free?" Really, I would expect a larger entity to develop into a far more bureaucratic system, making it slow to respond to listener's changing interests and requests. Further, large entities are somewhat resilient to legal action and more difficult to reconstruct, making them more easily controlled by external parties such as large copyright holders. Such legal action on a small entity would likely crush it, but a new one could quickly sprout up in the hole left by the original.
Going back to the original question: "What can the small one offer that the larger cannot i they are both free?" Simply put, adaptability and resistance against external corruption. These qualities do not mesh well with the music industry's legacy business model, thus the attempt to eliminate them with a $25,000 minimum charge. I would be interested to see what kind of logical knots they try to tie in their attempts to defend this minimum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the point of traditional radio stations seems to me that you can listen to X genre in Y area The point of traditional radio stations is to cover costs ( and preferably make a profit ) with revenue from advertisers by distributing their material to the populace .
The populace generally is n't interested in listening to advertisements all day long , so the radio stations must provide material the populace is interested in , with advertisements thrown in periodically .
Range " Y " is an artifact of radio broadcasting and power limitations imposed by the FCC to allow wider use of radio spectrum .
I agree that the internet 's nearly infinite supply of spectrum eliminates the need for any kind of range limitations .
Genre " X " limitations are similarly a radio spectrum issue and need not exist on the internet.Why do we need a large station like last.fm alongside a smaller internet radio station ?
What can the small one offer that the larger can not if they are both free ?
Try turning that around : " What can the large one offer that the smaller one can not if they are both free ?
" Really , I would expect a larger entity to develop into a far more bureaucratic system , making it slow to respond to listener 's changing interests and requests .
Further , large entities are somewhat resilient to legal action and more difficult to reconstruct , making them more easily controlled by external parties such as large copyright holders .
Such legal action on a small entity would likely crush it , but a new one could quickly sprout up in the hole left by the original .
Going back to the original question : " What can the small one offer that the larger can not i they are both free ?
" Simply put , adaptability and resistance against external corruption .
These qualities do not mesh well with the music industry 's legacy business model , thus the attempt to eliminate them with a $ 25,000 minimum charge .
I would be interested to see what kind of logical knots they try to tie in their attempts to defend this minimum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the point of traditional radio stations seems to me that you can listen to X genre in Y area
The point of traditional radio stations is to cover costs (and preferably make a profit) with revenue from advertisers by distributing their material to the populace.
The populace generally isn't interested in listening to advertisements all day long, so the radio stations must provide material the populace is interested in, with advertisements thrown in periodically.
Range "Y" is an artifact of radio broadcasting and power limitations imposed by the FCC to allow wider use of radio spectrum.
I agree that the internet's nearly infinite supply of spectrum eliminates the need for any kind of range limitations.
Genre "X" limitations are similarly a radio spectrum issue and need not exist on the internet.Why do we need a large station like last.fm alongside a smaller internet radio station?
What can the small one offer that the larger cannot if they are both free?
Try turning that around: "What can the large one offer that the smaller one cannot if they are both free?
" Really, I would expect a larger entity to develop into a far more bureaucratic system, making it slow to respond to listener's changing interests and requests.
Further, large entities are somewhat resilient to legal action and more difficult to reconstruct, making them more easily controlled by external parties such as large copyright holders.
Such legal action on a small entity would likely crush it, but a new one could quickly sprout up in the hole left by the original.
Going back to the original question: "What can the small one offer that the larger cannot i they are both free?
" Simply put, adaptability and resistance against external corruption.
These qualities do not mesh well with the music industry's legacy business model, thus the attempt to eliminate them with a $25,000 minimum charge.
I would be interested to see what kind of logical knots they try to tie in their attempts to defend this minimum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634943</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon?</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1247146800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the publisher, who actually paid you real money for the rights to your music, will contractuallly not agree to much if you retain the right to exclusively license to others. Instead, you'll just stay unknown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the publisher , who actually paid you real money for the rights to your music , will contractuallly not agree to much if you retain the right to exclusively license to others .
Instead , you 'll just stay unknown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the publisher, who actually paid you real money for the rights to your music, will contractuallly not agree to much if you retain the right to exclusively license to others.
Instead, you'll just stay unknown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28686825</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption, only if you let them.</title>
	<author>bhiestand</author>
	<datestamp>1247508360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks, this is perhaps the best explanation of the situation I have seen.  It even explains their motives instead of simply saying "they're evil".</p><p>I went to add you as a friend, but it seems you're already added as one.  I'm not surprised<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , this is perhaps the best explanation of the situation I have seen .
It even explains their motives instead of simply saying " they 're evil " .I went to add you as a friend , but it seems you 're already added as one .
I 'm not surprised : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, this is perhaps the best explanation of the situation I have seen.
It even explains their motives instead of simply saying "they're evil".I went to add you as a friend, but it seems you're already added as one.
I'm not surprised :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28639219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633589</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon?</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1247133420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, in order to be able to actually obtain the royalties paid to SoundExchange for playing your music, you have sign a contract agreeing not to undercut them by licensing your music for radio play any other way. (Yes, this is evil - especially as SoundExchange is the statutory licensing organisation, so even if you don't sign up the radio stations can pay money to them to play your songs.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , in order to be able to actually obtain the royalties paid to SoundExchange for playing your music , you have sign a contract agreeing not to undercut them by licensing your music for radio play any other way .
( Yes , this is evil - especially as SoundExchange is the statutory licensing organisation , so even if you do n't sign up the radio stations can pay money to them to play your songs .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, in order to be able to actually obtain the royalties paid to SoundExchange for playing your music, you have sign a contract agreeing not to undercut them by licensing your music for radio play any other way.
(Yes, this is evil - especially as SoundExchange is the statutory licensing organisation, so even if you don't sign up the radio stations can pay money to them to play your songs.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631671</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone Else Notice Pandora Lately?</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1247068020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, you mean YOUR Pandora stations sound like terrestrial radio? Right? Because none of my stations sound like anything I can get near me lacking any good college stations. My first couple stations are:<br> <br>Django Reinhardt Radio<br>Electro Station #1 (Orbital, Orb, Wink)<br>Gaelic Storm Radio<br>etc<br>Or are you talking about their attitude? They are a business and want to make some profit to continue to operate, but they hardly seem anything like the homogonizing, profit maximizing, soul crushing folks at CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , you mean YOUR Pandora stations sound like terrestrial radio ?
Right ? Because none of my stations sound like anything I can get near me lacking any good college stations .
My first couple stations are : Django Reinhardt RadioElectro Station # 1 ( Orbital , Orb , Wink ) Gaelic Storm RadioetcOr are you talking about their attitude ?
They are a business and want to make some profit to continue to operate , but they hardly seem anything like the homogonizing , profit maximizing , soul crushing folks at CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, you mean YOUR Pandora stations sound like terrestrial radio?
Right? Because none of my stations sound like anything I can get near me lacking any good college stations.
My first couple stations are: Django Reinhardt RadioElectro Station #1 (Orbital, Orb, Wink)Gaelic Storm RadioetcOr are you talking about their attitude?
They are a business and want to make some profit to continue to operate, but they hardly seem anything like the homogonizing, profit maximizing, soul crushing folks at CC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631699</id>
	<title>Ambiguous, too</title>
	<author>S-100</author>
	<datestamp>1247068200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perusing the info on SoundExchange, the wording is ambiguous.  In the press release, they clearly say that all "Pure Play" webcasters, small and large, are subject to the $25,000 per year minimum fee against royalties.  But in another section of the web site, they list the $25,000 fee in the section for large webcasters and say nothing about a minimum fee in the following section about small broadcasters. So there's a chance that the fee may not apply to small webcasters.<br> <br>It should also be said that this "special deal" is opt-in, and not compulsory.  Webcasters are still free to adopt the rate structure established earlier by the CRB, however it was those rates that caused the revolt by webcasters in the first place, since those rates are so high that a typical small station could end up owing over 100\% of revenues to Sound Exchange.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perusing the info on SoundExchange , the wording is ambiguous .
In the press release , they clearly say that all " Pure Play " webcasters , small and large , are subject to the $ 25,000 per year minimum fee against royalties .
But in another section of the web site , they list the $ 25,000 fee in the section for large webcasters and say nothing about a minimum fee in the following section about small broadcasters .
So there 's a chance that the fee may not apply to small webcasters .
It should also be said that this " special deal " is opt-in , and not compulsory .
Webcasters are still free to adopt the rate structure established earlier by the CRB , however it was those rates that caused the revolt by webcasters in the first place , since those rates are so high that a typical small station could end up owing over 100 \ % of revenues to Sound Exchange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perusing the info on SoundExchange, the wording is ambiguous.
In the press release, they clearly say that all "Pure Play" webcasters, small and large, are subject to the $25,000 per year minimum fee against royalties.
But in another section of the web site, they list the $25,000 fee in the section for large webcasters and say nothing about a minimum fee in the following section about small broadcasters.
So there's a chance that the fee may not apply to small webcasters.
It should also be said that this "special deal" is opt-in, and not compulsory.
Webcasters are still free to adopt the rate structure established earlier by the CRB, however it was those rates that caused the revolt by webcasters in the first place, since those rates are so high that a typical small station could end up owing over 100\% of revenues to Sound Exchange.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632483</id>
	<title>Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to post this e-mail myself.</p><p>I find it curious that just $1 can cover the difference between listening 40 hours a month to listening three or four times that amount (which I used to do, though now I spend more time on Hulu).  I plan to take advantage of it, but I have to wonder just what the margins are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to post this e-mail myself.I find it curious that just $ 1 can cover the difference between listening 40 hours a month to listening three or four times that amount ( which I used to do , though now I spend more time on Hulu ) .
I plan to take advantage of it , but I have to wonder just what the margins are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to post this e-mail myself.I find it curious that just $1 can cover the difference between listening 40 hours a month to listening three or four times that amount (which I used to do, though now I spend more time on Hulu).
I plan to take advantage of it, but I have to wonder just what the margins are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632889</id>
	<title>Stream from Canada (or other country) loophole?</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1247080500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could a college radio station set up a streaming server in another country to avoid these fees?</p><p>Station has a connection to Canadian server, and all streaming to listeners is done from Canada, or some other country with minimal copyright restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could a college radio station set up a streaming server in another country to avoid these fees ? Station has a connection to Canadian server , and all streaming to listeners is done from Canada , or some other country with minimal copyright restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could a college radio station set up a streaming server in another country to avoid these fees?Station has a connection to Canadian server, and all streaming to listeners is done from Canada, or some other country with minimal copyright restrictions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631467</id>
	<title>A great opportunity for upstart talent...</title>
	<author>Bones3D\_mac</author>
	<datestamp>1247066700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps now is a good time for all the upstart talent out there to be heard before getting their work corrupted by the recording industry. Small broadcasters should set up their own organization to collectively promote new talent by sharing their newly found content with each other for broadcasting. All that would be needed is some sort of vetting system to ensure the work isn't already owned by someone other than the artist that created it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps now is a good time for all the upstart talent out there to be heard before getting their work corrupted by the recording industry .
Small broadcasters should set up their own organization to collectively promote new talent by sharing their newly found content with each other for broadcasting .
All that would be needed is some sort of vetting system to ensure the work is n't already owned by someone other than the artist that created it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps now is a good time for all the upstart talent out there to be heard before getting their work corrupted by the recording industry.
Small broadcasters should set up their own organization to collectively promote new talent by sharing their newly found content with each other for broadcasting.
All that would be needed is some sort of vetting system to ensure the work isn't already owned by someone other than the artist that created it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632991</id>
	<title>Internet radio needs to step up!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247082000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run one of those small streams, it's a niche music genre, playing only public domain music just isn't an option because most of the stuff I play was recorded in the early 60's by musicians who are long gone. It's not as if you can simply replace the likes of Frank Sinatra!</p><p>That said, I've not found a single source for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:15 psa's, brief messages that urge people to take action. I have found 2 minute psa's.. but they're long, complicated, don't really compell you to do anything and worst of all, the length of them will cause people to drop the connection. I want 15 second, funny PSA's that call people to action.</p><p>If we small webcasters could just get together some how and produce small, funny 15 second PSA's summarizing the problems and what listeners should do, we could send a message to congress that internet radio is viable, important and most important, don't p*ss off webcasters lest your political career go up in smoke.</p><p>The infamous "day of silence" was one thing, but it didn't really convey what a listener was supposed to do, all it did was cause them to look for another stream to listen to.</p><p>We need to realize what we have and take advantage of it, we <b>are</b> the media and if we (collectively) wanted to, we could harm any politician that takes the side of the RIAA.</p><p>So.. why don't we?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run one of those small streams , it 's a niche music genre , playing only public domain music just is n't an option because most of the stuff I play was recorded in the early 60 's by musicians who are long gone .
It 's not as if you can simply replace the likes of Frank Sinatra ! That said , I 've not found a single source for : 15 psa 's , brief messages that urge people to take action .
I have found 2 minute psa 's.. but they 're long , complicated , do n't really compell you to do anything and worst of all , the length of them will cause people to drop the connection .
I want 15 second , funny PSA 's that call people to action.If we small webcasters could just get together some how and produce small , funny 15 second PSA 's summarizing the problems and what listeners should do , we could send a message to congress that internet radio is viable , important and most important , do n't p * ss off webcasters lest your political career go up in smoke.The infamous " day of silence " was one thing , but it did n't really convey what a listener was supposed to do , all it did was cause them to look for another stream to listen to.We need to realize what we have and take advantage of it , we are the media and if we ( collectively ) wanted to , we could harm any politician that takes the side of the RIAA.So.. why do n't we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run one of those small streams, it's a niche music genre, playing only public domain music just isn't an option because most of the stuff I play was recorded in the early 60's by musicians who are long gone.
It's not as if you can simply replace the likes of Frank Sinatra!That said, I've not found a single source for :15 psa's, brief messages that urge people to take action.
I have found 2 minute psa's.. but they're long, complicated, don't really compell you to do anything and worst of all, the length of them will cause people to drop the connection.
I want 15 second, funny PSA's that call people to action.If we small webcasters could just get together some how and produce small, funny 15 second PSA's summarizing the problems and what listeners should do, we could send a message to congress that internet radio is viable, important and most important, don't p*ss off webcasters lest your political career go up in smoke.The infamous "day of silence" was one thing, but it didn't really convey what a listener was supposed to do, all it did was cause them to look for another stream to listen to.We need to realize what we have and take advantage of it, we are the media and if we (collectively) wanted to, we could harm any politician that takes the side of the RIAA.So.. why don't we?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631319</id>
	<title>I must say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck this shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck this shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck this shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28638487</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon?</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1247162100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One internet station's solution -- royalty-free AND not-crud:</p><p><a href="http://www.digitalgunfire.com/radioplayrelease.rtf" title="digitalgunfire.com">http://www.digitalgunfire.com/radioplayrelease.rtf</a> [digitalgunfire.com]</p><p>I think what will happen is that there will suddenly be a much sharper demarcation between independent/royalty-free and chain/royalty stations, and that the lack of overlap will harm the traditional stations and their artists (since a whole segment of listeners will be lost to them), but will be all to the benefit of the royalty-free stations AND the artists they are thereby promoting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One internet station 's solution -- royalty-free AND not-crud : http : //www.digitalgunfire.com/radioplayrelease.rtf [ digitalgunfire.com ] I think what will happen is that there will suddenly be a much sharper demarcation between independent/royalty-free and chain/royalty stations , and that the lack of overlap will harm the traditional stations and their artists ( since a whole segment of listeners will be lost to them ) , but will be all to the benefit of the royalty-free stations AND the artists they are thereby promoting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One internet station's solution -- royalty-free AND not-crud:http://www.digitalgunfire.com/radioplayrelease.rtf [digitalgunfire.com]I think what will happen is that there will suddenly be a much sharper demarcation between independent/royalty-free and chain/royalty stations, and that the lack of overlap will harm the traditional stations and their artists (since a whole segment of listeners will be lost to them), but will be all to the benefit of the royalty-free stations AND the artists they are thereby promoting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631309</id>
	<title>Two words:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pirate radio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pirate radio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pirate radio.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28635065</id>
	<title>SoundExchange is a non-profit</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1247147700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone know a break down of where the money goes that they are collecting?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know a break down of where the money goes that they are collecting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know a break down of where the money goes that they are collecting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28639219</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption, only if you let them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247164920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Who says that an agreement between one set of parties binds others who were not party to the agreement?</i> </p><p>Congress created copyright law, and by law a copyright holder can sue you in court for copyright infringement, and the courts will enforce it and if necessary bring in gun-toting police to enforce the authority of the court.</p><p>But then it gets more complicated. Congress passed a new law specifically to deal with "internet radio" webcasting. This law set up something called CARP - the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel - an the law authorized this panel to listen to industry lobbyists and set "reasonable" copyright payment rates for webcasters. The panel was directed to set the rates according to what willing-buyers and willing-sellers would agree to pay on their own under normal free market conditions. The payment rates set by this panel have the force of law.</p><p>What then happened is that the RIAA represents a multi-billion dollar industry with huge influence in Washington and with an army of lawyers and with an army of lobbyists and with effective monopoly power to dictate manipulative contract terms. The RIAA then made a deal with Yahoo (and maybe one or two others others) to license Yahoo to webcast the RIAA's copyrighted music. The RIAA manipulated this deal to inflate the apparent royalty rate. The RIAA then submitted this inflated rate to CARP, as evidence of the "natural free market price that willing-buyers and willing-sellers would reach on their own", and the RIAA used all their industry power and Washington influence to influence the CARP process. Webcasting - being brand new and mostly small upstarts and things like college radio - their interests had little or no representation before the CARP panel, and of course they got STOMPED. CARP set impossibly high royalty rates webcasters had to pay. It set impossibly high rates that would exterminate both small and large webcasting. Rates that effectively prohibited any sort of internet radio.</p><p>Webcasters, both large-and-small, found themselves faced with <b>retroactive bills</b> they would have to pay, bills far larger than than any money they had and larger than any gross-revenues coming in from webcasting. College radio and similar small and indie webcasters would get smacked with huge retroactive bills and shut down, and larger webcasters would literally have to file for bankruptcy. Webcasters large and small all screamed that the CARP set unfair and impossibly high rates, and they increasingly got their act together as an "interest group" to challenge the CARP ruling, and it appears they were going to be successful in having to reversed.</p><p>The RIAA then made a NEW deal with large webcasters. A deal that eliminated the impossibly high per-song-per-listener fee, and allowed them to pay according to a completely different and lower cost payment system While this was a "private contract", according to the CARP system other webcasters would also have the right to opt-in to those terms if they wanted to. The terms of this contract set a vastly higher minimum fee specifically to lock out smaller webcasters. The original CARP system had a $500 minimum payment for college radio and other indie webcasters (with per-song-per-listener fees going up from there), the new deal set a $25,000 dollar yearly minimum fee.</p><p>So the RIAA has effectively split the webcaster interest group that were fighting to get the CARP rates reversed. The RIAA gave the large webcasters a deal they could survive with, and effectively eliminated the "big muscle" on the webcaster side fighting the original CARP rates. College radio and other indie webcasters lose the little corporate support and legal support and Washington lobby influence they had. The small webcasters are unlikely to be able to effectively oppose the CARP ruling on their own, and will likely be exterminated.</p><p>So small webcasters are *not* bound by this particular agreement, but they are still bound by the CARP panel fees backed by the force of Congressional law. In fact small webcaster</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who says that an agreement between one set of parties binds others who were not party to the agreement ?
Congress created copyright law , and by law a copyright holder can sue you in court for copyright infringement , and the courts will enforce it and if necessary bring in gun-toting police to enforce the authority of the court.But then it gets more complicated .
Congress passed a new law specifically to deal with " internet radio " webcasting .
This law set up something called CARP - the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel - an the law authorized this panel to listen to industry lobbyists and set " reasonable " copyright payment rates for webcasters .
The panel was directed to set the rates according to what willing-buyers and willing-sellers would agree to pay on their own under normal free market conditions .
The payment rates set by this panel have the force of law.What then happened is that the RIAA represents a multi-billion dollar industry with huge influence in Washington and with an army of lawyers and with an army of lobbyists and with effective monopoly power to dictate manipulative contract terms .
The RIAA then made a deal with Yahoo ( and maybe one or two others others ) to license Yahoo to webcast the RIAA 's copyrighted music .
The RIAA manipulated this deal to inflate the apparent royalty rate .
The RIAA then submitted this inflated rate to CARP , as evidence of the " natural free market price that willing-buyers and willing-sellers would reach on their own " , and the RIAA used all their industry power and Washington influence to influence the CARP process .
Webcasting - being brand new and mostly small upstarts and things like college radio - their interests had little or no representation before the CARP panel , and of course they got STOMPED .
CARP set impossibly high royalty rates webcasters had to pay .
It set impossibly high rates that would exterminate both small and large webcasting .
Rates that effectively prohibited any sort of internet radio.Webcasters , both large-and-small , found themselves faced with retroactive bills they would have to pay , bills far larger than than any money they had and larger than any gross-revenues coming in from webcasting .
College radio and similar small and indie webcasters would get smacked with huge retroactive bills and shut down , and larger webcasters would literally have to file for bankruptcy .
Webcasters large and small all screamed that the CARP set unfair and impossibly high rates , and they increasingly got their act together as an " interest group " to challenge the CARP ruling , and it appears they were going to be successful in having to reversed.The RIAA then made a NEW deal with large webcasters .
A deal that eliminated the impossibly high per-song-per-listener fee , and allowed them to pay according to a completely different and lower cost payment system While this was a " private contract " , according to the CARP system other webcasters would also have the right to opt-in to those terms if they wanted to .
The terms of this contract set a vastly higher minimum fee specifically to lock out smaller webcasters .
The original CARP system had a $ 500 minimum payment for college radio and other indie webcasters ( with per-song-per-listener fees going up from there ) , the new deal set a $ 25,000 dollar yearly minimum fee.So the RIAA has effectively split the webcaster interest group that were fighting to get the CARP rates reversed .
The RIAA gave the large webcasters a deal they could survive with , and effectively eliminated the " big muscle " on the webcaster side fighting the original CARP rates .
College radio and other indie webcasters lose the little corporate support and legal support and Washington lobby influence they had .
The small webcasters are unlikely to be able to effectively oppose the CARP ruling on their own , and will likely be exterminated.So small webcasters are * not * bound by this particular agreement , but they are still bound by the CARP panel fees backed by the force of Congressional law .
In fact small webcaster</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Who says that an agreement between one set of parties binds others who were not party to the agreement?
Congress created copyright law, and by law a copyright holder can sue you in court for copyright infringement, and the courts will enforce it and if necessary bring in gun-toting police to enforce the authority of the court.But then it gets more complicated.
Congress passed a new law specifically to deal with "internet radio" webcasting.
This law set up something called CARP - the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel - an the law authorized this panel to listen to industry lobbyists and set "reasonable" copyright payment rates for webcasters.
The panel was directed to set the rates according to what willing-buyers and willing-sellers would agree to pay on their own under normal free market conditions.
The payment rates set by this panel have the force of law.What then happened is that the RIAA represents a multi-billion dollar industry with huge influence in Washington and with an army of lawyers and with an army of lobbyists and with effective monopoly power to dictate manipulative contract terms.
The RIAA then made a deal with Yahoo (and maybe one or two others others) to license Yahoo to webcast the RIAA's copyrighted music.
The RIAA manipulated this deal to inflate the apparent royalty rate.
The RIAA then submitted this inflated rate to CARP, as evidence of the "natural free market price that willing-buyers and willing-sellers would reach on their own", and the RIAA used all their industry power and Washington influence to influence the CARP process.
Webcasting - being brand new and mostly small upstarts and things like college radio - their interests had little or no representation before the CARP panel, and of course they got STOMPED.
CARP set impossibly high royalty rates webcasters had to pay.
It set impossibly high rates that would exterminate both small and large webcasting.
Rates that effectively prohibited any sort of internet radio.Webcasters, both large-and-small, found themselves faced with retroactive bills they would have to pay, bills far larger than than any money they had and larger than any gross-revenues coming in from webcasting.
College radio and similar small and indie webcasters would get smacked with huge retroactive bills and shut down, and larger webcasters would literally have to file for bankruptcy.
Webcasters large and small all screamed that the CARP set unfair and impossibly high rates, and they increasingly got their act together as an "interest group" to challenge the CARP ruling, and it appears they were going to be successful in having to reversed.The RIAA then made a NEW deal with large webcasters.
A deal that eliminated the impossibly high per-song-per-listener fee, and allowed them to pay according to a completely different and lower cost payment system While this was a "private contract", according to the CARP system other webcasters would also have the right to opt-in to those terms if they wanted to.
The terms of this contract set a vastly higher minimum fee specifically to lock out smaller webcasters.
The original CARP system had a $500 minimum payment for college radio and other indie webcasters (with per-song-per-listener fees going up from there), the new deal set a $25,000 dollar yearly minimum fee.So the RIAA has effectively split the webcaster interest group that were fighting to get the CARP rates reversed.
The RIAA gave the large webcasters a deal they could survive with, and effectively eliminated the "big muscle" on the webcaster side fighting the original CARP rates.
College radio and other indie webcasters lose the little corporate support and legal support and Washington lobby influence they had.
The small webcasters are unlikely to be able to effectively oppose the CARP ruling on their own, and will likely be exterminated.So small webcasters are *not* bound by this particular agreement, but they are still bound by the CARP panel fees backed by the force of Congressional law.
In fact small webcaster</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715</id>
	<title>Re:worksforme</title>
	<author>zegota</author>
	<datestamp>1247078400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong. EVERYTHING is under SoundExchange's jurisdiction. They have legal authority to collect fees for EVERYTHING, even artists not under the RIAA umbrella.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
EVERYTHING is under SoundExchange 's jurisdiction .
They have legal authority to collect fees for EVERYTHING , even artists not under the RIAA umbrella .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
EVERYTHING is under SoundExchange's jurisdiction.
They have legal authority to collect fees for EVERYTHING, even artists not under the RIAA umbrella.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28640071</id>
	<title>Creative Commons only Internet Radio</title>
	<author>zenasprime</author>
	<datestamp>1247168100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So long as the license dose not forbid it, internet radio stations that play only music licensed using the Creative Commons are exempt from these fees.  I gave sound exchange a call and was able to talk to a representative at length about such things.</p><p>So all is not lost for the little guys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as the license dose not forbid it , internet radio stations that play only music licensed using the Creative Commons are exempt from these fees .
I gave sound exchange a call and was able to talk to a representative at length about such things.So all is not lost for the little guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as the license dose not forbid it, internet radio stations that play only music licensed using the Creative Commons are exempt from these fees.
I gave sound exchange a call and was able to talk to a representative at length about such things.So all is not lost for the little guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631769</id>
	<title>Re:A great opportunity for upstart talent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indie bands should get together to set up something to broadcast their music. Heck, <i>anybody</i> can do this by contacting indie bands, and requesting a non-exclusive, non-expiring license to broadcast their works over internet radio so long as all of the copyright holders are still alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indie bands should get together to set up something to broadcast their music .
Heck , anybody can do this by contacting indie bands , and requesting a non-exclusive , non-expiring license to broadcast their works over internet radio so long as all of the copyright holders are still alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indie bands should get together to set up something to broadcast their music.
Heck, anybody can do this by contacting indie bands, and requesting a non-exclusive, non-expiring license to broadcast their works over internet radio so long as all of the copyright holders are still alive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636147</id>
	<title>Re:Got this email from their CEO (Tim)</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1247152860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That actually sounds amazing to me - $0.99 if you listen more than (roughly) 1 1/4 hours every single day in a given month; otherwise, free. Unless you're philosophically opposed to paying anything, it's hard to imagine a better deal. Makes me want to check it out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That actually sounds amazing to me - $ 0.99 if you listen more than ( roughly ) 1 1/4 hours every single day in a given month ; otherwise , free .
Unless you 're philosophically opposed to paying anything , it 's hard to imagine a better deal .
Makes me want to check it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That actually sounds amazing to me - $0.99 if you listen more than (roughly) 1 1/4 hours every single day in a given month; otherwise, free.
Unless you're philosophically opposed to paying anything, it's hard to imagine a better deal.
Makes me want to check it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632293</id>
	<title>I see a solution...</title>
	<author>vrmlguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247073180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not broadcast the music and the "DJ" separately?  The DJ says, "Here's a song you'll like" and sends a JSON packet to your browser, telling it to (a) listen to it on Pandora or Last.fm or something, and (b) switch back to the DJ when the song is done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not broadcast the music and the " DJ " separately ?
The DJ says , " Here 's a song you 'll like " and sends a JSON packet to your browser , telling it to ( a ) listen to it on Pandora or Last.fm or something , and ( b ) switch back to the DJ when the song is done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not broadcast the music and the "DJ" separately?
The DJ says, "Here's a song you'll like" and sends a JSON packet to your browser, telling it to (a) listen to it on Pandora or Last.fm or something, and (b) switch back to the DJ when the song is done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631745</id>
	<title>worksforme</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1247068560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fine by me. The stuff I want to listen to is not under the RIAA's or ASCAP's jurisdiction anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to , as they will no longer afford to operate legally.Fine by me .
The stuff I want to listen to is not under the RIAA 's or ASCAP 's jurisdiction anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally.Fine by me.
The stuff I want to listen to is not under the RIAA's or ASCAP's jurisdiction anyway.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632911</id>
	<title>Re:goodbye to the small Internet radio station?</title>
	<author>durin</author>
	<datestamp>1247080740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, the EU is also in the pockets of Big Media (tm)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the EU is also in the pockets of Big Media ( tm )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the EU is also in the pockets of Big Media (tm)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632507</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about smaller internet radio stations</title>
	<author>S-100</author>
	<datestamp>1247076120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because there may be a few large stations that play the kind of music that you are interested in, it doesn't mean that everyone would be satisfied with the available selections.  Would you make the same argument about movies or books?  Sure, if you're main interest in radio is top 20 hits, you don't have to search for smaller stations (an no smaller stations would bother with such a generic playlist).  But for many, the hunt for the ideal music station is part of the fun.  Terrestrial radio is a vast wasteland of narrow genres and pre-packaged Clear Channel swill.  And many don't want to see the same thing happen to Internet radio.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because there may be a few large stations that play the kind of music that you are interested in , it does n't mean that everyone would be satisfied with the available selections .
Would you make the same argument about movies or books ?
Sure , if you 're main interest in radio is top 20 hits , you do n't have to search for smaller stations ( an no smaller stations would bother with such a generic playlist ) .
But for many , the hunt for the ideal music station is part of the fun .
Terrestrial radio is a vast wasteland of narrow genres and pre-packaged Clear Channel swill .
And many do n't want to see the same thing happen to Internet radio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because there may be a few large stations that play the kind of music that you are interested in, it doesn't mean that everyone would be satisfied with the available selections.
Would you make the same argument about movies or books?
Sure, if you're main interest in radio is top 20 hits, you don't have to search for smaller stations (an no smaller stations would bother with such a generic playlist).
But for many, the hunt for the ideal music station is part of the fun.
Terrestrial radio is a vast wasteland of narrow genres and pre-packaged Clear Channel swill.
And many don't want to see the same thing happen to Internet radio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631395</id>
	<title>Re:What about public domain music?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SoundExchange collects royalties for <i>all</i> music.  Not just its members.  so yes, you'd still have to cough up.  It's a bit of a scam really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SoundExchange collects royalties for all music .
Not just its members .
so yes , you 'd still have to cough up .
It 's a bit of a scam really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SoundExchange collects royalties for all music.
Not just its members.
so yes, you'd still have to cough up.
It's a bit of a scam really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631403</id>
	<title>Re:goodbye to the small Internet radio station?</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1247066160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the developed world is worse which is why pandora and others aren't available outside the US. Other countries either have higher rates or don't have standardized rights so you have to negotiate per piece which is obviously untenable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the developed world is worse which is why pandora and others are n't available outside the US .
Other countries either have higher rates or do n't have standardized rights so you have to negotiate per piece which is obviously untenable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the developed world is worse which is why pandora and others aren't available outside the US.
Other countries either have higher rates or don't have standardized rights so you have to negotiate per piece which is obviously untenable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631857</id>
	<title>Who cares about smaller internet radio stations?</title>
	<author>wasmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1247069220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest, the point of traditional radio stations seems to me that you can listen to X genre in Y area. With internet radio, Y no longer matters, and for many stations like Pandora and Last.fm neither does X, as they offer many different genres. Why do we need a large station like last.fm alongside a smaller internet radio station? What can the small one offer that the larger cannot if they are both free?<br>These aren't rhetorical questions- If anyone prefers a smaller station to a larger I'd like to know why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , the point of traditional radio stations seems to me that you can listen to X genre in Y area .
With internet radio , Y no longer matters , and for many stations like Pandora and Last.fm neither does X , as they offer many different genres .
Why do we need a large station like last.fm alongside a smaller internet radio station ?
What can the small one offer that the larger can not if they are both free ? These are n't rhetorical questions- If anyone prefers a smaller station to a larger I 'd like to know why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, the point of traditional radio stations seems to me that you can listen to X genre in Y area.
With internet radio, Y no longer matters, and for many stations like Pandora and Last.fm neither does X, as they offer many different genres.
Why do we need a large station like last.fm alongside a smaller internet radio station?
What can the small one offer that the larger cannot if they are both free?These aren't rhetorical questions- If anyone prefers a smaller station to a larger I'd like to know why.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636935</id>
	<title>Re:SomaFM?</title>
	<author>Dripdry</author>
	<datestamp>1247155500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll second this concern.</p><p>I emailed Rusty (the founder) and he said they have contingency plans.<br>Pandora? What a joke. I can't find the breadth of music I can find on SomaFM.</p><p>I just want exposure to all these awesome tunes. I see no reason to not distribute this sort of great content some other way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll second this concern.I emailed Rusty ( the founder ) and he said they have contingency plans.Pandora ?
What a joke .
I ca n't find the breadth of music I can find on SomaFM.I just want exposure to all these awesome tunes .
I see no reason to not distribute this sort of great content some other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll second this concern.I emailed Rusty (the founder) and he said they have contingency plans.Pandora?
What a joke.
I can't find the breadth of music I can find on SomaFM.I just want exposure to all these awesome tunes.
I see no reason to not distribute this sort of great content some other way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631833</id>
	<title>Re:What about public domain music?</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1247069040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can always license music individually with the rights owner, via for example Creative Commons, or go public domain where you can.  What this deal covers is the "compulsory" license, which rights holders are obliged to accept if you want their music under those terms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can always license music individually with the rights owner , via for example Creative Commons , or go public domain where you can .
What this deal covers is the " compulsory " license , which rights holders are obliged to accept if you want their music under those terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can always license music individually with the rights owner, via for example Creative Commons, or go public domain where you can.
What this deal covers is the "compulsory" license, which rights holders are obliged to accept if you want their music under those terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631385</id>
	<title>Anyone Else Notice Pandora Lately?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pandora is starting to sound a lot like regular ClearChannel FM.  Funny how that happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pandora is starting to sound a lot like regular ClearChannel FM .
Funny how that happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pandora is starting to sound a lot like regular ClearChannel FM.
Funny how that happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631339</id>
	<title>What are they paying now?</title>
	<author>wikki</author>
	<datestamp>1247065620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are smaller broadcasters required to pay now?  $2100 per month doesn't seem like a terrible amount.  I guess if you are a super small station you are going to be in trouble.  What about SomaFM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are smaller broadcasters required to pay now ?
$ 2100 per month does n't seem like a terrible amount .
I guess if you are a super small station you are going to be in trouble .
What about SomaFM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are smaller broadcasters required to pay now?
$2100 per month doesn't seem like a terrible amount.
I guess if you are a super small station you are going to be in trouble.
What about SomaFM?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633141</id>
	<title>The answer to SE is .se</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247170920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run the streaming station in Sweden.</p><p>The fucking United States has gone completely fascist. A couple more years and you won't even be able to find a small band in your own fucking hometown.</p><p>I helped develop a Streaming Radio back when it was an early thing. I left after completing my part of the code. I watched them go through hell of shit with all this nonsense over the years. It would really be easier to just do a show on public access.  From a tech point, there isn't much to streaming shit.  We had edit files on home boxes then transfer (stream) them to a remote FBSD box that had hella bandwidth. A little interfacing to read back what the fuck was playing and add a forum, some graphics boom your up.</p><p>Then I hear some shit about they want a detailed list of what was played. heh.  Then more, then more then more.  Obviously this game has reached it's last stages of fascism for the USA.</p><p>It could be argued this would go against the 1st amendment.  Especially when we are talking about streaming unsigned bands only. But our congress is owned by corporations. ergo fascism.</p><p>What's next?</p><p>I predict.</p><p>Streaming Video tax?<br>Blog Tax?<br>RSS feed tax?<br>Soda tax?<br>Thieving fucking bankster tax?<br>More cigarette tax?<br>Water tax?<br>Air tax?</p><p>But, maybe just maybe the American people will turn off the fucking TV get off their ass and protest in the streets until the fuckwads are in jail and the constitution is restored.</p><p>Really there's not much left now. Our government is hiding it from you seeing the big picture.</p><p>But if you leave that TV on, you'll just the stupid fucking sheep who will vote for a D or an R yet again.  That is if your stupid fucking vote even comes out of the electronic voting machine.</p><p>I can't fucking believe I SERVED THIS COUNTRY!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run the streaming station in Sweden.The fucking United States has gone completely fascist .
A couple more years and you wo n't even be able to find a small band in your own fucking hometown.I helped develop a Streaming Radio back when it was an early thing .
I left after completing my part of the code .
I watched them go through hell of shit with all this nonsense over the years .
It would really be easier to just do a show on public access .
From a tech point , there is n't much to streaming shit .
We had edit files on home boxes then transfer ( stream ) them to a remote FBSD box that had hella bandwidth .
A little interfacing to read back what the fuck was playing and add a forum , some graphics boom your up.Then I hear some shit about they want a detailed list of what was played .
heh. Then more , then more then more .
Obviously this game has reached it 's last stages of fascism for the USA.It could be argued this would go against the 1st amendment .
Especially when we are talking about streaming unsigned bands only .
But our congress is owned by corporations .
ergo fascism.What 's next ? I predict.Streaming Video tax ? Blog Tax ? RSS feed tax ? Soda tax ? Thieving fucking bankster tax ? More cigarette tax ? Water tax ? Air tax ? But , maybe just maybe the American people will turn off the fucking TV get off their ass and protest in the streets until the fuckwads are in jail and the constitution is restored.Really there 's not much left now .
Our government is hiding it from you seeing the big picture.But if you leave that TV on , you 'll just the stupid fucking sheep who will vote for a D or an R yet again .
That is if your stupid fucking vote even comes out of the electronic voting machine.I ca n't fucking believe I SERVED THIS COUNTRY ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run the streaming station in Sweden.The fucking United States has gone completely fascist.
A couple more years and you won't even be able to find a small band in your own fucking hometown.I helped develop a Streaming Radio back when it was an early thing.
I left after completing my part of the code.
I watched them go through hell of shit with all this nonsense over the years.
It would really be easier to just do a show on public access.
From a tech point, there isn't much to streaming shit.
We had edit files on home boxes then transfer (stream) them to a remote FBSD box that had hella bandwidth.
A little interfacing to read back what the fuck was playing and add a forum, some graphics boom your up.Then I hear some shit about they want a detailed list of what was played.
heh.  Then more, then more then more.
Obviously this game has reached it's last stages of fascism for the USA.It could be argued this would go against the 1st amendment.
Especially when we are talking about streaming unsigned bands only.
But our congress is owned by corporations.
ergo fascism.What's next?I predict.Streaming Video tax?Blog Tax?RSS feed tax?Soda tax?Thieving fucking bankster tax?More cigarette tax?Water tax?Air tax?But, maybe just maybe the American people will turn off the fucking TV get off their ass and protest in the streets until the fuckwads are in jail and the constitution is restored.Really there's not much left now.
Our government is hiding it from you seeing the big picture.But if you leave that TV on, you'll just the stupid fucking sheep who will vote for a D or an R yet again.
That is if your stupid fucking vote even comes out of the electronic voting machine.I can't fucking believe I SERVED THIS COUNTRY!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28640235</id>
	<title>Hmm.</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1247168760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally.</p></div><p>You're saying that the hundreds of illegal shoutcast radio stations and the like will vanish because it will still be illegal for them to run?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to , as they will no longer afford to operate legally.You 're saying that the hundreds of illegal shoutcast radio stations and the like will vanish because it will still be illegal for them to run ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally.You're saying that the hundreds of illegal shoutcast radio stations and the like will vanish because it will still be illegal for them to run?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632167</id>
	<title>'the royalty crisis is over!'</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1247071980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh really? I guess since Pandora came out stinking like a rose, it must be true. I mean, it's not like anybody else matters or anything...I wonder where Clear Channel is..."Consortium"? Somebody misspelled cartel... fuckers... Long live "pirate" radio...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh really ?
I guess since Pandora came out stinking like a rose , it must be true .
I mean , it 's not like anybody else matters or anything...I wonder where Clear Channel is... " Consortium " ?
Somebody misspelled cartel... fuckers... Long live " pirate " radio.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh really?
I guess since Pandora came out stinking like a rose, it must be true.
I mean, it's not like anybody else matters or anything...I wonder where Clear Channel is..."Consortium"?
Somebody misspelled cartel... fuckers... Long live "pirate" radio...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631613</id>
	<title>This is an outrage!</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1247067660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Small Internet Radio Stations cannot afford the minimum $25,000 a year fee to operate.</p><p>This is the RIAA screwing over the small business and non-profit organizations in the music business. Next I suppose they will hit up DJs for a minimum fee for $25,000 a year to play Audio CDs and MP3 files they legally own?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Small Internet Radio Stations can not afford the minimum $ 25,000 a year fee to operate.This is the RIAA screwing over the small business and non-profit organizations in the music business .
Next I suppose they will hit up DJs for a minimum fee for $ 25,000 a year to play Audio CDs and MP3 files they legally own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Small Internet Radio Stations cannot afford the minimum $25,000 a year fee to operate.This is the RIAA screwing over the small business and non-profit organizations in the music business.
Next I suppose they will hit up DJs for a minimum fee for $25,000 a year to play Audio CDs and MP3 files they legally own?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631473</id>
	<title>SomaFM?</title>
	<author>winphreak</author>
	<datestamp>1247066760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about SomaFM? How will this affect their royalty issues?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about SomaFM ?
How will this affect their royalty issues ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about SomaFM?
How will this affect their royalty issues?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633651</id>
	<title>Reason: Payola!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247133960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet the only reason it got cheaper now, is because those "big" radios finally bought into Payola.</p><p>For $25,000 they now can play everything they want, as long as it's what the RIAA tells them to play.</p><p>Luckily, I and my Internet radios never cared, and never will!</p><p>Some of them are even illegal by government rules (like the idiotic UK laws), which makes them real analog "pirate" radios too!</p><p>But I either listen to them or to my mp3s. I could never go back to that pop shit that is "normal" radio stations. My musical knowledge of rare bands of the UK, Russia, Japan, UK, France, etc, grew massively since I listen to Internet radio. To me it's the second most important killer feature of the Internet. Right after porn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet the only reason it got cheaper now , is because those " big " radios finally bought into Payola.For $ 25,000 they now can play everything they want , as long as it 's what the RIAA tells them to play.Luckily , I and my Internet radios never cared , and never will ! Some of them are even illegal by government rules ( like the idiotic UK laws ) , which makes them real analog " pirate " radios too ! But I either listen to them or to my mp3s .
I could never go back to that pop shit that is " normal " radio stations .
My musical knowledge of rare bands of the UK , Russia , Japan , UK , France , etc , grew massively since I listen to Internet radio .
To me it 's the second most important killer feature of the Internet .
Right after porn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet the only reason it got cheaper now, is because those "big" radios finally bought into Payola.For $25,000 they now can play everything they want, as long as it's what the RIAA tells them to play.Luckily, I and my Internet radios never cared, and never will!Some of them are even illegal by government rules (like the idiotic UK laws), which makes them real analog "pirate" radios too!But I either listen to them or to my mp3s.
I could never go back to that pop shit that is "normal" radio stations.
My musical knowledge of rare bands of the UK, Russia, Japan, UK, France, etc, grew massively since I listen to Internet radio.
To me it's the second most important killer feature of the Internet.
Right after porn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631607</id>
	<title>BILLY MAYS HERE...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With double standards! Remind me again why streaming is any different from broadcasting over radio waves?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With double standards !
Remind me again why streaming is any different from broadcasting over radio waves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With double standards!
Remind me again why streaming is any different from broadcasting over radio waves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon?</title>
	<author>Stephen Samuel</author>
	<datestamp>1247070900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally."</p> </div><p>Perhaps  -- On the other hand, people who make music available without royalty (thus staying outside of the CARB system) -- such as Creative Commons licenses, or even non-CC licenses which simply explicitly allow On-Air radio stations that  aren't part of CARB  to play them -- might find themselves with a boon as they will then be the only music that small radio stations will be able to play.
</p><p>

If I was a small (or even not-so-small) musician that wanted my music to get play, I'd probably release my music on a license that allowed people who haven't signed up for CARB to play my music royalty free, but had standard fees for stations that had paid the CARB $25K minimum (I mean, why give up royalties that have already been allocated to me?).
</p><p>
That way, smaller stations can play my music, and the larger stations (that really make money) can give me my fair share of CARB royalties if/when I get  big enough to attract the attention of the larger stations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to , as they will no longer afford to operate legally .
" Perhaps -- On the other hand , people who make music available without royalty ( thus staying outside of the CARB system ) -- such as Creative Commons licenses , or even non-CC licenses which simply explicitly allow On-Air radio stations that are n't part of CARB to play them -- might find themselves with a boon as they will then be the only music that small radio stations will be able to play .
If I was a small ( or even not-so-small ) musician that wanted my music to get play , I 'd probably release my music on a license that allowed people who have n't signed up for CARB to play my music royalty free , but had standard fees for stations that had paid the CARB $ 25K minimum ( I mean , why give up royalties that have already been allocated to me ? ) .
That way , smaller stations can play my music , and the larger stations ( that really make money ) can give me my fair share of CARB royalties if/when I get big enough to attract the attention of the larger stations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So say goodbye to all of the small Internet radio stations that you have been listening to, as they will no longer afford to operate legally.
" Perhaps  -- On the other hand, people who make music available without royalty (thus staying outside of the CARB system) -- such as Creative Commons licenses, or even non-CC licenses which simply explicitly allow On-Air radio stations that  aren't part of CARB  to play them -- might find themselves with a boon as they will then be the only music that small radio stations will be able to play.
If I was a small (or even not-so-small) musician that wanted my music to get play, I'd probably release my music on a license that allowed people who haven't signed up for CARB to play my music royalty free, but had standard fees for stations that had paid the CARB $25K minimum (I mean, why give up royalties that have already been allocated to me?).
That way, smaller stations can play my music, and the larger stations (that really make money) can give me my fair share of CARB royalties if/when I get  big enough to attract the attention of the larger stations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633033</id>
	<title>Re:Social corruption, or small-player boon?</title>
	<author>sam0vi</author>
	<datestamp>1247082540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have also come to think, does this only apply to the US? I would think so, so there's nothing to worry about for the rest of the world. (Sometimes somebody needs to remark the US-centric news that are not tagged so)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have also come to think , does this only apply to the US ?
I would think so , so there 's nothing to worry about for the rest of the world .
( Sometimes somebody needs to remark the US-centric news that are not tagged so )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have also come to think, does this only apply to the US?
I would think so, so there's nothing to worry about for the rest of the world.
(Sometimes somebody needs to remark the US-centric news that are not tagged so)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631425</id>
	<title>$25,000 barrier to entry</title>
	<author>ErikTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1247066340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, <i>and we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business</i>!'. I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it. Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to NewsFactor , Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over , and we do n't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business ! ' .
I may have added that last part , but I 'm sure he was thinking it .
Like most regulations , it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to NewsFactor, Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over, and we don't have to worry about any small competitors sneaking up and taking our business!'.
I may have added that last part, but I'm sure he was thinking it.
Like most regulations, it serves mainly to fuck small business and eliminate competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28638563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28641945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28686825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28639219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28639631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28637587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28638487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28645361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28639219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28635327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_2225245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28640071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28641945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28638563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28639219
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28686825
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28645361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28635327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28638487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28634123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28633615
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28637587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28639631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28631831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28636147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28632483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28635065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_2225245.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_2225245.28640235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
